Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Dinklage/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2017 [1].

Peter Dinklage

edit
Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about actor Peter Dinklage, I have worked on this article for a while and I believe it meets the FA criteria. AffeL (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JC

edit

Oppose - I'm just going to take a look at the "Personal life" section for now, to get a feel for the article. Comments, suggestions, and questions as I read along...

  • Dinklage and Schmidt are expecting a second child. - Ideally, this would tell us when they announced that they were expecting a second child (or, failing that, "as of" the date of the source, so it's easy to tell whether this is up-to-date.)
Added when it was announced. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinklage face - grammar.
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • severely injured - "severely" seems like editorializing that isn't supported by the given source. I believe it's possible to sustain a large scar from an injury that falls short of "severe".
Removed "severely". - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • early 90's - per MOS:DECADE, present decades in four digits when identifying a period of time.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the scar notable at all? As far as I can tell, it hasn't really been discussed in-depth by any reliable sources, just the one interview and banal "x things you didn't know about Peter Dinklage" listicles. It just seems really trivial and out-of-place stuck at the end of a paragraph about his wife and family. If it is to stay, then you should explain how he became injured; just saying that he was in a band at the time doesn't answer any questions.
I have added how he got injured now, don't know if that's enough or if I should remove it all together? - AffeL (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, are there any reliable sources discussing his time in the band? If so, I think that should be fleshed out a bit and moved into "Early life".
Not that I know of. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he suggested that doubt is more needed than belief. - Really abstract and maybe not particularly important?
Removed. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinklage has a form of dwarfism, achondroplasia, which affects bone growth. As a result, he is 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m) tall, with a typical-sized head and torso but short limbs. - What is the source for this information? The next citation, the Today article, doesn't support any of that, and in fact lists Dinklage's height as 4'6" instead of 4'5".
Added source. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "Dinklage has come to accept his condition", but he is later quoted as saying in 2012, "I don't think I still am okay with it. There are days when I'm not." Has his attitude changed significantly since 2012 or is this a discrepancy?
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinklage's wife suggested that he should say something, being that he is in a position to change the "way people look at people his size" - Say something about what? Was it his wife who suggested bringing attention to Martin Henderson?
Yes, Now fixed so it is more clear. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the dwarfism quotes seem to ramble on without saying anything new or enlightening. I would try to boil it down to the most pertinent snippets and fit them into one paragraph. In When talking about his sense of responsibility to other people who share his condition: "The idea is to get to that level where you don't have to preach about it anymore." the quote doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to its introduction. It's also redundant given that we're already told his opinion on whether he saw himself as "a spokesman for the rights of little people" in the previous paragraph.
I removed the last quote. - AffeL (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'm sorry to say that the section I've reviewed falls well short of FA standards. Aside from grammar and style errors, sourcing deficiencies, and unclear prose, the narrative about his dwarfism – an important part of his life, no doubt – is unfocused and underdeveloped. In fact, I believe the final paragraph may constitute plagiarism per our non-free content guidelines; the paragraph is composed almost entirely of material copied directly from one source. While quotations of non-free text are allowed, this probably falls under prohibited "extensive quotation of copyrighted text". On these grounds, I'm afraid I must oppose. Sorry, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some redundant quotations and paraphrased others in that paragraph. Is that enough or should I trim it down a bit more? - AffeL (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also another thing is that Dinklage happens to be a very private person, he does not do many interviews, go to any talk shows and so on. So not much is known about his personal life, making it hard to find different stuff to add for that section. - AffeL (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: I found this source(http://www.hypable.com/game-of-thrones-video-peter-dinklage-delivers-commencement-speech-at-bennington-college/). I know "Hypable.com" is not a reliable source, but this particular source has a video of Dinklage talking about him growing up. Can I use it or just the Youtube video as a source? - AffeL (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would depend on the information it's being used to verify. Even if the stories come straight from the man himself, they may well be exaggerated or embellished for the sake of an interesting commencement speech. I would personally prefer more rigorous sourcing, but perhaps there are some uncontroversial bits which can be gleamed from the speech (it would be nice to know what he got his degree in, for instance).

The section I reviewed looks a bit better, but I still believe there are too many irrelevant quotations. The first quote in the last paragraph is very difficult to parse, and contributes very little to our understanding of the subject's life. The bit about Martin Henderson seems to have been taken out of context, as you don't discuss any impact resulting from his being mentioned. this source says the speech brought attention to the act of dwarf-tossing, which is how Henderson became injured. On a similar note, this book seems like it might have some useful facts about Dinklage's upbringing and personal life. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: Added where he got his degree from and removed the first quote in the last paragraph, also added the impact of Henderson name being mentioned. Much of the other quotes has either been removed or re-written in my own words. - AffeL (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: How about now?, How does it look? I have removed some and paraphrased the many quotations in that section, all expect the last little quote in the second to last paragraph. - AffeL (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: I have addressed all of your comments and I have been told that un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. So is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've struck my oppose for now so as not to impede the nomination. I'll take another look at the article if time allows. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: Hi, I'm wondering if you time, could you take another look at the article? - AffeL (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

edit
  • "in the 2019 Untitled Avengers film" -> capital letter not needed
Done. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction could have two paragraphs instead of four.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and appeared in NBC's 30 Rock." -> who did he play?
Added the name of the character he plays. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannister in HBO's Game of Thrones, an ada.." -> The paragraph needs to have some sort of date included, for instance, when he was cast and when the show premiered, or at least the year when he started playing the character.
Added dates. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section there is no indication how long he's been playing the character, how many seasons there are, or when is it gonna end etc. More background of the show is certainly needed, as GOT is the highlight of his career.
Added "as of 2011" in the beginning, also added how many seasons and when it will end. You said more background is needed, I already added his salary, casting information, awards won, reception, background on when the show started and will end, also added how many seasons the show will have. Should I add more or do you believe it's enough? - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting needs A LOT of work. Many missing dates, authors, publishers, wrong links (such as Telegraph), 26 November 2016 -> November 26, 2016, New York Times -> The New York Times, etc.

Mymis (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: I fixed those you mentioned and others, I'm quite sure I fixed all the missing dates, authors and so on. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still unclear what the show is even about. You could add one sentence about it, and how it links to his character. Also, " George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series." -> add genre (a series of epic fantasy novels), or/and add "drama" before the show's title.
Added sentence of what the show is about and his character, also added "fantasy drama" before the shows title. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2011, Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannist" -> "Since 2011, ...."
Done. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the movie hade a modest commercial success with" -> "had". Also, there is no source to prove "modest commercial success". Just because it earned 200M, it does not mean it was commercially successful.
Fixed "hade" to "had". Also the movie earned $245 million, with a $88 million budget. That's an $157 million profit. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to add more timeframes in "Upcoming projects" section, for EVERY one of his upcoming role. "As of XXXX, ...", "In XXXX, ..." etc.
@Mymis: Added timeframes for all projects. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "For this he won the Emmy.." in the second paragraph in the introduction could be reorganized in a less confusing way.
Changed it to ", which earned him the Emmy.." - AffeL (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Upcoming projects" need to copyedited, there are multiple grammar mistakes and repetitive phrasing.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is set to appear in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and Three Christs in 2017" -> Those seem to be quite decent films, and deserve more than just a mention, I think.
Will add more once we know more about those movies, not much to add now. - AffeL (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why do you think that Emmys and the Globes are literally the only awards that are worth mentioning? He has won and been nominated for many other awards.
I added the Critics' Choice Television Award and the Screen Actors Guild Award. - AffeL (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mymis: Anything else? - AffeL (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that Pixels is a commercial success is WP:OR. You must find a source describing its success. Just because it grossed more than its production costs does not mean anything, there is such thing as promotional costs and box-office rental perc. and stuff like that. I question it because the film is included in List of box office bombs.
Removed that it's a commercial success. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence "Game of Thrones takes place on the fictional continents...", and the one after, could be put after the first sentence in the paragraph. I think it would flow nicer, now it seems a bit disorganized.
Done, moved up. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence "The series was renewed for a seventh sea" poorly links to the previous sentence. Maybe add "The series proved to be a commercial success; it was renewed for...." or something.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if IndieWire is in italics or not.
It's not, fixed all of them. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Lynne Segall??
Have no idea, I removed it. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boston Globe -> The Boston Globe
Done. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2010 he appeared in the.. -> Add comma
Added comma. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: All done. Anything else? - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit
Changed to "Dinklage attended the..." - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede feels a little cluttered. I would consider a restructuring, perhaps splitting it into three paragraphs. I would mention that Dinklage has achondroplasia nearer to the beginning. Not because I think it needs to be over-emphasized, but because it just seems a bit out-of-place right at the end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I did split it into three paragraphs and moved the "Dinklage has achondroplasia" sentance at the end of the first paragraph. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an improvement, although I have rejigged things a little further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 2011, Dinklage has portrayed Tyrion Lannister in the HBO series Game of Thrones, which earned him the Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series in 2011, and a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor – Series, Miniseries or Television Film in 2012, as well as receiving consecutive Emmy nominations from 2011 to 2016, and going on to win a second for Outstanding Supporting Actor Emmy in 2015." This is a very lengthy sentence; I would trim it in two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it a bit. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it "preparatory school". - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the lead. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even after the critical success of Living in Oblivion, Dinklage still couldn’t find someone willing to be his agent. After a recommendation from Buscemi to the director Alexandre Rockwell, Dinklage was cast in the comedy 13 Moons (2002).[" - First, change "couldn't" to "could not". Second, the two sentences are quite distinct in content; are they both cited to the same reference? If so, I would repeat that reference at the end of both sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are and I fixed it. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "American comedy" before the film title "O Lucky Day". - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dinklage described himself as a lapsed Catholic in 2008" - This could be read as meaning that he was a lapsed Catholic in 2008 but not in other years. I would rearrange this as "In 2008, Dinklage described himself as a lapsed Catholic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth briefly adding that he is an animal rights activist and has spoken out on little people issues to the lede. Perhaps just a short sentence at the end of that third paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the lead. - AffeL (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I've removed the speaking out on little people issues bit. That wasn't really what Awas added (I assume you were referring to the Martin Henderson comment and the like, not Dinklage being a role model). Discussion of Dinklage's dwarfism in the lead was the subject of a large RFC last year, and so the consensus wording should probably not be overruled without discussion. The nominator really should have pointed you to the RFC as he did in this edit summary, but that is another matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC has been moved, not removed. It is still their. And their is not speaking out on little people part, it just says "He has been viewed as a role model for people sharing his condition.", which is sourced in the body. - AffeL (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, drop the trolling act by quoting my edit summaries back at me and messing it up. The RFC was never moved. The text incorporated as a result of the RFC was moved. But the point is that discussion of dwarfism in the lead was the source of a controversy last year, and it was decided that the discussion should be limited to "he has dwarfism and is so-and-so tall. He has appeared in such-and-such roles where his dwarfism was significant." If you want to add something else about his dwarfism, you need prior talk page consensus, as there was previously a clear consensus not to include anything else. Or you could try to get consensus to invalidate the previous RFC; AlbinoFerret's RFC closes are infamous and have been a terrible burden on the project, so it's entirely possible that his close was not a fair representation of consensus. I haven't read through the entire RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entire seperate thing and has nothing to do with his dwarfism, it just says his a role model. Also the RFC says that other minor things can be added. - AffeL (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henderson is a person with dwarfism from England, who was badly injured by being tossed by a rugby fan in a bar, the speech brought media and public attention to the act of dwarf-tossing with Henderson's name being trended worldwide on social media" - the latter half of that sentence does not really flow on from the earlier half very neatly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Added another image. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

edit

I've read through twice and made several edits, and it all mostly looks very good. I just have a couple of minor comments:

  • "Being his first voiceover role, Dinklage prepared himself by making sure to rest his voice before the recording sessions, adding that he likes doing new roles that he has not done before." In the last clause in this sentence, "adding that" doesn't really work.
Changed it up. - AffeL (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked it some more. I should have maybe clarified before that what had bothered me with the sentence was that the last clause implied "Dinklage said that" while the first part didn't. Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least a couple of jobs of his characters are wiki-linked. I noticed "wedding planner" and "reporter", didn't notice if there were others. The wiki-link for "Reporter" at least seems unnecessary, "wedding planner" possibly too. But I didn't edit these in case it was part of a larger consistency thing. Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: All done. - AffeL (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy to support now. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and focused. Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hijiri88

edit

I'm neutral on whether the article should be promoted as is, but it's worth noting that when nominated the article contained a very dubious unsourced claim about Dinklage's career choices, which the nominator added to th lead during the course of this RFC.[2][3] The original nominator (whose talk page I have on my watchlist) was the one who added this unsourced claim to the body last fall, and has a history of questionable sourcing issues, and pushing articles with said issues through the GA process; it wouldn't surprise me if, once one scratched beneath the surface, this FA-nominated article revealed similar problems. The only reason I'm not outright opposing this promotion is that the user in question actually has made fairly negligible contributions to this article, so if the article has severe verifiability problems, that is a fault of the system rather than a procedural factor I think should cause the FAC to be autofailed. That said, the only reason it doesn't include a bunch of coatrack-y links to sources that have no relation to the article text (a pet peeve of mine, FWIW) is because I happened to notice them.[4] Someone really should take a look to make sure the article still doesn't contain any more unsourced/potentially-contentious BLP claims and borderline-OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to oppose The article probably contains unsourced or questionably-sourced content (it definitely did until I removed it last week despite opposition/edit-warring from the nominator), and the nominator has refused to do a source-check to address this problem. The nominator claims to have checked all 150-odd citations (some of the "119 sources" are cited multiple times) and verified that all the article content, but also claims he performed this massive task in under two hours. He has also refused to provide evidence that he performed this task. Put simply, I think he is lying. Until someone does a source-check, I think we can't assume that following my removal of two randomly cherry-picked unsourced/questionably-sourced claims it contains no more such ccontent, and the article should not be promoted if it probably contains such content. This does not preclude my changing to support if AffeL or someone else does do the source-check he claims he did, and provides evidence thereof. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also naturally somewhat skeptical about some of the math that we are doing to establish whether this or that film was a commercial and/or critical success, and whether these are even relevant for films where the subject was in a minor role. This mess stood out to me even after User:Mymis corrected the nominator on describing Pixels in a similar manner. I am feeling somewhat ill today and may not be able to look into the others, or even make a list of them, but calling films commercial successes based solely on information from BoxOfficeMojo (which ignores both marketing costs and the economic concept of normal profit) is OR. We shouldn't have done it for Pixels (or even used an adversative conjunction, which the article continued to do for more than a week after "success" was removed), we shouldn't have done it for Prince Caspian, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. (And at this rate it wouldn't surprise me if the nominator reverted back the OR that I already removed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier discussions/controversies aside, this got way too long. No one is ever going to read it anyway, so might as well collapse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know an un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. If their is a problem somewhere in the article, you can tell me what and I will fix it. Those tags you said I removed, I removed those and then fixed the issues you mentioned just minutes or so later. So is their anything else? Cause you following me around is the most childish thing I have seen during my time on Wikipedia. - AffeL (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if any one have time do to a source review. That would be great. - AffeL (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You understand, that I don't need to find a specific problem with this or that specific article to point out that a very large proportion of your edits have such problems. If you were some random contributor to the page, that would be one thing, but you nominated this page. Your recent behaviour on List of highest paid American television stars -- or, heck on Peter Dinklage; or on Kit Harrington, or on Davos Seaworth, or on Draft:Game of Thrones (season 8) -- is evidence enough that you don't understand proper sourcing, and so your judgement regarding this article's sourcing should be taken as iffy at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So is their anything in this specific article that you want me to fix? - AffeL (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I don't want you fixing any articles after what I've seen you doing with the "turns down stereotypical roles" mess, among others. You need to wrap your head around Wikipedia policies/guidelines and how to properly read sources. Someone should do a thorough source-check on this article before it is promoted, but I'm increasingly skeptical of proper sourcing being a prerequisite for FA-status. Very few editors seem to understand that "AGF" doesn't mean "assume an article's sources are all fine". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why i'm asking for a source review. If their is anything wrong, I will find a way to improve it. I have checked the sources and all that, I have been working on this page for hours and checked almost all the sources one by one, sometimes I may miss something. But I am trying to, as I said improv the article as best as possibly. Also I know about the policies/guidelines btw. - AffeL (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the [edit warring policy] btw Your recent behaviour on List of highest paid American television stars says otherwise, but that's kind of off-topic. I am sure if I found a serious issue with something in this article, that you disagreed with me on, you would edit-war at me here as well. But I'd rather not start an edit war just to make a point, and I have better things to do with my Thursday evening than read through the article to find something over which for you to edit-war with me. Like sleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this article and is completly of topic. If you do find a issue with this article, I will make sure to work hard and fix what ever the issue may be. - AffeL (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed this. It certainly does not "have nothing to do with this article", nor is it "completly of topic", to point out that the nominator has been edit-warring over this page. Specifically, FACR 1(e) disbars articles that are subject to ongoing edit wars. At the time AffeL wrote the above, he was still attempting (at Talk:List of highest paid American television stars#GOT actors' salaries are a rumour -- 3RR-blocked user Jojocc was right on the substance) to justify his edit-warring, in this and another article, regarding Dinklage's current salary for Game of Thrones. Yes, after I explained to him for about the umpteenth time why he was wrong, he finally seems to have gotten it, but that happened after he posted the above remark about how edit-warring is off-topic for an FAC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making an off-topic comment and then criticizing others for responding to said off-topic comment is highly inappropriate. Cut it out. I raised a legitimate concern that the nominator of this FAC has a history of sourcing problems, including recently in this article since nominating it, and you responded by engaging in off-topic commentary about how you totally don't have these issues. I happened to randomly stumble across an unsourced claim about the subject's professional choices less than a week ago. It's entirely possible that more dubious unsourced BLP claims are still there. If the community is comfortable with this in an FA, so be it. I'm done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so rude. I understand that you and I have our differences. But it is only by working togheter that we can make improvments on this and other articles. - AffeL (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Call me rude if you want. As far as I am concerned, I just don't want articles with clear sourcing issues being promoted to FA status. The reason I am not opposing this FAC is because I don't know the article has verifiability issues -- I just think there's a fair probability. Pointing this out is not off-topic for an FAC. Whether your subsequent commentary and my responses thereto were off-topic for an FAC or "rude" is immaterial. Indeed, calling me "rude" for saying any of this is about as off-topic as one can get. Collapse everything after my first comment if you like. Don't blank it, move it to a separate page, make it invisible, or collapse my responses but not yours, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. I need to know what problems you have with the article, so I know what it is I should do, what I should change. As far as I know, I have checked all the sources more than twice and everything is in order. - AffeL (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I TOLD you not to attempt to hide my initial comment because I KNEW you would try to do what you did last time (on the Kit Harington GA review page) and what your spiritual predecessor did to me multiple times. If you think your comments and my responses to said comments are "off-topic", then you can collapse them. You do not have permission to hide comments that I specifically told you NOT to collapse. Do NOT revert my uncollapsing of my initial comment above, or I will report you for disruptive editing and request that you be blocked. Your opinion that you have checked all the sources and they verify all the content in the article and are adequately reliable is nice, but it is just your opinion, and as demonstrated your opinion that the article is adequately sourced is not worth much, since your reading of sources has proven to be questionable at best. You thought that the sources in the article before last week verified the claim that the subject rejects stereotypical dwarf roles, and you also thought that the sources you added after I tagged this material as unsourced verified it. Either you hadn't read those sources and added them to the article anyway, or you read them and misunderstood them. Either way, someone else should probably check the sources, or else this article being promoted to FA would be solely the result of one user claiming that it is fully sourced, which is not how it normally works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you said "collapse everything", so I did. All the tags you made to other articles, I have fixed all the issues you have pointed out. So I don't know what problem you have with this article. I can't do anything with an un-actionable comments. You have to tell me what you want me to fix. - AffeL (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "collapse everything after my first comment if you like". I did not give you permission to collapse my first comment, or to collapse all of my responses to you after your first off-topic comment. You can leave this whole section uncollapsed, or you can collapse everything after my first comment. I think it's quite likely the article contains unverified/unverifiable claims. It is not my responsibility to go through the entire article and try to find more of these claims than I already have. I tagged one claim that I thought was probably accurate but needed a source, and you (in a roundabout fashion) blanked the claim because you couldn't be bothered finding a source for it. FAC is not a simple "Do X and Y and the article will be promoted" process: either the article meets the FA criteria or it doesn't, and I don't think you are capable of fixing the article if it contains the problems that I have pretty good reason for believing it has. My comments are here for a closer, and other commenters, to see and ignore if they see fit. You do not appear to understand them (as you don't appear to understand the FAC process in general), and I would ask that you stop attempting to hide them or undermine them by specifically demanding that they be read in light of your misinterpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know what issues, I will say this again I have checked all the sources, and I can assure you everything is well sourced. If you don't believe me, then that's your problem. You tagged that claim, and I fixed it minutes later. I have no doubt what so ever that the article is well sourced. Just check the sources. Everything that is in the article is sourced. If you don't believe me, then theirs nothing I can do about that. - AffeL (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see you are not going to stop trying to either hide or decontextualize my comment, so you can consider my offer to allow the majority of this subthread to be collapsed withdrawn. Anyway, you did not "fix" anything. I tagged a claim I believed might be accurate but needed a source: you initially dealt with it by piling on a bunch of sources that had nothing to do with the claim in question (illustrating your general inability to read sources, and this isn't the only example I could give) and then when I challenged those, you simply blanked the claim. I may have been wrong to think it was accurate, but you didn't exactly "fix" the problem: if I thought that removing the unsourced claim was the best solution, I would have done that myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find a reliable source that made that claim, I seen numerous tweets from people with dwarfism state that they admire and look up to Dinklage for standing up for himself and for saying no to "typical dwarf roles". If I do ever find it, I will as you said fix the problem. I removed the claim, cause it was the best solution at the moment. - AffeL (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those tweets could very well be getting their information from Wikipedia, which would be WP:CIRCULAR. We would need information apparently coming from either Dinklage or someone associated with him that indicates that he turns down sterotypical/offensive dwarf roles. Or, possibly, some casting agent who was turned down by him when they offered him a stereotypical dwarf role for the expressed reason that he doesn't do those roles.
That said, "includes information on whether the subject refuses to do stereotypical/degrading work" is not one of the FA criteria. Making sure everything still in the article is properly sourced, on the other hand, is a priority. AffeL has on his talk page indicated that he may be willing to do some heavy lifting here. But he has also admitted (I may be reading something in here that he didn't say, though) that the reason for his recent sourcing issues may be his English proficiency, which is not something that he can button down and "fix" just because I told him to. So I think this FAC should probably be put on hold until either he or someone else has gone through and checked the sources. If he does it, someone else (I would be willing, but I should be upfront that I am stricter than a lot of people who !vote in FACs related to modern entertainment media) should carefully read his analysis and check that he has done it properly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that English not being my first langauge, have anything do to with my sourcing. The sourcing with this article is fine, and as I said on my talk page, i'm willing to go through the sources one by one. - AffeL (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I apologize for trying to make excuses for your poor sourcing standards. As I said, it was possible I was reading something into what you said that wasn't there. Clearly you are still claiming that you don't have poor sourcing standards. We will see if your source-check solves the problem. As I said, I am skeptical -- you thought the sourcing was fine when you opened this FAC, even though the article contained not one but two unsourced and probably false claims in its lead, so your saying the sourcing is fine now is obviously questionable at best. Anyway, we shall see. Given your recent gaming behaviour (like suddenly claiming out of the blue that you have poor English ability to justify your bad talk page etiquette over the period of several weeks), I am actually increasingly worried that you will try to go through the innocuous parts of the article and the parts that are sourced first, to give the false impression that there are no problems, so you can take my statement that I would only go through about a dozen or so of your checks before taking your word for it as withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second link you mentioned was not unsourced, it hade a source from a reliable source, it was changed for other reasons. Also I just finished going through almost all 119 sources in this article. I do not have time to make an analys and write down which paragraph the information was gathered from, that would take to much of my times and is just unnecessary(I was thinking about doing it, but the time it would take, it would be much longer than I first taught). Also I do not need to do that for FAC, you don't have to write a whole page, just to explain where said information comes from. So, Until you have something new to say, I will now end this discussion for my part, as it is not going anywhere and the comments you made are un-actionable. I will not repeat myself. So, for the last time, as far as I know/checked the sources are fine and everything seems to check out. When ever someone does a source review, i'm sure and do hope that the person will take it seriously and do a legit review of the sources and what's in the article, as they always should. - AffeL (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you are claiming to have done a thorough source analysis of a long article in the space of two hours, and so are obviously lying, right? And that now that you claim the article contains no misrepresentation of sources or unsourced claims, anything that is found in the future to have been unsourced this will just be more evidence that you are lying? I will quite soon be opening an ANI report on you for your multiple abuses (misrepresentation of sources, blatant lying, IDHT with regard to casual/friendly notices, IDHT with regard to your own previous STANDARDOFFER, reverting edits wihout having read their edit-summaries, refusal to use the talk page, replying to comments without having read said comments, accusing other users of vandalism...) and you are just giving me more material at this point. More on-point for this FAC, your demonstrated poor reading of sources (in the recent case regarding Dinklage's professional choices, D&D's favourite characters, character deaths in the books versus the show, etc.) should make any FAC closer skeptical of your ability to perform a source check, even if you had actually gone to the effort you claim to have. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have done a source analyse in a space of a couple of hourse. Just so you know an un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. This comment holds no value, cause it's nothing I can do. - AffeL (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I asked you to go through the article and check that everything in it is verifiable in the cited sources, and (2) I asked you to provide even the slightest bit of evidence that you had done so (twelve sample source-checks to prove your good faith) You have outright refused to do the latter, and you very clearly did not do the former either. Articles that have sourcing problems (even suspected/probable ones) frequently fail FAC on that basis alone, so your (repeatedly!) threatening me with the terrible punishment of being ignored by the closing delegate is ... not helpful. More likely, your refusal to cooperate with this commenter and to do any of the heavy-lifting V-wise in this FAC yourself, your demonstrated past and current V/NOR issues including in this very article, and your edit-warring (including in this very article) are more likely to leave an impression on the closing delegate. Frankly, I think the other GANs (and maybe FLCs) you advertise on your user page should probably be reexamined. I have seen A LOT of GANs pass without even the slightest reference to V and NOR, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case there as well. Note that every GAR I have opened based on the original review not having addressed sourcing has resulted in a delisting, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sourcing of the first two paragraphs of the article body, and how long it took me (about 40 minutes) can be clearly seen in the time-stamps of my last few edits. AffeL's English reading level is definitely far below mine (see here), so we can assume that if he were being careful it would have taken him longer. I got six sentences down before I found a full sentence with no citation attached that verified any of its content, and even checking back over every other citation in the section brought up only one source that verified about half of it.[5] I added that citation, but tagged it as needing improvement. Is this a freak accident that the seventh sentence was unsourced? Or do we have a half-sentence of unsourced and potentially wrong/made-up content every seven sentences down through the article? Either way, it's obvious that AffeL didn't do the thorough source check he claims he did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm not nitpicking or being overly strict or critical here. If I was, I would point out that our article contained the somewhat incredible claim that at the time of the subject's birth, his father was already retired at the age of 37 or 38.[6] That is a minor copyediting issue. An entire sentence that is unsourced, and is mostly not verifiable in any of the cited sources in surrounding paragraphs, is another level not-good-enough-for-FA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must have missed that one. So now, I have adressed all of your comments. I will remind you again that An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STOP removing maintenance tags without addressing the issues.[7] Either (a) you did not read my above comment and/or the reason parameter in the "better source needed" tag, (b) you didn't actually read the source you added before removing the tag, (c) you read it but did not understand how it didn't address any of the problems, or (d) you read it, understood it, and fired ahead anyway just to get a rise out of me.
You nominated this article without taking the slightest look at the sourcing. Then when an unsourced claim in the article was tagged you went and added a bunch of sources that didn't fix the problem. Then when I said the article probably had sourcing problems, you claimed that you had checked all the sources and they were fine, but the seventh sentence of the article body was still completely unsourced. Put simply, the article has sourcing problems, the nominator either didn't know that he should try to address them before nominating or did a terrible job of doing so, and now is unwilling to address them despite repeatedly being pointed out that they are there. FAC is not a place for other editors to give you advice on how to bring the article to FA standard, and it definitely isn't a place where other editors are formally obliged to work to bring the article to FA standard; you should have familiarized yourself with the FA criteria before nominating and made some effort to ensure the article met these criteria.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way -- you've copy-pasted your own misprinted "An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored" no less than four times. Are you actually reading my comments before repeatedly copy-pasting your own previous non-responses to them? You admitted elsewhere to having not read/understood my granting you permission to collapse most of this sub-section before repeatedly firing ahead and doing something I didn't say it was cool to do.[8][9][10] And that wasn't the first time you have admitted to not reading my comments before responding to them.[11] It would be really nice if you would actually read comments before responding to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway... I've been doing some minor source-checking and copy-editing. No new "smoking guns" yet: the article claims Dinklage's first film was critically acclaimed, but its source is RT, and all the reviews they checked come from around a decade after the film's release, and all of negative ones come from relatively close to the film's release, but ... well, entertainment and pop culture articles on Wikipedia are a mess, and this includes successful FACs. But the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Breakthrough (2003–2010)" needs work. Was Agent a critical success but only a moderate box-office success? "moderate success" is a difficult turn of phrase, but it's normally taken as positive. I considered changing it to "but saw only moderate success". But the figures don't quite match that, as we say it earned 8 mill against a 500,000 budget. I don't know box office statistics -- is a 1600% return on investment for a low-budget film normally considered "only" a moderate success? The article only cites primary sources (RT and BOM) for this sentence, so I can't be sure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are remarks like which earned over $877 million—his highest grossing release as of 2016 really necessary? He was not apparently a major box-office draw for the film in 2012 (he isn't even named on the poster, and while I haven't seen the film I'd be willing to bet he did not have that many lines in it). We could probably add the same piece of random information to just about any article on any actor who has ever lent their voice their voice to a Pixar or DreamWorks film, since those movies always make a lot of money because of family revenues and relatively simple translation/localization procedures leading to much higher international box office revenues. The only reason I would find this information remotely interesting as a reader is that it highlights that X-Men: Days of Future Past was not as successful as a lot of other superhero movies of the 2010s, which in turn draws the reader's attention to the fact that "his highest grossing release" will almost certainly only be accurate until May 2018. Are there even sources that rank actors' filmographies by box-office grosses? The statement is not currently sourced, and I can't imagine any source actually would make this random datum. I checked some other entries in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media biographies and they did have similar statements, but only in the context of established her as the highest-grossing action heroine of all time or when discussing films in which the subjects received top-billing: Cooper's highest-grossing live-action film and the third highest-grossing R-rated film of all time. This latter is interesting because it specifically sidesteps the talking raccoon in the room based on an implicit awareness that films in which he was only a voice actor or appeared as part of an ensemble should not have their box-office figures detailed. Our current sentence runs afoul of both in that Dinklage himself didn't appear on-screen, and not only was he not the lead, he wasn't even part of the main cast. The financial success of the film was because virtually all films of that genre and from that studio make more money than virtually all other films. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be in that particular poster, but if you have seen the movie. He is part of the main cast and is the main villain for the movie. Also even if he wasen't, it is still necessary, as it his biggest box office hit as of yet. - AffeL (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "for actor biographies, please specify their biggest box office hit as of yet (even if they are primarily known for television)" one of the FACRs now? I can't find any policy/guideline based rationale for this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"biggest box office hit as of yet" means it's the movie that has made the most money of the movies he's been in. Television don't have box office, because people watch it on their television, not in the cinema. "I can't find any policy/guideline based rationale for this", what am i supposed to do about that? Other FA articles of other actors have these kind of information, as it tells the reader what the biggest film of the actor in terms of box office is. - AffeL (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know what box office is. Kindly drop the haughtiness act. It's unbecoming. Anyway, as I demonstrated above, other actor FAs do not have this kind of information. Our Bradley Cooper article, for example, very specifically doesn't give this information. It lists the gross of several films in which he was the lead and thus received top billing, but doesn't talk about Guardians of the Galaxy or its sequel the way the present article talks about Ice Age. If you can find anoher article on an actor primarily known for television, that lists the grosses of all the theatrical films they happen to have appeared in, and ranks their "biggest box office hit" as a film in which they were not part of the main cast and whose gross had lnext-to nothing to do with them, hen maybe I will reconsider. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your commments. An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. So is their anything else. Also you don't need to tag stuff in the article, just say what you want yo be adressed here, and I will adress it. - AffeL (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not. I asked you repeatedly to do a source check. You blatantly did not do so, but claimed (several times) that you had. Apologize for your deceptive behaviour, don't do it again, and get to work on that source check. No one is likely to take your word for it next you claim without evidence that you did the source check, so I strongly encourage you to keep an on-wiki record of the check (in the form of clarification of exactly where in each source each of our article's claims are verified). Note that articles with demonstrated sourcing problems are almost never promoted to FA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a source check, if you don't believe me then theirs nothing I can do about that. So is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AffeL: Please define "source check". It's clear you didn't do what I asked you to do. It would have taken you more than five hours -- even checking the first section took me about forty minutes, and I appear to be a faster reader than you. But by constantly dodging the question you are making life very difficult for the rest of us. What do you mean when you say you did a source check? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the sources, and everything seems to be correct. everything in the article comes from the sources(that is if I have not missed anything). So is their anything else?, cause I have adressed all of your comments. - AffeL (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's what you said on Saturday. And it's what you said (albeit implicitly) when you started this FAC. And it's what you said when you nominated the page GA last September, and during the GA review in November. The article contained the unsourced claims that he graduated in 1987 and that he is a role model because he turns down degrading dwarf roles since before then. You were actually the one responsible for the latter.[12] I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were the one who added it to the lede and had done so unilaterally in contravention of the previous RFC on how the lede should address his dwarfism. How many more unsourced claims are in the article? We won't know until someone does a thorough source check. You continue to claim you have, but you also claim that the two unsourced claims in question were accidental oversights. Whether this is true or you actually did no such source check doesn't really matter for FAC. FAs cannot include unverifiable content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. Do you have something more to add or not? At this moment you do not have anything, come back when you find something "wrong" with this article. Then we can discuss whatever it is you think should be changed. - AffeL (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator: It's clear you are not going to listen. You've now copy-pasted the same inane non-response to me six times. I'm done here.
To any passing samaritan who wants to do a thorough source check on the article: Ping me when you arebdone and I will happily withdraw my oppose !vote. I of course reserve the right not to believe you if you (a) have not actually edited the article but claim that you checked everything and it was all perfect and (b) are not an experienced source checker.
To the closer: The article at the time of nomination contained at least two unsourced BLP claims, one of which was potentially controversial. The nominator was the one responsible for adding said potentially controversial claim to the article last summer, and during this FAC edit-warred to keep it in the article untagged. The nominator claims that he has since done a thorough source check, but this has been proven false. The article should not be promoted unless it is demonstrated that it contains no further verifiability problems.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet prove that the article contains unsourced claims, which it does not. So your comment is as I said before "un-actionable", so I guess this means you do not have anything more to add, since I have adressed everything. I'm confident that the person who does a source check will find no problems at all. - AffeL (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further note to closer: The nominator has been edit-warring to maintain/reinsert counter-consensus content discussed further up this FAC.[13][14][15][16][17] He has also been reverting constructive, good-faith edits with the bogus excuse that they are "vandalism".[18] I worry that this user "helping to promote" the article to FA will very likely make this problem worse, since he will make the claim that anything that was in the article when it was promoted was supported by the consensus of !voters in this FAC. Please bear in mind FACR1e when closing this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nominator has been blocked for personal attacks made against me and one of the other editors he was edit-warring at one the article talk page. The nominator committing blockable offenses that have nothing to do with article content is not really a grounds for autofailing an FAC by itself, but I don't think anyone would argue that an article whose talk page looks like this is "stable". (That's literally the entirety of the talk page since the GA review, and that GA review was insufficient as the article contained several unsourced BLP claims at the time it passed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are edit warnings. Please, stop making stuff up. I reverted your edit so you discuss it in the talk page before making such a bold edit by removing something that has been their for a long time. So do you have anything else? Cause I have adressed everything. I will remind you that an un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. - AffeL (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

edit

Oppose on prose and sourcing issues. I was going to keep my proverbial mouth shut, as I'm "involved" on the talk page, but every time I skim this article I find more and more to fix, despite the number of editors who've gone over the text already (and "supported"). A couple of examples:

  • "... showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss noted that Dinklage, whom he described as funny, smart and witty, was their first choice ..."—pronoun problems.
  • "As of March 2, 2017, Dinklage are Schmidt were expecting a second child."—tense. This is months ago now.
  • "As of 2017, Dinklage will star and play ..."—tense will quickly be problematic.
  • " In 2017, it was announced that Dinklage has been attached to star ..."—"was", then "is"? Is "attached" an appropriate wording? I'm not familiar with it in such a context.
... and so on. Things like this are pretty easy to pick out, as well as MOS:LQ and other issues I've been correcting over the last couple weeks. After this many reviews, problems like these should have be smoothed out long ago.
The article will need a thorough copyedit to meet criteria 1a, and is suffering from editwarring that violates 1e.
The article will also need a very careful source review to ensure the sources are being used appropriately, without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues, like the ones that have already been pointed out.
Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I can't see any purpose being served by leaving this open; further work (by cooler heads) should be done away from the FAC process, and perhaps at some stage a new nomination can be opened. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 21 June 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/Peter_Dinklage/archive1&oldid=786853319"