Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Cartwright/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 SandyGeorgia 23:49, 9 May 2009 [1].

Nancy Cartwright edit

Nominator(s): Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Nancy Cartwright/archive1

The latest step in my evil plan to turn this site into Homerpedia. Enjoy. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an actionable oppose per the featured article criteria. There is no requirement for citations in an article's lead, as it is just a summary of the article's content. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, no lead cites would be a plus, since it shows that the lead is a proper summary of the article. Wizardman 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The ref formatting (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script) is up to standards, as are the disambiguation (checked with the dab finder tool). ~~Fix the 1 dead external link, however (checked with the links checker tool).~~--Tru co 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn Make a Wish Foundation... I don't suppose this would be a suitable substitute? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it would, the site looks legit to me and looking at their about us section, it seems reliable. --Tru co 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~http://wishla.org/news_art10.asp deadlinks~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with [2], thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments mostly nitpicks, from Ceranthor (talk · contribs):
Link American to United States, feature film, voice actor
Her mother, Miriam, died late in the summer of 1978, two weeks before the move to California - before the move is informal. Suggest re-wording of sentence.
She won the part, and later worked with Hunt on several other projects - Replace won, also informal.

More later, those were my initial nitpicks. Ceranllama chat post 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked American. See WP:OVERLINK about linking common geographical terms. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nitpicks have been brought up by Karanacs, and have, for the most most part, been resolved. Ceranllama chat post 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:The Simpsons star.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same person, so we cannot be sure that the author has actually released the rights. Can you contact them and ask them to leave a note on the image description page and sign it? Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is that the uploader decided to be a dick and made me upload a new file and relink to it rather than just let me straighten the image. This is the original file. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still waiting on the note. Awadewit (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the original image to the "other versions" field. Does that work? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The uploader and author of the original image aren't the same, either. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's because the uploader uploaded it under an impossibly long name, so I asked an admin if they could move it to a shorter one. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please ask the author of the image to leave a signed note at the image description page saying that they release the image under the specified license. We cannot assume that the author released anything at this point, since the uploader is different. (It does not matter why this disconnect has occurred - we have to find a way to rectify it.) Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll ask, but I don't know how well it will go over. Just to make things go quicker, should I replace it with a different image (like this one) for now? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The replacement would be fine, but I encourage you to ask the author of the other one to leave a note. That way, the image can be used without problems in other articles. Awadewit (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Image replaced with File:Walk of fame - The Simpsons.jpg, [3]. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to suggest that the editors add a fair use clip of Cartwright's Bart voice. She is famous for that voice, after all, and a brief clip would be a good addition, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this myself. Please let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works, thank you. I have no idea how to do things like that and I was going to ask someone, but I kept forgetting. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning toward~~ support. I thought the article as a whole was pretty well-written and interesting. A few things that need to be addressed:

~~Quotations should have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means that the cite is duplicated in subsequent sentences.~~
- I added in a few extra citations. Did I miss any?
I'm a little confused at the chronology in the Personal life section. It says that she married her husband in 1988 but then says she join the church of Scientology in 1989 while looking for a relationship
- I agree that that part is confusing, but it's what the sources say. There are multiple sources that say she got married in 1988 and multiple sources that say she joined in 1989. The article is a direct interview and it's on newsbank if you want to try finding it. My guess is that she was just affiliated with the church for several years before finally becoming a full member in '89.
  - It might be possible to get rid of the apparent inconsistency of her marrying in 1988 and seemingly looking for a husband in 1989. In [4] she says, talking about why she became a Scientologist, "I was rapidly approaching 30 and I wanted to get married and have kids. I thought that maybe I could find a relationship by going to a church." Her birth date is October 1957, as per our article, so if she was "rapidly approaching 30" she must have started going to Scientology churches before October 1987. We could drop the confusing 1989 reference, along those lines: 'Cartwright was raised a Roman Catholic[67]. A Scientologist today, she became involved with the Church of Scientology in her late twenties, depressed that she did not have a "committed relationship", wanting to get married and have children. She thought ...' Some such wording would avoid the apparent contradiction. Jayen 466 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a whole paragraph on the Scientology phone call from earlier this year is overkill. That's more text than is devoted to some pieces of her career. Can this be shortened to, say, two sentences?

Karanacs (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, it did generate more media attention than a lot of the rest of her career. I've trimmed a few sentences out of it, is it better now?
- Thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the paragraph on the phone call is still much too detailed. I understand that it got a lot of press, but in the long run, how important is this actually? The article admits that it was blown way out of proportion. If it's really not that important an event in her career, then it shouldn't warrant such a lot of text in the article. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've trimmed a few more sentences out. Is there anything specific in that bit that you think could be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It can be trimmed further without losing any of the intended meaning. The quote is probably unnecessary; we already have the description of it as an introduction, so it could instead read: "She introduced the message in Bart's voice, before using her normal voice in most of the rest of the message." The second part that could be cut is: "In a 2000 interview with The Oregonian..." We don't need to know this; the paper is a reliable source, so we don't need that level of attribution; instead the sentence can open with: "Cartwright explained..." Steve ^{T • C} 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it needs to be mentioned that the interview is from 2000, and not a response to the controversy. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is passable, from a quick look through. Here are a few random points. There are surely many others. An unfamiliar copy-editor would find them more easily.

Overlinked, at least at the opening. Infobox: Many US writers would prefer "United States" rather than "you dot es dot". I agree when it's right at the top, first time. Shouldn't be linked, I think. The days of linking words such as "film", "television" and "actor" are over. (Can these items not have capitalised initials in the infobox?). "Voice artist" I've left linked, and now it's not crowded out by the low-value ones in that sentence; but then it's linked again a few seconds later, this time piped to "voice actor", an irritation if a reader clicks on both expecting different destinations. Choose one to link. Why is "Database" piped to "List of recurring characters in the Simpsons"? Can you make it more explicit, or link instead in the "See also" section, where there's space to elucidate?
- In terms of the overlinking, those were likely added by someone else as I usually avoid linking common terms. As for Database, the link goes to his section at the recurring page. The character does not have an individual page, so the section has to do.
"the series' creator"—I'd drop the apostrophe. "allowed her to audition for Bart, and offered her the role on the spot"—smoother without the comma?
- Done.
half-hour show
- Fixed.
Start of first section: by now, "Dayton, Ohio" has been linked three times. Are you a fan of this location?
- Removed, but Dayton isn't really a well-known city, so I figured the links didn't hurt.
"Cartwright described Butler as "absolutely amazing, always encouraging, [and] always polite"." You might consider not inserting the square-bracketed "and"—kind of nice rhythm without.
- Done.
"to do voice work" ... English can be a dull thud, can't it.
"easy to perform compared to other characters"—the repetition can be avoided by "with other", and some would prefer this when contrasting.
- Done.
I don't particularly like the staccato quotation technique in such parts as "The Simpsons". No big deal, though, but if you can paraphrase a few to break down the density, all the better. "freaks [them] out" sticks out because it's very informal, and requires the insertion—that's a candidate for a more formal wording to paraphrase; look for others too? Tony (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ support This article appears comprehensive and is well-written. I will fully support once the image issue is resolved. I would also suggest adding a sentence back to the Scientology phone call paragraph. The reader ends up with Groening's comment that the issue had been "blown up beyond what was intended" but there is no description of the press coverage that would necessitate him making this comment. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the Scientology paragraph needs this additional sentence. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose, comprehensiveness and balance are about right. Be nice to sort out the image as per Awadewit, these things can be frustrating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has anyone tried to track down the sources listed under Cartwright's entry here? They may be helpful in resolving the apparent contradiction between the fact that she joined Scientology in 1989 looking for a husband, but actually got married in 1988. Zagalejo^^^ 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC#3 - Is a piece of non free content in which 80% of which is dedicated to covering another actor justified under NFCC? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need context for the quote. Please note that this audio clip is 26 seconds of an episode which is about 20 minutes long. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not context it is NFCC, why is the quote needed at all, if that can be justified then context can be considered. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is a voice actress and Bart is her most famous voice, so I think an example of her voice is beneficial. The clip shows her range and includes "eat my shorts", which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All of this is explained in the fair use rationale: "To provide the reader a demonstration of Cartwright's voicing of Bart Simpson, the character she is best known for, since her performance cannot be described using words alone. Cartwright was responsible for introducing Bart's catchphrase, "Eat my shorts", as she felt it was appropriate for the character." Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - FAC#3, I cant see this clip passing nfcc#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your oppose - why doesn't it meet #8? (To be clear, I feel that it does meet #8 since Cartwright is famous specifically for her voice, so having a recording is essential in my opinion. Her voice cannot be described in words.) Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support after some MoS fixes. I can't believe I never noticed she played Ethel in Twilight Zone: The Movie. "It's time for you to go away now, Ethel..." Creepy. --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Given this is promotion/archiving day, I'm going to go on a limb and support its promotion. It still needs a very minor copyedit in places, which I'm in the middle of (feel free to disagree with any of my choices), but should this be promoted (or "failed") before I'm done (at some point this evening), I'll still finish that off. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article, one that Cartwright herself should be pleased with. Not to suggest that it favors her, but it appears to be quite comprehensive. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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