Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

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 Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [1].

---

Harold Pinter

Harold Pinter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Nominator(s): Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after much work this meets the FAC criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) It has been suggested that I add a little more to the nomination: Pinter was acclaimed as one of the most influential English language playwrights of the post-WWII era and the award in 2005 of a Nobel Prize confirmed his status as a giant of literature. His work inspired debate and critical commentary world-wide and his influence on modern theatre was marked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The article has multiple errors of fact and format, which Jezhotwells and its "peer reviewers" have not corrected. The current version of this article does not meet criteria for featured article designation. Please see both the current talk page and its archived talk pages as well as the 2007 "good article" review leading to its "good article" designation, and also see more recent "peer review" archives. The article is still subject to unresolved disputes, including incorrect use of quotation marks, insufficient use of quotation marks, misquotation, and erroneous attribution of quotations (wrong sources listed). Jezhotwells and an administrator or administrators enlisted by him have banned users who have tried to correct the problems in this article and then semi-protected the article "indefinitely", preventing the correction of these errors, which were introduced mainly by Jezhotwells and others participating in the most recent "peer review"; they have made no attempt to correct their own errors after some of these errors have been itemized as examples on the current talk page. This article does not currently "meet" the most basic Wikipedia editing criteria, such as factual accuracy and accuracy of source citations. Thus, it does not meet "the FAC criteria" in this version. The current version of this article also contains misinformation about a living person, Henry Woolf, Harold Pinter's friend of over 60 years [who is a living person], and thus it violates WP:BLP [see {{Template:Blpo}} on the current talk page]. Such errors are supposed to be corrected "on sight"; yet the error remains, despite its being pointed out in the current talk page. Multiple problems pointed out in the current and archived talk pages and "peer review" archives still need to be corrected and resolved before this article should be submitted as a FAC. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (updated) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not sufficient for you to say that the article contains factual errors, without your saying what they are. So let us have some specific examples, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As already indicated, some of these specific examples are already itemized on the current talk page. It is not necessary to list them again. That is why the current talk page is linked in the listing. People can refer to it directly; the most recently composed section w/ specific examples is: Talk:Harold Pinter#Multiple factual and source errors throughout article due to "peer review"; previous sections detail other problems, some of which were archived by a bot. Given Jezhotwells' and others' unwillingness to examine their errors, it is a waste of time to list them here again. Please consult the talk page and its archives. Thank you. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [added section link for your convenience]. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have studied the comments made by this IP on the article talk page and addressed the specific instances. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This update occurred over a month after the errors and format problems were pointed out to Jezhotwells. He ignored the comments when they were originally made and made no attempt to make the corrections that he made only after I made this comment here after he submitted the article as a FAC. There are still errors that need correction. Please see the current talk page about this matter. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you had checked out my talk page, you would have seen that I was on vacation. Is this comment really necessary? --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The use of non-free content is extremely excessive at this time. In an article like this, one non-free picture of the subject will sometimes be required (preferably, of course, none) but rarely more than that.

• File:HaroldPinter.jpg should be deleted ASAP. As an image from a commercial file imagebank, it is eligible for speedy deletion and our use here clearly fails NFCC#2. Yes, it's widely used, but that's probably because the other sources have paid for it.

Thanks for finding the replacement image. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg I get the point that his appearance was different, but is the difference in appearance really that significant?

Good point, but I think it is illustrative of his appearance as a rep actor. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the image is extremely helpful in illustrating the part of the article about Pinter as a young actor. His appearance is so strikingly different from the other images of him as an older man that this is needed for comprehension of his career. An actor's appearance is important in understanding the kinds of roles that they would be considered for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but the mere fact that he was an actor does not mean that multiple images of him at different stages of his life are justified. If there was sourced discussion about how his appearance affected his early career (say, if he was something of a sex symbol...) this argument may hold some water. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the same objections to this image were made by "NYScholar" and they led to the banning of that user by Jezhotwells et al. Please consult the block history. A note in the section about Pinter's acting career already links to the photo ("The Acting Career of Harold Pinter," compiled by Batty). It was never necessary to have the photo in the article, since any reader would see it when clicking on the linked source, which features it. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very disappointed by the removal of this image. As NYScholar points out, this image survived a previous discussion about it, and there is plenty of discussion in the article about Pinter's acting career that this image aptly illustrates. Jezhotwells, I encourage you to find that old discussion and reinstate this image. As the other fair use images have been removed, the NFCC criteria now permit the use of this image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no system of "one in, one out". As many or as few non-free images as are required should be used. I'm just questioning how required this one is; right now, it's a long way from clear. As I said, an image like this may, hypothetically, be usable, but it's a matter of demonstrating that it is the case. If his early career was based on his appearance or some such, this image may be justifiable, but the mere fact that he looked different does not automatically justify its use. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:Harold Pinter.JPG Has this been published? Is the author notable? Or is this just a sketch from some guy on the internet that may or may not be based on a copyrighted image?

I have asked the question at Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He's a recognized artist, Reginald Gray (artist). The Harold Pinter article says the image was published in the New Statesman on 12 January 2008, but that information should be added to the image page itself, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

SSilvers has sourced this - Reginald Gray who uploaded it to Commons himself and it was used in the obit 12 January 2009.[2]

Then I most certainly support its use there. As mentioned, it's worth mentioning the artist and the use in the article, as it gives the picture some legitimacy beyond "a sketch on the internet". J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:HaroldPinterKrappsLastTape.jpg Ok, the role was important, but do we need to see a picture? Was his appearance in role something of great importance, or is it an issue best discussed in the article on the show?

It was his last stage performance. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As a reader of the article, I found it very interesting to see how Pinter appeared in the role, having battled cancer and other physical challenges for several years. His intense expression in the photo helps to explain why he must have been such an effective actor, even under such circumstances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Our own emotional responses to the image/our own interest in it are all well and good, and so is the significance of the role, but that does not mean that it meets NFCC#8. Basically, the use of the image has to add significantly to reader understanding of the article. His role in the stage show is discussed comparatively briefly; in fact, his performance/role is only mentioned, while the show is discussed briefly. While the details Ssilvers outlines may well be important, they are more suited to the article on the show, in which the image is more legitimately used. We should aim to minimise the use of non-free content, and this seems to be a clear case where the image is not strictly needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• File:Pinterdvd.jpg doesn't even have a rationale. It's very rare that DVD covers (or album covers, book covers, etc) are going to be needed. What's so significant about this cover that reader understanding is significantly diminished if they cannot see it?

It does have a rationale, and it does illustrate the fact that this was a video Nobel lecture, in itself a notable event. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had added the additional separate rationale after seeing J Milburn's objection; please see the editing history for the jpg file. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As that section of the article mentions Pinter was unable to attend the Nobel prize ceremony on medical grounds, so he made the video himself. --Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pinter had not "made the video himself" at all; it was made by a commercial company named Illuminations; please consult the image history and follow the links for the source. Please do not make false claims about the video. The video was arranged to be made by Channel Four and broadcast on Channel Four in the UK after it was shown in Stockholm; please consult the sources. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't suddenly mean that the cover is so significant that a reader cannot fully understand the article without seeing it. Of the three questionable images remaining in the article, this is the one that clearly does not belong. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The images have been discussed in earlier now-archived talk pages; they have been the subject of disputes. As the image is linked via the Wikipedia internal link to the DVD, it is not that significant if it is not in the article too; however, there is a clear-cut rationale for the DVD jpg, since it is the subject of the section of the article that it illustrated before Milburn's (recurrent?) objection and Jezhotwells' more recent removal of the jpg. Again, one can consult the DVD article directly if needed. It's really no skin off anyone's teeth, so to speak, whether it is in this section of the article or only in the DVD article. I happen to think it is within its fair-use rationale in the article, and I know from past communications with Illuminations that Illuminations has had no objection to its being included in this Wikipedia article section of Harold Pinter; but I am not able to share with Wikipedia my email with Illuminations about this matter, so it may have to remain out. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether the copyright holders have any objection to the use here is not of great significance- instead, we must turn to the non-free content criteria. If, on the other hand, the copyright holders are willing to release the image under a free license, we can use the image near enough however we like while sticking within Wikipedia policy. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is an issue that some do not really care about, but it is one that, like any other, really needs to be dealt with before an article can be considered ready for FA status. A single identifying image of the subject may be necessary, but that's only when you're certain that free content does not exist (and preferably, at this level, once you've made a significant effort to locate some). J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the lead image, and replaced it with a free one. It's not great- you may prefer to use the full image, or attempt a crop. Alternatively, you could put a bit of effort in to get a stronger image released. However, better that than a non-free image, and certainly better that than a non-free image from a source like that. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have actually asked over thirty rights holders for permissions over the last three years or so, but so far without success - I guess too many people think they can make money form the images. If others agree with your points I will remove these images. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have now addressed your points by removing the non-free images. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the current format for the photo is not really effective; it needs a bit more cropping and enlargement perhaps, or a better version. It's really hard to make out any details in the photograph. This photograph has been accessible for quite some time. It never seemed entirely appropriate for an infobox photograph. It's not a question of money; it's a question of the reliability and dependability of other internet users: people with their own personal photographs of Harold Pinter may not be willing to have them posted and re-posted all over the internet. To have that happen may be offensive to Pinter's living relatives and friends. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The image has been freely released, and so should be used in favour of a non-free image. If you feel that it is not the best picture (and I agree) then the best course of action is to attempt to get a better one released under a free license. I'm afraid I don't really understand the second part of your post. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support – Declaration of interest: I peer reviewed this article, and earlier contributed a little to the nominator's Herculean attempts to knock the article into shape following crippling WP:OWN problems with a now-banned editor NYScholar (whom, from the tone and content of her/his comments, I take to be the anonymous 66.66.27.196 above; those comments are, in my view, of no merit.) I offer no opinion on the images, as I am inexpert on the intricacies of the WP rules about fair use etc. Otherwise, in my judgment, having taken part in reviews of very many FA nominations (and having taken a few of my own contributions to FA) I believe the content of the article clearly meets all the FA criteria. I send sincere applause to Jezhotwells for a wonderful job. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The above user needs to follow Wikipedia's own policies regarding other users, especially those who are clearly living persons: WP:NPA and WP:Harass. Some of his earlier comments need to be stricken from Wikipedia history. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose while the issues I raised above remain. Why the nominator has not replied here, I am not sure. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have responded. I have been rather busy in real life. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have struck my oppose, but I cannot support as I am yet to give the article a proper look through. Thanks for taking the image issues seriously. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks foe your comments and for pointing out where the images failed to meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. I proofread and copy edited this article before it was promoted to GA. Since then, the nominator has continued to improve the article. The nominator has responded to extensive peer review comments and also to the comments of 66.66.27.196, to the extent that specific comments were raised. I believe that the article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and meets the other FA criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Until all of the errors of fact and format are corrected. The "peer reviewers" seem unable to perceive their own errors. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

.196 is banned User:NYScholar. Moondyne (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please specify here the remaining issues which you feel do not meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Moondyne's addition above is most helpful; would it be possible and proper for an admin to strike through all the long and disruptive interpolations by NYScholar/66.66.27.196 to enable bona fide reviewers to find relevant material more easily herein? Tim riley (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just skimmed through the Sport and friendship section, and the following caught my eye: "a lifetime support[er] of Yorkshire Cricket Club". Assuming this isn't from a quote, there's no need at all for the brackets. Just saying "lifetime supporter" is perfectly fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tweaked that sentence a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO comments.

1. Lead could be made more engaging. Don't give us 8 (I counted) different roles that the fellow had in the first sentence. Later in the first paragraph, it is also a bit too listy (be selective). Second paragraph feels too pompous academic art critic-y. Try to boil it down a little more (lead should be engaging). Third and fourth paras seem better. Advise having some lead-master like Wehwalt or Tony give it a little help to pep it up. Make it shine!

2. Also, please don't take this as a snipe, or off topic, but in the FAC listing if you can tell us what the subject is and why we should care, it will help people decide if they want to click through to look at it...or to review. Obviously you had some "love" for the topic to do all that work on it to make an FA, so communicate a little feeling for it!  :)

TCO (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points which I shall attempt to address by Saturday. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked the "listy" sentences. I think the second paragraph is a fair summary of the critical commentary on Pinter, which is probably far more extensive than that for any other contemporary playwright. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• The number of citations in the lead is a bit excessive - per WP:LEAD, most of this material, except for quotes, should be cited in the body, not the lead

Fixed Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Do "Hobson's prophetic words" appear in FN 108?

No, removed POV phrase. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• The correct name of NYT is The New York Times ("The" is part of the title)
• Don't repeat full bibliographic details in Notes for works that appear in Works cited
• FN 8: are you citing two different articles here? If so, are we missing a URL? If not, formatting seems off
• FN 16: why "guardian.co.uk" but "Independent"? Be consistent in whether you use website or newspaper titles. Also, why does FN 44 include both?
• Be consistent in how cf entries are formatted (capitalized or not)
• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers
• FN 69: access date?
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as it results in inconsistent formatting
• FN 93: check formatting, make sure it's consistent
• FN 98: access date? There are a few other weblinks also missing access dates
• Print sources without weblinks need page numbers (ex. FN 106)
• Be consistent from which angle you notate reprints - ie. rpt in or rpt from
• FN 151: is this meant to start with a hyphen?
• FN 204: formatting

I am working through all of the cites and reformatting as neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is "Faber" and "Faber and Faber" the same thing?
• Be consistent in what is italicized - for example, "BBC News" sometimes italicized and sometimes not
• Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized
• Don't include "Eng." in UK locations

In general sources appear reliable but formatting needs some editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think all of these points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but there are still some formatting inconsistencies. For example, compare refs 33 and 36, you're spelling out NYTC in ref 58 not 21, compare refs 56 and 57 (and need endash in page range for ref 56), missing accessdate for ref 88...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about missing those but the points immediately above have now been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment TCO is too kind, I do not think I write ledes particularly well, but the articles get promoted so I must be doing something not too wrong. Anyhoo, I rewrote the first paragraph. If you find it an improvement, I will work on the rest. TCO is correct, the lede is really too advanced, which sometimes happens. Use the second paragraph to tell about a good part of Pinter's biography, the man is being lost behind his works. Keep the whole lede to no more than four paragraphs, though. Once you've done that, ping me again on my talk and I'll come look at it. Also, there is no need to have citations in the lede, unless there is something not mentioned in the body which is in the lede.

Of course, if you are appalled by my machete work on those stone tablets, I will not be offended if you choose to look elsewhere for editing help. Either way is fine. I should also add I don't intend to either support or oppose, because I don't have time to review the article in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, I have incorporated your comments and wonder what you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is much better. I made some minor changes. Just looking across at the prizes in the infobox, perhaps you are overly dependent on chronological order? I would put his major prizes first. And I'd rank the CH above the Nobel, as there are fewer CH than there are Nobel Prize winners at any one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, awards re-ordered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead reads like a lead now. Kudos, both ov ya! Don't plan to review or work with the article, but wish "Harold" the best.TCO (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: While I wish this article well, I'm concerned that it is now headed by an "under construction" banner. This, as the banner explains, indicates that the article is "in the middle of an expansion or major reconstruction". Such heavyweight work is incompatible with the FAC page, which is about review not rebuilding. Perhaps the work taking place is largely supperficial, in which case the banner is inappropriate and should be removed. However, if major changes are under way with the prose and structure, the article needs to be withdrawn from FAC until these operations are complete. At a glance, it looks to me more like the former than the latter, and that it is the banner that should go. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was reformatting citations, now that that is nearly completed, I have removed the banner. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine now. For future reference, the "underconstruction" banner should be used only when an article is being substantially rebuilt. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck sources for close paraphrasing, accurate representation of sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you point out specifics. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. A spotcheck for compliance with WP:V and close paraphrasing is needed for all nominators-- have you had one on another nomination? If so, please link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand - well will someone undertake a spot check please? Presumably i can't do it myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had one previous momination, please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963/archive1. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If, having peer reviewed and commented extensively, I am eligible, I shall be happy to undertake a spot check. The sources are extensive but I have access to the British Library, and so can check the refs in this article against all published sources. (Grateful for a quick reply on this, as I may need to order some Pinter-related books from the BL's stores, which can take a few days for the more recherché stuff stored offsite.) Tim riley (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, thank you, Tim riley-- peer reviewing doesn't confer a COI wrt spot checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good! I'll attend to this tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have spot-checked for accuracy and compliance with WP:V and Wikipedia:Sources#Copyright_and_plagiarism, against references 2, 6, 7, 8, 19, 30, 40, 50, 60 (both) and 70 from printed books cited; and against online references 21 (eight citations) and 33 (five citations on different pages with the same url). That is slightly more than a 5% sample. Is that sufficient? All examples listed accurately represent their source material and are duly rewritten where necessary (e.g. when the original is not reproduced in quotation marks or a quote is not plainly indicated). On this 5% sample, the spot-check is wholly satisfactory, though n.b. that I cannot verify accuracy and proper paraphrase for ref 189 because I cannot get the Pinter sub-page to open. (As a passing comment, I wonder if ref 124 is lacking "Pinter" as its first word?) Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Yes, Pinter was missing from ref 124, but is now added. Ref 184 although the internal page link to "Harold Pinter" does not work, the obituary is there further down the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment. I just glanced at this, I haven't done a proper review (I might if I get time). I fixed an MoS issue, but I noticed a few issues with teh very first sentence in the body:

Pinter was born on 10 October 1930, in Hackney, east London, to Jewish, lower middle class, native English parents of Eastern European ancestry: his father, Jack Pinter (1902–1997) was a ladies' tailor; his mother, Frances (née Moskowitz; 1904–1992), a homemaker who was described by Pinter as a "wonderful cook".

First of all, that's an incredibly long sentence, and not easy to read (try reading it out loud). Second, is his mother's culinary ability really relevant? And finally, even before the colon, we have five commas in one sentence! It could do with breaking up a bit. I haven't read the rest of the article, but would suggest reading it aloud. Oh, and is the "biography" header absolutely necessary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Overfamiliarity on my part, I think. I have stripped this down and simplified. Some one else split the sentence. I'm a little bit puzzled by the comment about the Biography header. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Life? I have seen Biography used ferquently in FAs - overcourse, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if it was my article, I'd remove the "biography" and "career" headings, and have the heading under them as level 2s rather than subheader of biography and career. But I guess it's personal preference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost support.

But I can't support a nom that has a sentence in it that I can't understand: "In 1964, four years after the success of The Caretaker, through its long run at the Duchess Theatre, which garnered an Evening Standard Award, The Birthday Party was revived both on television (with Pinter himself in the role of Goldberg) and on stage (directed by Pinter at the Aldwych Theatre) and was well-received." Please split this in two and make clear which play had the long run at the Duchess and which play got the Evening Stndard Award: in each case was it The Caretaker or The Birthday Party?? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorted out - I hope to your satisfaction - once again my overfamiliarity with the artcile cause me to miss that. thanks for pointing it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments. Sorry to be late to the party, but I think there's a little bit more polishing required; a few parts seem rather leaden. Some examples:

• The award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Pinter and his sharp political statements have elicited strong criticism and even, at times, provoked ridicule and personal attacks. The lack of a comma after "Pinter" makes it at first sight appear that Pinter shared the Nobel Prize with his sharp political statements.

• Mountain Language (1988) concerned the Turkish suppression of the Kurdish language." Use of the past tense makes it appear that it no longer does, which can't be true. It also makes it appear that the play was in some way worried about Mountain Language.

• In the first paragraph of the Marriages and family life, the last sentence repeats what we were told in the fourth sentence, that Betrayal was inspired by Pinter's relationship with Bakewell.

• "Pinter also adapted many screenplays from other writers' novels". Surely you don't adapt a screenplay from a novel, you adapt a novel to a screenplay?

• "His commissioned screenplay adaptations from others' works for the films ...". Shouldn't that be "of" rather that "from"?

• "On 16 June 2009, Antonia Fraser officially opened the Harold Pinter Room & Studio at the Hackney Empire, renaming the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite." Not sure what that means. Was it previously called the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite?

• "In solidarity with the Belarus Free Theatre, which was invited to bring Being Harold Pinter to Chicago for the month of February 2011, collaborations of actors and theatre companies joined in offering additional benefit readings of Being Harold Pinter across the United States." Awkward repetition.

• "In November, however, discovering an infection that would nearly kill him, his doctor hospitalised him and barred such travel". That's a strange sentence, made stranger by the use of "would nearly kill him". The doctor didn't "discover" an infection as Pasteur discovered a rabies vaccine, rather he diagnosed Pinter as having an infection.

Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points, I will look at these tomorrow. Thanks for your copy-editing, Malleus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to these points in order:

• 1. That is why the third person plural "have" is used, but I see the chance of confusion. I have reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 2. changed tense and verb Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 3. OK, removed final sentence Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4 and 5. Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 6. reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 7. removed repetition Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 8. Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that all of those points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you have, so I've now supported. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.