Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cillian Murphy/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cillian Murphy[edit]
Cillian Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Melty girl, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it no longer meets FA criteria 1(c) well-researched (Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate); and 2 (c) consistent citations.
The article passed for FA in 2007 when the FAC process was fairly lenient. After a thorough check, I found at least 12 dead links and numerous instances of low-quality sources, such as IMDB, Movieweb, Hotpress, LisaRichards.ie, cultureireland.ie, etc. Another editor has raised the concern in 2012, but apparently no work has been done to address the problem. Artoasis (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Melty girl is not an active editor, so she is unlikely to contribute. I've updated all but one of the dead links and replaced or linked to archived urls for others. I can't find anything for the one dead link as it is not archived and Scotland on Sunday has no archive or archived links, so that statement may need to go. I'm not sure if you realise that Hot Press is a very well respected long-time Irish entertainment, politics and music magazine with editorial oversight and Culture Ireland, cultureireland.ie. is the Irish state agency for culture that consists of an well-respected "Expert Advisory Committee". I regard both of these as WP:RS. I'm not sure about some of the others you mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've replaced all the dodgy refs - I disagree that LisaRichards is a poor source as it is Murphy's agent's webpage. She's not going to be getting any information wrong. The article still needs some work, but I think its FA status is salvageable...I'm hoping to get more done on it in the next week or two. --Loeba (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it badly needs updating and the sourcing overhauled to 2014 standards. I'll try to strengthen this next week. If you can hold off on delisting for a couple of weeks, between Loeba and myself we might be able to help retain it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. You guys almost restored my faith in the review process, :) Oftentimes nobody cares and nothing gets done, and I really hope you can work together to bring this article back to standard. FAs are supposed to be the best work of wikipedia, but alas, some of the old FAs can't even reach today's GA quality. As for LisaRichards.ie, if it's indeed his management's site, I guess it's OK if no better sources are available. Cheers. --Artoasis (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources at least are OK now I think. I've begun reinforcing the article with books and better newspaper sources and have begun adding more depth to it. Loeba and I can beef it up over the next few days but it's already much improved I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks so much better now , and it's already much more substantial than its original FA version. Well done! I gave it a quick read and fixed some minor issues. A couple of things I spotted so far:
- Lead: the last sentence "...is known for avoiding the celebrity circuit and remaining quiet about his personal life." Is there a reference to support it, that "he's known for..."? I saw similar expression in the "Personal life" section with no concrete reference. (see: WP:WEASEL)
- Lead shouldn't be sourced really. There is a citation in the personal life section, and probably several dozen possible sources which could be added to reinforce it. I don't think it's needed in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It really shouldn't be in the lead. As for the citation in the personal life section, I'm afraid it's a link to a talk show appearance, no? I think it would be nice if you could back it up with better secondary sources. --Artoasis (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead shouldn't be sourced really. There is a citation in the personal life section, and probably several dozen possible sources which could be added to reinforce it. I don't think it's needed in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Body: A couple of unreferenced parts:
- Murphy also had a role as a butcher in Girl with a Pearl Earring. He learned to chop meat in an abattoir to prepare for his role, even though he is a vegetarian.
- Quite right, I removed the chopping part as the earlier source was dodgy, added a citation for vegetarian.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Murphy also starred in Perrier's Bounty, a crime dramedy from the makers of Intermission, in which he portrayed a petty criminal on the run from a gangster played by Brendan Gleeson. Perrier's Bounty premiered at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival in September 2009, and had a limited release in 2010.
- Last sentence isn't necessary so I removed it and sourced the earlier sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and had a supporting role as Mike, the favourite teacher of the main character Skunk, in the British independent film Broken. His performance earned him a British Independent Film Award for Best Supporting Actor nomination.
- Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Murphy's upcoming projects include Aloft, in which he will star alongside Jennifer Connelly; he will be directed by Wally Pfister in the film Transcendence which will also star Johnny Depp and Rebecca Hall, having previously worked with Pfister, who was cinematographer on many Christopher Nolan films; --Artoasis (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All addressed. Many thanks for bringing this to review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment - are further improvements needed here, or do all agree this now adheres to the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the article has benefited greatly from the review process, thanks to the collaboration of Dr. Blofeld and Loeba. --Artoasis (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep @Nikkimaria: Yes, I think it's adequate now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice job folks. Looks good. ww2censor (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.