Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ben Affleck/archive1

< 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2017 [1].

Ben Affleck edit

Nominator(s): Popeye191 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the actor/filmmaker Ben Affleck. It was listed as a Good Article in June 2017, and has been copy edited and peer reviewed since then. Popeye191 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt edit

Support I did a detailed review at the PR; here are my edits. I was satisfied then and the article still seems in good order. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Popeye191 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do some copyediting Popeye191 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria edit

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking them Popeye191 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth edit

This article is in excellent shape. Here are five suggestions, questions.
2006–2015
  • ¶4 What is a "first-look producing deal"? Can you link to something or briefly explain?
Political views
Democratic Party activism
  • ¶1 "and later remarked, "I'm going to vote twice next time, in true Boston fashion." – Should this say "joked" rather than "remarked"? If taken straight, it might feed into the mistaken idea that voting twice is commonplace in the United States.
Religion
  • ¶1 "In a 2003 interview, Affleck described himself as a "lapsed Protestant... " – Again I would recommend moving the linked term outside of the direct quotation. In this case, I think you could simply drop the quotation marks.
References
  • Most of the titles are in title case, but some like citations 96 and 97 are in sentence case. Making them all the same would be good.
Thanks, the first four points have been addressed and I'm looking at references now. Thanks for the suggestions Popeye191 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good. I'm happy to support, as noted above. I leave the title case – sentence case decision to you, but I'd opt for title case myself. Looks to me like most are already in title case. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I've changed them all to title case now Popeye191 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, though I confess that my suggestion was nit-picky and that fixing these dudes must have been a tedious chore. Finetooth (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there hasn't been one yet. I've requested it at WT:FAC Popeye191 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Finetooth edit

A random Google search of four sentences revealed no problems.
Earwig's tool finds no real problems but flags this text, which must have been copied from Wikipedia to YouTube without acknowledgment.
Yes, I think so. The article's introduction has been gradually edited over years to get to the current draft.Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 48. What makes blogspot.com highly reliable?
If this reference needs to be removed, that's okay. The Boston Magazine ref also speaks to how the movie was based on their own experiences (but not as expansively). It's the blogspot of Tom Shone - he writes for The Times and uses the blog to share extra material he didn't have space to fit in printed articles. He links to the blog on his twitter profile and the Sunday Times regularly link to his twitter profile. This specific blog post was reported on by Indiewire - they linked to blogspot.com.Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. It can stay. Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 147. Author's name should be last, first.
Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 218. Needs a page number.
Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: I just realised that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, unless I'm mistaken. In that case, we need a spot-check of sources for reliable use and close paraphrasing, above the Earwig check carried out above. Finetooth, any chance you could do this as well? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. I might add that this is my first-ever formal source check for FAC, and I won't be insulted if someone else double-checks. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found reliable use and no close paraphrasing for these six citations chosen at random: 25, 51, 96, 163, 225, and 313. Finetooth (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • Current ref 2 - we should have a secondary source that connects the birth record to the actor - how do we know that the "Benjamin G. Affleckbold" is the correct person? It is OR to assume that some primary record is the person without some other way to connect them than the same name.
Comment I think ref 1 did just that. Affleck explained how he got his birth name in detail while he was honored at the Writers Guild of America Awards. Or, we could add another ref from Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ben-Affleck Artoasis (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth - do you think we need another ref from Britannica?Popeye191 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth any thoughts on this? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd better be safe and not do something that might be construed as OR. If there is a ref that connects all the info, we're better using it than having two that aren't quite complete. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the Brittanica referencePopeye191 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was founded in 2011 and is a bi-monthly Dubai-based publication. The editorial director is also the Middle East correspondent for Women’s Wear Daily and a contributor to Bloomberg Television. Because this is an Asian publication, Affleck went into much more detail about his interest in Middle Eastern Affairs than in other interviews. Popeye191 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://tomshone.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/how-good-will-hunting-got-its-ending.html a high quality reliable source? I saw your reply to Finetooth, but I'm not quite convinced that this is high quality - is the information not shared in the actual newspaper because there isn't space or is it rejected by his editors? I'd like to see something that shows that it's the former and not the second - and not from the writer. Do other writers pick up on what he puts on his blog and consider it reliable? Or do they ignore it?
Indiewire reported on the additional information contained in the blog post concerned and linked directly to the blog. However, I've replaced the source with a link to the published interview in The Times. Sorry - I've only just realised that the quote about how they drew from their experiences to write the screenplay is there too. Popeye191 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Common Magazine is a well-known Boston-area publication. The Boston Globe often runs stories based on interviews in Boston Common. Entertainment outlets like E! News and the Huffington Post have also picked up their features.Popeye191 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 218 (Van Pileup) returns an invalid ISBN when searching at World Cat.
Fixed this Popeye191 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Just a quick question of my own. Throughout the article, there are a selection of reviews of Affleck's performances. Given that there is no biography available, how have we chosen which quotes and reviews to include? I also wondered if there were any sources available that took a broader overview of his career, rather than just interviews publicising his films? (If there are not, that isn't a problem, I would just like to check we have exhausted every option.) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only included reviews from publications on Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics list - The New York Times, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Boston Globe, The New Yorker, New York Magazine, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Time, Chicago Sun-Times and The Atlantic. When it came to deciding which quotes from the reviews to use, I initially included the quotes in full but, over time, I and others edited them to make the article flow better. I'd like to think that the reviews chosen are a balanced and accurate reflection of the reception to his performances.
Some of the articles included (Backstage, Playboy) look at his career in a broader context but unfortunately, like most actors, he only gives interviews when he has something new to promote. This article discusses the trajectory of his overall career and I think the sub-sections of the current article reflect those phases of his career. Popeye191 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world, I would have liked a secondary source to sift the reviews of his performances as there is no obvious way to know if the reviews here are representative. But if these sources do not exist, there is no way around this. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ben_Affleck/archive1&oldid=797425167"