Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [1].

---

Clint Eastwood filmography

Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)

• Featured list candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography/archive1
• Featured list candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography/archive2

• Featured list removal candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography/archive1

After working on this list, I now believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and after recently getting Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography passed, I moved on to Clint Eastwood. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, he has spent more than 50 years on screen. -- on screen? That's very broad and unclear as to what you mean I reworded the sentence a bit, please take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) He has appeared in over sixty films including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. -- Comma before including Comma added. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Filmography Remove the full stops from the notes, they are not complete sentences Removed the periods. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Other appearances This list includes appearances in various episodes of fictional shows, while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and the like. -- the like is oddly wordy, how about and other related media? That does sound much better, reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) References The MTV source should have MTV Networks as the publisher and MTV as the work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC) I believe I addressed it as you requested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. This is much better than the Arnold list that came here the first time.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I reviewed this list pre-FLC, so these are minor things.

• In the lead, "Gran Torino" links to a car article.

I thought I had already fixed that, but it's taken care of now. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• "and other related media." Not sure what "related" would mean here.

Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• "while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and other related media."-->and excludes appearances as himself... Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Some comments I would like to add:

• The introduction states: "After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, his career has spanned more than 50 years in both television and film productions. He has appeared in over sixty films, including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. Eastwood also appeared in several television series, most notably Rawhide." I think this would be better if this introduction was reworded so that Rawhide is mentioned before the film titles are, thereby putting the listings in a chronological order. It should also be stated that Eastwood starred in this series for its entire eight-season run and that it provided him with the foundation for his later film success.

I rearranged the sentences and expanded on his role in Rawhide. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, Eastwood made an unbilled cameo appearance in the film Casper (1995). If he did, then this should be added to the filmography. Eastwood also directed episodes of the TV series Amazing Stories (1985) and The Blues (2003). These should be added to the TV section. Perhaps two "Yes" columns could be added for actor and director in this section.

I added the several roles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• You might consider hyperlinking the years for the filmography and TV listings. Examples: {{fy|2009}} or [[2009 in film|2009]]; {{ytv|2009}} or [[2009 in television|2009]].

Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• The notes section of the filmography could include information about awards that Eastwood won or was nominated for. Just having "uncredited" for a handful of films seems barren and makes this column seem rather superfluous. I also don't think it's necessary to have "—" for the cells with no information.

Filmographies don't cover the awards. Usually there is a separate list for awards/nominations won by an actor/director. That will likely be created down the line. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions make your day help. Jimknut (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you suggestions, I appreciate it. According to the Man with No Name: "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with FLCs and those who review. You review." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Second look:

• "His role in the eight-season series led to his leading role in A Fistful of Dollars and its two sequels." — The other two films are not really sequels. Perhaps it would be better to state "... leading roles in A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Eastwood started directing in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, began producing many of his films." — I think it would be better if you state the exact year and film that he made his directing and producing debuts.

Specified, please check to see if it reads well. I must have rewritten that sentence ten times. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the filmography where you have category headings change "Music" so that it's hyperlinked: [[Film Score|Music]]

Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the television section all the green "yes" listings should be centered so that they're uniformed with the filmography section.

Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you can, list the character he played in the episode of The West Point Story (provided you can find the information, which might be tough considering that's its not currently a well-known series).

I've looked for this on numerous sites already and haven't been able to find anything. I'm sure if the show is ever put on DVD we'll eventually get the answer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Although perhaps not necessary, you might want to list the titles of the TV episodes that he appeared in or directed, rather than just the series title (with the obvious exception of the Rawhide episodes — a listing for them warrants an entire page of its on). Possibly you can do it this way:

Year	Title		Credited as
	Series	Episode	Director	Actor	Role

Changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• For Rawhide you could put "Series regular — 217 episodes", or something similar. You may also consider this link: [http://epguides.com/Rawhide/ List of ''Rawhide'' episodes]

I just stuck with the 217 episodes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Jimknut (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Random musing The one set of columns is named "credited as", but some rows also say "uncredited". Isn't that a contradiction?

It still lists his roles in the films, and although they seem to contradict, I can't think of a better way to list it. I adjusted the column so it doesn't include credited as for the role. Instead of "credited as" should it be "involved as"? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Gene Kelly filmography page uses "Functioned as", would that work here? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds better, changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Would it be possible to add a table that has his top 10 highest grossing films or even just mention his highest grossing films as an actor and director in the lead?

In previous FLCs about filmographies, it was discouraged to include highest grossing films as the box office may be the result of other factors not necessarily the actor's role in the film. The citation about his total box office can be visited by the readers to learn more about his top-grossing films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You should remove "Academy Award-winning " from the opening sentence. Generally, we're supposed to avoid such phrases due to POV concerns.

Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Speaking of the Oscars, would it be possible to note which films he received Oscars and nominations for (or any other major award)? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Filmographies are not supposed to cover awards, in the future, an awards and nominations page for Eastwood will likely be created. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but could you at least note how many of the awards he's won somewhere in the lead? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned in general some of the types of awards he had won. I'm going to try and develop a list over the next few days so that I can perhaps mention how many. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...film ... and television... " + "...television and film..." in one sentence reads poorly.

Reduced it to mention that it has spanned 50 years, cutting out the television and film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Seems to be a predominance of repetition, perhaps it's unavoidable but, for instance, in four sentences we have "appear" (or derivatives) three times.

Reworded some of the sentences to limit its use, please take a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • " Eastwood's started directing in 1971..." presumably a hangover from a previous way of expressing his debut?

Could you clarify on this? Not too sure what you're asking. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not grammatically correct. So perhaps you could say "Eastwood started..." or "Eastwood's directorial debut..." - you choose... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I didn't notice the Eastwod's. I changed it to Eastwood started. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Last sentence first para ("appears" again) is out of place - we've moved on from his acting career at this point of the lead.

Fixed as mentioned above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Any reason why the roles you've stated as "notable" are more "notable" than any of the other roles? Or is it just your opinion?

I just mentioned some of the roles in his filmography (had seen this in other filmographies). The majority of those were well-received by critics are performed well at the box office. Do you think that they should be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just nervous about your choice of what of Clint's back catalogue is "notable". That's all. It's borderline WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just chose some of the roles not already mentioned in the lead already. I can add/remove some or all if you think there is a better alternative. Or I could just remove notable? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Rawhide needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for its separator.

Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Ref 1 as BBC News twice. Why?

The first occurrence was as the author (since I don't see a single author listed) and the second was for publisher. I removed the first occurrence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not a fan of the green-shaded cells at all. Readers can discern the "Yes" without the need for color. Also, I am not sure about the "year in film" links. In an individual film article, linking to that film's release year is relevant. This is a filmography where these links are less useful; they feel too one-step-removed from the topic to be relevant here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This FLC has been hilarious. When I change one thing, another editor wants to see it done differently. I think you guys are messing with my mind! :) I've removed the year in film. For the green boxes, I did a short study (through e-mails/phone calls/standing outside of a grocery store with a clipboard), and I think Clint Eastwood fans enjoy reading more when they see green yeses. No (indicating my sarcasm), I had used the green-shaded cells to agree with the previous FLs that use it (such as Spike Lee filmography). I know we had that discussion a few months back about the green/red for awards/nominations but I wasn't sure if we were speaking for filmographies. I'll change it if there is consensus to do so, as all of the above editors haven't disagreed with it. I don't care too much either way, but I would probably recommend that WP:FILMS determine the best way to handle these types of tables so we can revise previous FLs and future nominations. Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the green since there is accompanying text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87, what is the accompanying text for the green-shaded cells? If a cell says "Yes", then does color need to be injected? Nehrams2020, I was reflecting on this layout, and I was wondering why "Yes" cells were being used at all. When I first came to the article, I scrolled down through the list, but I had to go back up a couple of times to identify which columns were which. I imagine that this is grounded partially in precedent, but would it not be easier to identify the extent of his involvement in one cell beside each title? For example, "Actor" for Escape from Alcatraz, and "Director, producer, actor, and musical contribution" for Gran Torino. ("Musical contribution" can be something else, obviously.) It may use less of the table, but readers will identify his involvement with each film immediately. Just food for thought until we have a broader discussion about filmographies. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I think as it is currently labeled is the best method. I think it would be redundant to keep mentioning each role for each film especially since he contributes in so many capacities. Would it be easier to read by also adding the same role heading to the bottom of the table (or halfway through) as well? I didn't have any problems with the headings, but then again, I added them so that may be why. In my opinion, this format works, and since the table isn't especially long, any scrolling wouldn't be too much of an issue. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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