Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jake Gyllenhaal

Jake Gyllenhaal[edit]

This article failed its first nom for whatever reasons with 4-2 votes in support. Since then, several editors have been tinkering and improving it(quite drastically, really), and so I am renomming it now the article is once more stable.Dev920 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FAC:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jake Gyllenhaal/archive1

Support Per previous FAC

†he Bread 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is bad form. You can't just renominate something 3 days after it failed its first nom. Yes there were about 2 dozen edits in those intervening days, but it seems way too hasty to me. I supported this article the first time around, but I would prefer if you took a deep breath, withdrew the nomination, submitted it for peer review to get a wider assessment of opinions and renominated this thing in a month or so. Patience is a virtue.--DaveOinSF 17:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, the previous FAC had 4-2 votes in favour - and the remaining issues the other two had was the prose. The FAC, despite having consensus support, was failed by Raul (who still has not answered my request for explanation): in the intervening time this prose issue has now been dealt with by you and other editors. This article is a great article, it should have passed last time round, and opposing a deserving FAC on the grounds that it is too early seems unfair. There seems little point in delaying an FAC because it is customary, if the article requires no more work. WP:IAR and all that. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me put it another way. Please withdraw this nomination. I am asking you to. I and some others have been working on it a bit in the last few days and will continue to do so. I don't think I am yet comfortable in presenting it to the community. Please hold off.--DaveOinSF 19:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DaveOinSF. It was de-listed because Raul judged there to be significant unresolved objections. I agree, there are lots. And not only is relisting it so fast not appropriate, but this is not very close to FA quality. The overall quality of the sources is very poor. We need reliable sources, not gossip columns and blogs. Please go find better stuff. Specifically, the speculation in the last paragraph of his career section would have to be supported by particularly reliable sources, and those don't cut it. Same with the gossip column stuff about romantic links. Also agree the stuff on his sister should be removed, it has very little to do with him. Wtf cares if his sister is engaged to someone he acted with. It just doesn't meet the importance threshhold. - Taxman ^Talk 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fed up with this. I give up. Withdrawing FAC and leaving Wikipedia for time being. Dev920 (Tory?) 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not the intended effect. There is a lot of good work there, it's just not at FA level yet, something reserved for the best articles on Wikipedia. I apologize if I was harsh and if you'd like any help determining if it's ready to pass FAC, let me know. - Taxman ^Talk 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Wikipedia has integrated itself into my life and I can't get away. Bugger. But I am tired of having to constantly deal with criticism from people who think they can be as harsh and as dismissive as they like as long as they don't swear or ad hominem. I'm going to find a less populated corner of the wiki to edit. Let me know when it's FA standard and I'll nom for the third bloody time, even though it should have passed the first. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're missing is when pointing out what an article needs to improve we are working to help improve the quality of the articles on the project too. We're not attacking you, just noting what the article needs. If I didn't point out the deficiencies in the article then you'd never know what standards are expected. I know you think it should have passed before, but it's not ready now and wasn't then. It's your baby, so I understand you think favorably of it. Again, sorry my approach rubbed you the wrong way. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your userpage, people are not pointing out the deficiencies of the article, they tend to use "this is not very/even close to FA quality." without ever explaining why. Clearly, given there were four supports last nomination, others disagree. There seem to be a large faction of editors who hang around on WP:FA and slam articles because they "want to maintain standards" but their standards are far in excess of what WP:FAC actually says. Yes, this article used to be my "baby", but given the way others have now edited it (and I would like to point out that almost every editor's contribution since my original nomination has now been reverted by other editor, with the exception of some section headers) it's not anymore - in any case, I wasn't defending it because I wrote it, I was defending it because it's a damn good article and no-one who has slammed it or announced it is nowhere FA standard has actually been able to say what it wrong with it, and it seems people would rather assume bad faith than reconsider what they are saying. Go on. Prove me wrong. Edit it to the standard that you think is FA, and I will bow to the clear superiority of the FA hangers-on from now on.Dev920 (Tory?) 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that wasn't what I meant to say. What I wanted to point out was that no-one has voted oppose to this nomination, and DaveOinSF stopped editing the article on the 29th September, so I assume he has finished whatever he was planning. If nothing but support doesn't constitute consensus, I don't know what is. Dev920 (Tory?) 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous FAC.--Francesco Franco 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meets the FA criteria, has a good flow, lots of references, no spelling errors, etc. — Wackymacs 08:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]