Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaron Sorkin

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Aaron Sorkin edit

Self-nomination: I believe this article to be a complete biography of Aaron Sorkin's life. My goal was to chronicle his rise as a Screenwriter and to figure out how to write the life of a Screenwriter at Wikipedia. I believe if Aaron Sorkin's article reaches featured article status it will be the first featured article about a Screenwriter. A definite plus for Wikipedia. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.

Anyways, please help by vetting what I've done. Experimental sections such as 'Writing style and habits' could be debated. I think the section is important but how it's done could use a discussion. It will set a precedent for other articles about Screenwriters (such as the David Mamet article).-BiancaOfHell 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On the whole it looks like a very good article, and seems comprehensive and well-referenced. I personally like the 'Writing style and habits' section. There are, however, a few problems with writing style. Just taking a look at the lead:
Thanks. I appreciate your help, and any more comments would be most welcome.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the late 1990s he began his television career starting with the creation of the television series Sports Night for the ABC network that ran for two seasons from 1998-2000." Run-on sentence.
Done. Reworded this.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revision is still a run-on: "In 1998 he began his television career, creating the television series Sports Night for the ABC network, running for two seasons". MLilburne 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I broke it up into 2 sentences and clarified that Sports Night is a comedy. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His most recent feature film screenplay is Charlie Wilson's War with the film set to open in theaters on Christmas day 2007." Not sure about the use of "with the film" to connect the clauses.
Done. connected the clauses with a comma.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He has had his personal problems, battling cocaine addiction for many years and is currently clean." The tenses are a bit confused here. "and is currently clean" seems tacked-on to the end of the sentence.
Redid sentences, to clarify that he sought treatment and recuperated. You're right, badly worded and it's hard to say he is clean without the results of a recent drug test.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better but I'm not sure whether "recuperated" really fits the context. MLilburne 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried "recovered" and "rehabilitated" but one sounds like he's fine now (and addictions normally continue to nag addicts for life?) and the other sounds like he was a prisoner. What do you think of "sought treatment, and rid himself of the dependence". I could specify "drug dependence" but I think it's implied.-BiancaOfHell 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see you cited the "he is currently clean." sentence. I hate that one too. I really can't prove that he hasn't been secretly using drugs, or had relapses hidden from the media. Does it require a conspiratorial sounding sentence like "He has remained clean as far as the media know?" Any ideas? Basically, he went to rehab, got better, and never had any press on the matter since.-BiancaOfHell 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "often hogging the writing credit". "hogging" doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic in tone.
Nope, it doesn't but does the new 'He is known for being an overly controlling writer, reluctant to share the writing credit with his staff.' sound any better?-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time to read through the rest of the article, but you might see whether you can find someone to take a look at the prose. MLilburne 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Should I be consistent in my use of theater/theatre, and which one should I use? Does this escalate to an issue of using either British or American verbiage, cuz I don't even know myself whether I prefer 'ize' or 'ise'.-BiancaOfHell 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is an American, so American style must be maintained throughout. Andrew Levine 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll correct as such. Which means using 'theater' and correct usage of 'ize'. I'll get back to you when this change has been made.-BiancaOfHell 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. I changed all "theatre" mentions to "theater" and have been generally using American language, because the Firefox 2 spell checker corrects as such. So that is all good. BUT, I now wonder if perhaps European theaters such as the Abbey and the Theater Royal Haymarket should use "theatre" because it is a place name and not American but UK. Though in all these instances both versions are used interchangeably. American theaters would stay "theater". Does this matter? Probably, best to stick to "theater", huh?-BiancaOfHell 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's part of the building's name, then it should be "Theatre" - spelling conventions don't trump actual designations. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 07:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saved you the trouble - I've changed the word "theater" to "theatre" where appropriate. (As it turns out, several of the New York places use "re".) --Ckatzchatspy 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's a relevant section from the Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#Different spellings – different meanings --Ckatzchatspy 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. That link muddies the debate a little saying that 'Theatre tends to refer to the art, theater to the building' leading me to ask the question if 'theatre' shouldn't be used as well when mentioning his studies and his parents bringing him to the theater at an early age. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bianca - your last response is correct. In correct terminology "re" refers to the art of live theatrical performance, "er" refers to the physical structure. This is very confused by constant misuse of both spellings. However, if you'd like to be technically correct - both spellings should be used.LACameraman 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I'm going to do is leave the place names the way they are as corrected by Ckatz, and use "theater" in movie theater, and "theatre" for the art of live theatrical performance.-BiancaOfHell 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to lack of criticism of Sorkin's writing style, which there is no shortage of in the public record. Andrew Levine 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on this, though I'm not aware of any. Could you point to maybe one source and I'll follow up from there. Generally he has been lauded for his writing style, both dialogue and plot elements are quite original. But certainly I want this criticism in there. So if you can lead me to some of the source of this criticism. Maybe an episode in particular?-BiancaOfHell 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I put in the criticism prior to Studio 60's days. I don't want to go where all the Studio 60 criticism is going, cuz it's early, and those detractors are mainly attacking the show, and not Sorkin's long writing history. End of season 1 could be a whole different story. So check out what I did. And because I do lean pro-Sorkin it would be great to have another voice take part in that section.-BiancaOfHell 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "lack of criticism" has been wholly rectified. Thank you for pointing it out. I would appreciate it if you could strike out your opposition.-BiancaOfHell 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Is the West Wing section good? Should I elaborate or leave that to the actual West Wing TV series article? I doubt people want to see too much on The West Wing but that's my opinion. Others thoughts most welcome. Thanks for the help so far.-BiancaOfHell 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Does the first section after the lead section sound too "dead"? It's factual, but isn't brilliant prose, yet is it acceptable?-BiancaOfHell 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the presumably limited amount of material that's available about his early life, I don't think that taking a purely factual approach is really problematic. It's hard to write brilliant prose when you have so little material to go on. I detected a few little writing glitches here too, although some of them may be personal preference.
  • It seems more encyclopedic to say "mother" and "father" rather than "mom" and "dad"
Done.-BiancaOfHell 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before he was even a teenager..." This reads oddly. I would say either "Even before he was a teenager..." or just "Before he was a teenager, his parents started taking him..."
Okay, I too found that sentence odd, and I couldn't quite fix it, but I think I got it now. This sounds crisper:"He grew up with an older sister and brother who both went on to become lawyers.[4] Sorkin's interests were in acting. When he was young, before he even reached his teen years, his parents habitually took him to the theater to see shows such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. He didn't always comprehend the plot of the plays but he enjoyed the sound of the dialogue."-BiancaOfHell 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...although he didn't understand the plot points he enjoyed the sound of dialogue." This is perfectly grammatical but I had to think about it when reading because it's a rather odd statement. Also having looked at the reference, I think the phrasing parallels the source a little too closely. So you should rephrase it. MLilburne 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is basically summed up in one sentence from the article. If I reword it too much it could take on another meaning. I think I generally bettered the Early years section, but let me know. It would be great if there was more information on his early years but there really isn't. The Yahoo contributed biography is anonymous so I'm reluctant to trust it, but it has some interesting information (hard to believe though) about what he did as an actor while at Syracuse University. A top-pyramid acrobat for Carnival. As I said, hard to believe. I've been cross-checking facts I take from it (and discussed a bit of this in the Sorkin discussion page). Okay, thanks for the review. Let me know what you think of the changes.-BiancaOfHell 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking a bit better. I may take a stab at improving the prose myself, if that's all right. I wouldn't worry too much about the thinness of the information on his early years. I got Glynn Lunney through the FAC process with even less info in that part of the article. It's all in how you make it flow. MLilburne 13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the copyedit. Yeah, if there isn't much to say about his early years then there's nothing that can be done about it. I see that Glynn Lunney has even less on his early years than the Sorkin article, but it starts off well and grabs you. That's kind of what I meant by the first section sounding "dead". Currently in the Talk page there's a discussion about including a new section in Controversy about Sorkin's fan interaction, but other than that the article is settling down.-BiancaOfHell 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPYEDIT QUESTION: I have many instances in the article where I'll write "In 2004, this happened..." but I sometimes write it as "In 2004 this happened..." without the comma. Should there be a comma after, or not?-BiancaOfHell 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that both are acceptable, but you should settle on one or the other. MLilburne 13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the commas after the year to stick to one style.-BiancaOfHell 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Anyone willing to Support this article w/ the improvements?-BiancaOfHell 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the article has been well-modified to fit the requested objections to it and deserves FA status. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - will consider supporting if these are remedied Support, editor made good faith effort to remedy my concerns, although we don't agree on the FU images. --Mus Musculus 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to go over the article. I will see what I can do.-BiancaOfHell 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are way too many fair use images in the article. The article should include a free photo of him, not a screen capture or other fair use image. The use of movie posters in this article are probably stretching the bounds of fair use - they are not necessary to illustrate anything about Sorkin.
The only fair use image I personally chose was the A Few Good Men the stageplay one. All the others have been chosen by other users (and most recently by user Bwith and I believe quite competently). If another user could help out here it would be a great help because I don't know much about fair use images.-BiancaOfHell 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it doesn't really matter who put them there. According to the FA criteria, all images have to have acceptable copyright status. If you read WP:FU, it clearly states that using copyrighted images (the photo of Sorkin) when it is possible to find a free alternative (which it is since he is alive) is unacceptable. For the movie posters and such, their Fair Use rationales only allow them to be used where it is necessary to illustrate them. That means their respective articles, not other articles that link to it. Those should all be removed. --Mus Musculus 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of Sorkin is a snapshot of a TV show. It falls under that fair use rationale. All the movie posters are for his biggest movies, with his greatest involvement, and fall into the fair use rationale. The use of the images follows the fair use rationale. There is no overuse of images and as I said someone far more familiar with fair use rationale added them. I haven't found a free use image (if that's what it's called) and Sorkin is known as a bit of a dictator over taking pictures of him, demanding picture approval at all times and a free use image has yet to be found. All the images stand.-BiancaOfHell 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree. You won't convince me that the images in this article are acceptable under WP:FU, so I will continue to oppose on those grounds. --Mus Musculus 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave WP:FU a close read. Heavy stuff. As far as I can tell all the images meet the fair use rationale. There are no free use pictures of Sorkin, or the West Wing, or Sports Night, or Studio 60, so the only choice is fair use. These articles are already used in other articles on his works at Wikipedia. There is no excessive use of the images. They do not negate the product value of the image, and in fact aid the product value of the image (you know what I mean). All these images are essential to the article, and do not have equivalents out there. After all Sorkin's works are his products, so having images of his most important works, those that changed the course of his life, is a necessity. If I were to stalk Sorkin and snap a few photos would that be legal? Would those photos be considered free use after I licensed them? Lastly, all these images are promotional images, and I'm sure NBC or whomever owns them would happily have them on display. They help me, Wikipedia, Sorkin, and all other players involved. It's a win-win situation.-BiancaOfHell 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is unpolished in many places, using awkward constructions and tense disagreement. I would recommend a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. --Mus Musculus 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many users have already copyedited the article so far to help improve it. Could you give one or two examples of some of the prose that has problems?-BiancaOfHell 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sentences where the object is unclear because of the construction of the sentence. For example, "He found his passion in writing plays however, which established him as a young, promising playwright." What established him? His passion? His plays? Both?
I myself have done this to other people's lead sections. You can nitpick everything to pieces and get into a frame of mind where a sentence sounds weird. That sentence was a copyedit, and I get it, it works.-BiancaOfHell 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for nitpicking by nominating an article for FA. --Mus Musculus 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are also many long awkward sentences with multiple phrases that really should be at least two distinct sentences, such as, "He has had his personal problems, battling cocaine addiction for many years, but sought treatment and rid himself of the dependence." and "In television, Sorkin is known as an overcontrolling writer, who rarely shares the job of penning the teleplays with his writing staff, who are more likely to do research and come up with stories for him to tell." Those are just from the lead section. So, it needs more editing to make it the "compelling" or "brilliant" prose required for FA status. --Mus Musculus 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences sum up perfectly what is later on discussed. The lead section has been fiddled with by "many users" and I really see no further need to touch it. Have you find prose that needs polish in the rest of the article?-BiancaOfHell 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I made an edit on February 3rd called "yet another modification to the lead section" that hopefully remedies any problems with the lead section. Please revert it if it sounds foul, or awkward or incoherent. I'm more worried about the rest of the article which has had far less criticism than the lead section.-BiancaOfHell 06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Reads much better now. As a side note, focusing on the lead section of an article is incredibly useful and relevant, as many readers gauge the quality of the entire article by the lead. --Mus Musculus 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's true, but at a certain point you begin to lose it when you're copyediting the lead section to death, along with others as well. As long as it all works out in the end it's worth it.-BiancaOfHell 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* I wanted to support but there are few issues that I think should be addressed first. I'm really confused about "Point of view" section. It looks rather inconsistent in TOC. What should it mean? Sorkin's political views? Should it be listed in Controversies? Should it be droped from the article? Should it be merged into West Wing section? I don't know but something should be done.--Pethr 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply Sorkin's POV. It's not a controversy to have one. Almost everyone does. It doesn't belong in The West Wing section because that's about the TV series. It was formerly called Political view, but Point of View is a much more neutral section heading. It also encompasses more. It could possibly encompass at a later date his thoughts on the internet/amateurs, etc... which aren't necessarily political. The controversy section is strictly controversial stuff that don't necessarily have anything to do with his POV.-BiancaOfHell 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other issues like drug problem appearing in West Wing and controversies sections which leads me to recommendation to remove criticism section and place the ctitique to the text where is appropriate. NPOV doesn't mean isolate negative in one section but rather give balanced image throughout the article. I hope you find some of those comments helpful. Good luck.--Pethr 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The drug problem is mentioned briefly in The West Wing section because it became an issue after 2 seasons. But Sorkin's drug problem has spanned decades, so it has it's own section. I put it together in a section about his 'Personal life' under Controversies.-BiancaOfHell 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you also modified the lead section. I tweaked it a little more, that one sentence to this: 'In 2006, after a three year hiatus, he returned to television with a dramedy called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, about the backstage drama at a late night sketch comedy show, once again for the NBC network.'. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that the Aaron Sorkin article has done very well for itself. It started out as just a mere bio but I believe it now meets the outline of a FA. I think the addition of the Studio 60 articles have really helped it along quite a bit. I've read the article several times and can't think of anything that would serve as a basis for opposition. Ganfon 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article has ten fair use images which is not acceptable. On top of that the lead image is currently in a fair use dispute and will almost certainly be deleted, considering the current fair use policy. Jaqu 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Jaqu, excessive fair use; the movie posters in particular are just there as decoration.--Peta 11:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Alright, where can we go from here? If it's only an issue of fair use images then let's work this out. I've brought up the issue over at WP:Fair Use. How many can stay? Can the "publicity photo" of Sorkin at the top stay? It is a screenshot from a documentary about Sorkin himself and his writing.
The first image that could go would be the Malice poster. After that the pictures are pretty important. This is a matter of pushing the limits of "fair use" in order to get the best possible article on Aaron Sorkin. I don't want to compromise to the point where the article suffers. The important thing to remember is that Sorkin is known to us because of his movies/TV shows, so inevitably there are going to have to be images of his most important products in shaping his life. This isn't an article about Mother Theresa.-BiancaOfHell 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to the "too much fair use image" comments, how many is too many? I count six in the current FA Scottish Parliment, and many if not all of those are arguably decorative and could in theory be replaced by free ones (but as always, good luck with that). Also, are posters inherently less fair than other images, would screenshots be an improvement? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response All fair use images have been removed from the Aaron Sorkin article. There are no free use images to be found so the article is imageless now. With that done, are there any other concerns about the article?-BiancaOfHell 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as imageless. The main page image should be Image:Red copyright.svg. Physchim62 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in protest at the ridiculous copyright paranoia.  Grue  23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whether with sensibly used fair use images or without. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aaron_Sorkin&oldid=1138453784"