Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uma Thurman/archive1

Uma Thurman[edit]

Self-nomination and support. I have been working on this article for the past month, and recently achieved Good Article status. I think that I have finally reached the point of adequately addressing the subject in more than enough detail.--Fallout boy 09:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Object. 1) This sentence needs reworded: "father Robert Thurman (b. 4 August 1941), a professor at Columbia University of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies of British ancestry". When I first read it, I thought her father taught British studies also. 2) The footnotes need to be numbered and put in a footnote section, separate from the un-footnoted refs. Rlevse 11:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Rlevse 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Fallout boy 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments– could you expand the lead section? It needs to give more context and "roadmapping". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead-in to include more about the roles and films she takes, if that helps.--Fallout boy 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ - why is footnote number one not the first one? (It's actually in a picture in the middle of the article). Also, the article needs some re-writing; I found it be dull and repetitive, especially the sentence patterns - almost all of it is in subject verb form. Scan down the article and read the first sentence of each paragraph and you'll see what I mean: most of them are "Thurman did..." Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a technical bug with the mediawiki software. All footnote and embedded HTML links on image captions are numbered first before the ones in the article text. That said, that caption seems more appropriate to include in the article text than there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reply! Would using <ref> (see m:Cite/Cite.php) or using {{ref num}} solve that problem? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what you're talking about. I see no footnotes in image captions.Rlevse 15:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That issue seems to be resolved (if you want to see what I'm talking about, check the history). However, I still object (see my objection above). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the image footnote to the body article. As for the sentence patterns, I can have those rewritten today.--Fallout boy 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, please let me know here when you're done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary is here (the same messge is on your talk page).--Fallout boy 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Object There is little in the article outside her career, as both the early and personal lives sections are quite thin (as is the hiatus section). It's a pretty darn good summary of her career as an actress, but I don't know if a beefed up IMDb page is enough to get featured. Staxringold 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more details about her life I could add to her early and personal life sections, such as some information about her body dysmorphic disorder. As for her personal life section, I wanted most of the article's focus to be on her career rather than personal life, to keep it more encyclopedic rather than a supermarket tabloid. Anyway, I added more of the major details about her non-acting life. --Fallout boy 05:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice! Thanks for doing that little fix-up, just that little bit more information really fills out the article. Staxringold 13:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a valid reason to object. Rlevse 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. It is actionable, and it would improve the article. Please use the best refrences format available. Featured articles are supposed to be our best work - our best work no longer uses the old ref-note format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I was typing up my response I realized I was spending more time arguing with you about why Cite.php is the best thing since sliced bread, so I just went ahead and slapped a major-edit tag on the article and started to fix it. BBL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if you take a look at it now, you'll see the refrences are currently wrong because there are two named "tbio," and as such, the linking is broken. Luckily, the Cite.php format dosen't have this problem.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired the only other issue with using the same footnote multiple times using the ref name tag. --Fallout boy 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good, meets all the criteria. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have a STRENUOUS objection. However, I am concerned that what we promote as FAs in the "current fame and celebrity" category (entertainers, pop music, and the like)—what we're tagging as "the best we have to offer"—is often quite pedestrian and press release-oriented. I believe it's good for WP to have "bios" on important people. But somehow, without SPECIFIC, ACTIONABLE OBJECTIONS, I still feel that FAs should celebrate more than a PR/press kit-based summary, which I think this one is... --Tsavage 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concerns, with a lot of celebrities and "flavor of the moment" entertainers (ie. Lindsay Lohan, Julia Stiles, etc.) getting FA status. As for a "press kit based summary," I wanted to write a verifiable review of her work, and I didn't include any praising statements unless they were said by a professional critic/review. I didn't want to make an article just praising her, and I included all of the valid criticisms and background information on her career I could find.--Fallout boy 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]