Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philip Seymour Hoffman/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Philip Seymour Hoffman

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld and Loeba (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the most widely respected and admired actors of his generation. In an industry obsessed with looks, he made his way to the top on pure acting merit alone, usually playing losers or contemptible people, roles which mostly received considerable critical attention for their believability and graphic portrayal. Sadly, like many creative people, he was a drug user, and died in February this year from an overdose. Loeba and myself have researched this article to the best of our ability and we believe it is a sound insight into the nature of his performances and career. I think I've seen all but a couple of his early 90s films, Loeba I believe has seen something similar, so we have a particularly good understanding. Bear in mind that unlike "Hollywood superstars" like Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks, Hoffman had a lower profile throughout most of his career and is not an actor who to date has a tremendous amount of biographical information written about him, no biographies or detailed book coverage to date that we can see anyway so I think we've managed to scrape together something particularly comprehensive at the moment. We'd very much like to see this promoted and to appear as TFA on the first anniversary of his death on February 2. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Support – At Loeba's request I gave this article an informal peer review on the talk page, given the tight timetable if the nominators' ambition for 2 Feb front page appearance is to be achieved. I had few quibbles then, and they were minor and were thoroughly dealt with. The article seems to me to be comprehensive and balanced; it is widely sourced and referenced, and is a good read. I believe it meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its promotion. – Tim riley talk 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Tim for making the effort to look at this at Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate the help and support Tim --Loeba (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]
Resolved comments

This will be drip fed I'm afraid for obvious reasons. Making a start now having had a good read through earlier.

Thanks for doing this Cass - lots of useful comments already and I look forward to more. --Loeba (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I'm really enjoying this! CassiantoTalk 13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The character was considered one of the most unpleasant of his career..." -- Who considered this?
  • "Mike Nichols's political film Charlie Wilson's War (2007) gave Hoffman his second Academy Award nomination, again for playing a real individual – Gust Avrakotos, the CIA agent who conspired with Congressman Wilson (played by Tom Hanks) to aid Afghani rebels in their fight against the Soviet Union." -- Too long to read comfortably. Do we really need to mention Hanks or his character?
  • I would consider "sexually abusing" an OVERLINK.
  • "Later in the year, Hoffman played a brash American DJ.." -- pronoun needed.
  • "Hoffman's profile continued to grow with the new decade, and he became a well-known public figure." -- presumably he was already well-known by this point? Are we saying that he became well-known away from the screen in other guises?
    • Before this it would only really be film fans who knew him, but he becomes more well known to the general public by around 2010. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but I think we should mention that it was "because of his films, his profile rose" in that case. People can be known away from films for many reasons; personal life, media life, charity work, scandal, are just a few. CassiantoTalk 13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked at the source, and all it says is "In recent years, he'd become a more recognizable face -- and persona" (and I've reworded slightly to reflect this). But I think that we can't mention why he became better known if it isn't in the source... --Loeba (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film critic Mark Kermode..." -- A slip into BrEng here with the definite article. I'm not sure of the differences, so just asking.
  • Just looking at Ssilvers's comment below, I think it would be good idea to add a negative review for Death of a Salesman here.
  • "In January 2014, shortly before his death, Hoffman attended the Sundance Film Festival..." -- Pronoun
  • I feel we should move the "death" section to before the "Reception and acting style" section. As a reader, we are given the hint that he died in the later years section, but don't find out the details until two sections time. This causes one to flick down to the death section to find out what happened, thus causing an interruption in the reading flow.
    • That's fine by me, although I really dislike having "personal life" after death so I've kept that above it. It now goes "Final years", Personal life", "Death", "Reputation". --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it happens, and I'm sure you and I have spoken about this before, I dislike "personal life" sections and would rather things run chronologically. But I appreciate that we are all different in our preferences. I do, however, agree that personal life should come before death. CassiantoTalk 13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although friends stated that Hoffman's drug use was under control at the time, on February 2, 2014, Hoffman was found dead in the bathroom" -- The second Hoffman is not needed.
    • Done
  • "Hoffman's funeral..." -- or here.
    • Done
  • "Hoffman was held in high regard within the film and theater industry, cited in the media as one of the finest actors of his generation." -- why am I wanting to say "...and was cited in the media as one of the finest actors of his generation."?
    • Done
  • "Despite this status among his peers and critics, Hoffman was never one of the most popular film stars," -- pronoun
    • Done

Support – My time here is complete. Congratulations on a great article here. I would suggest that you quickly go through and swap some "Hoffman"'s with the pronoun alternatives; there did seem to be quite a lot. He was, it appears, not everybody's cup of tea, and I'm sure as the years emerge, others will come out and say so. I think the lack of negative praise is a direct ramification of someone who has only recently died. In my view, obituaries are a bit biased and are crammed full of praise, to the extent that they sound almost sycophantic at times. I think, as the years roll on, others will come out and say "do you know what, I didn't rate him at all", and only then can we tip the scales on the other side and make it a bit more neutral. I think though, under the circumstances, this is as neutral as your going to get. CassiantoTalk 12:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! For such a close review and for giving your support. You may be right that in time negative comments will arise, although, as Blofeld says, even when PSH was alive reviews of his work were extremely positive (other than some of his stage work, which has been added to the article). So I don't personally think the obituaries were overreacting in their enthusiasm. Ultimately, the article is an accurate reflection of third-party sources and I appreciate you recognising that. But yes, if a "backlash" does begin, we'll include that as and when it happens. Thanks again --Loeba (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed Cassianto, many thanks for your time and effort and understanding the neutrality issue!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carioca

[edit]
Thankyou Carioca, yes I think I pretty much ransacked Highbeam and google books!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]
Resolved comments

I've made a couple of minor tweaks (ellipses, curly quotes, cpas, correction to a name, etc). Aside from that, a few very minor points to consider:

  • You have The New York Times but the Washington Post (in Final years)
  • "one of the finest actors of his generation.[1][128][129]" It may be worth cite bundling these three
  • "and even sympathetic;[1][14][19]" Ditto
  • It's worth checking the dates in the refs: 149 is in an inconsistent format
  • Lambert, Maier and Punzi are listed in sources but don't appear to be in use

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following was accidentally removed earlier with an edit conflict:
  • I agree with Cassianto about the structure: moving acting style etc below the death/private life would make more sense – deal with the man's life and death, and then have the sections that are more about the review of his life.
I'll only add that one possible solution can be seen at John Le Mesurier. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A nice plug! ;) CassiantoTalk 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now Cassianto has wrapped up his say, a second, cloer look from me:

  • His DoB is mentioned twice: lead and IB, and isn't supported by any sources I can see
Well spotted! I've actually added it and sourced it in the body now if this is OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the GA reviewed version, and the birthdate was originally there in the early life section (supported by the subsequent source). I knew I surely wouldn't have missed something so important when I wrote that part! It must have been removed in the 9-month interim and neither of us noticed the absence. Since it's covered by the obituary source, Blo, I'm going to remove the other one. --Loeba (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "In 2010, Hoffman directed the feature film Jack Goes Boating." -> "In 2010, he directed..."
Changed.

A rising actor

  • "For a month at the end of April to the end of May 1996": I'm sure this could be phrased slightly better
Rephrased.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "a Mark-Wing Davey production"? As there is no link, it raises the question of its notability, and I think we can safely lose it.
Oh he's notable alright, linked it.
  • I'd link Rolling Stone: I know you have it in a footnote, but it doesn't register there.
Done.
  • "Although it was only a small role, Hoffman claimed it was one that he was most recognized for, in a film that has achieved cult status and, writes Andy Greene, a "huge fanbase"." This could be much better, as it moves from him, to the film and then awkwardly back to him.
I actually removed that one but Loeba thought it important to mention cult status, I'll let her respond to that one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried "Hoffman claimed it was one that he was most recognized for, as the film achieved cult status and a large circle of fans." Hmm, does that sound weird? --Loeba (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to drop the fanbase part of the comment, as it's implicit in there anyway: "Although it was only a small role, Hoffman claimed it was one that he was most recognized for, in a film that has achieved cult status."? Just a thought - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. --Loeba (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film, set over one day in Los Angeles, featured Hoffman": the film still exists, so it features (best to check for other tenses around the films too, as I noticed it elsewhere)
Indeed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The films still exist, but I thought for actors we generally always use past tense? I'm sure all my previous actor articles, including the 3 FAs, do. It's because we're telling the story of their life/career, discussing things they already did (Hoffman is still "there" in the film, but in the context of his life story it makes sense to say "He appeared..." rather than "He appears..." --Loeba (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends who is the subject of the sentence. Hoffman featured in the film, but the film features Hoffman. - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, fair point. --Loeba (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical success and leading roles (2000–04)

  • We open this section about 2000 onwards with PSH in 2000, poised on the cusp, then drop back to 1999, which jars a little
I see what you mean but I'm not sure, we do begin it as "Following a string of roles in successful films in the late 1990s," One way to deal with might be to actually keep his film and stage career separate, something I've been pondering on the last day or two. I'm not sure though if we have strong enough material to keep it separate otherwise I'd probably have changed it earlier. With the new material we've added on stage work of late though and the fact that in some places it does seem to interfere with discussion of his film work the more I think about it I'm leaning on keeping his stage work separate. Loeba, what do you think? I think it might read clearer and easier to digest if we did that actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know it's a wee bit awkward, which is why I tweaked the wording to "Hoffman had begun to be recognized in 1999", you know, to make clear that we're going to jump back for a second. And then we quickly get back to 2000, so I was hoping it was okay? I do think it works quite well to have a paragraph specifically for his theatre work...if it's really awkward we could change everything to chronological, but I don't think I'd prefer having a completely separate theatre section... --Loeba (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't go for a separate theatre section - that would lose all sense of his professonal development. If you've thought it through and think this is te best way of putting it, then that's OK with me. - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical acclaim

  • "The year 2008 gave Hoffman two important roles": The year gave him nothing – it's an abstract measurement of time. Casting agents, directors, studios give roles, not years.
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final years

  • Shouldn't "tenth highest" carry a hyphen?
Yup!
  • The flow towards death is a little bumpy here. We talk about his death during the filming of Hunger Games, what happens after his death for the film, then move onto his private life, then go into his death in more detail, and it doesn't feel right.
I'm not sure how we'd deal with that. We can't really discuss his death and personal life and then go back to film career underneath. The bottom paragraph could be moved to the death section but I think it belongs in career.
Agreed, I don't really think there's any way of avoiding it. We need to mention that roles came out after he died in the career bit, but we really couldn't put "Personal life" after "Death" (and the end of that section flows into death, anyway). I don't think putting the personal life stuff in with career is a good idea because they don't overlap at all, there's very little information anyway, and it would make it difficult for readers who literally just want to come to the page to find out if he was married and had kids (for instance). So I think this is the way it has to be. --Loeba (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Schro, some great points there!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reading through and commenting, good points indeed (even if there's a couple I don't think we can do much about!) --Loeba (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat, your comments and support as always are much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note of caution

[edit]
Large discussion about neutrality; Ssilvers decides neither to support or oppose

Comment: Since this article is at FAC, I must inject a note of caution here. Hoffman was an effective character actor in mostly artsy films, but this article does not appear to me to be neutral. In the rush to prepare this article for FAC so soon after the actor's rather sudden death, it seems to me to suffer from WP:RECENTISM and hero worship of a recently dead person. It seems to cherry pick quotes, like the opening one from the NY Times, and uses a number of Peacock words, like the multiple repetitions of "acclaim". Hoffman does not show up in most lists of "greatest actors", such as this. Look at the list of actors I mentioned, just off the top of my head, in the comment that I inserted in the article: Hanks, Denzel Washington, Penn, McConaughey, Crowe, Day-Lewis, Cruise, Gyllenhaal, Clooney, Downey, Jr., Bardem, and many more. It is important, for balance, to include discussion of negative criticism that Hoffman received for his weaker efforts, like in Along Came Polly, Patch Adams and Twister. Lots of critics did not like him in The Master and on Broadway in Death of a Salesman. Many critics thought his Capote was overrated. There is also quite a lot of quoting of Hoffman about his own acting, which might be considered self-serving; please consider how much of this is appropriate ("It's ok that the studios don't get me; my work is really too good to interest them... I like to play the really challenging roles...."). I really think the research should be revisited on this point and is worth checking before this article rides into FA. I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be better to wait until a good biographical book about the actor is published to see if it offers more long-term, sober perspective that is somewhat breathlessly missed by the obits and post-death assessments. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect Ssilvers, there was hardly a "big rush" to get this to FA, I could have nominated this nine months ago. One of the things though was that a lot of material was written about him at the time of his death, and it was then that some of the more gushing tributes came out to him. But he'd really long been a highly acclaimed actor and absolutely seen as one of the best by his colleagues and you'll find reviews dated back to the late 90s which indicate it. He had a lower profile and was more "artsy" as you say rather than a big movie star. Perhaps some of the praise could be toned down a little, but to call it cherry picking is unfair. I viewed all the reviews and material I could find for every film and that was what I came up with. In no way shape or form have either of us purposefully ignored negative material about him to "promote" him, we've relayed exactly what has been said. Show me the negative reviews for his performances and films from reliable sources and we'll consider them, it's possible we missed some. A few of his films were not well received but genuinely I don't think I've really found a solid review attacking his actual acting work in film aside from one or two I think who found him loathsome or vulgar in films like Happiness or Twister. I think you have a point about too many uses of the word "acclaim" though (even if true) which might be addressed somehow, and of course more biographical material would benefit it, but who is to know when a biography might be published? I don't see it as a real obstacle, at a later date should one be published, great, it can be used to further improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting, I appreciate that you just want the article to be neutral. Here's my take: It does give him a lot of praise, but it honestly reflects what's in the sources. We don't say "He was the best actor of the era" or anything, we say he was "one of the greatest of his generation" - that is absolutely, 100% true and was said over and over again after he died. Even when alive, he was just as praised as most of the actors you mention, and more so than many of them. Have you found a reputable "best actors of the 2000s" list that doesn't include Hoffman? I'd be absolutely amazed if that existed. I can't really find any lists from a decent publication, but the closest I found was one I can't hyperlink as its blacklisted, but search for "examiner best actors of the decade" and PSH is there at #7. Popularity - sure, he was never a major box office draw, but the article doesn't claim that either. He did have critically berated films, like those you mention, and the article says they weren't popular. But I've never seen a review that criticises him in the films. The Master - again, some critics didn't like the film but is there really a reputable critic that didn't like him? And even if there is, I don't see why we'd need to mention that when his performance was by-and-large highly acclaimed (same goes for Capote). The article does say that some critics didn't like him in Death of a Salesman, but sure - we could add a negative review for that as I agree that it was a more divisive performance. As for the quotes from Hoffman himself: I always think it's nice to have quotes directly from the individual, and I really didn't interpret the ones that you reword in that way..? One shows that he accepted that he often appeared in the sorts of film/roles that the Academy doesn't tend to like, the other just explains why he played unlikeable characters (and it's very useful for us to give his perspective there, since it defined his career so much). They don't "big him up" or anything. As for using "acclaim" too much, I mentioned earlier than I changed many of these.
So I maintain that the article is appropriately neutral and reflects third party sources. I'd be interested to hear what others think. --Loeba (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, I don't think this edit to your comment above was very fair, as it makes my comments about him being one of the best of this generation irrelevant. Whereas that's all the article claims anyway. It doesn't matter if he's not on any "greatest of all time" lists, because we don't suggest he has that status at this point (although I strongly expect that future lists will begin including him). I know you think the NYT quote at the start is OTT, since it does proclaim him at "perhaps the best of his generation", but the fact is that the NYT did publish that. It is definitely significant that one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world felt compelled to describe him in that way. You could say that they were overreacting in the wake of his death, but they didn't make any drastic claims about Robin Williams. It was a sincere and legitimate point on their half, and it is fair to include it in the article.
By the way, look at this review from 2012, while Hoffman was still alive, where the respected (and pretty picky) theatre critic Ben Brantley said "That Mr. Hoffman is one of the finest actors of his generation is beyond dispute." --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one also comes from 2012: "One of the finest actors of his generation, Hoffman is..." Regarding finding some negative reviews for his film roles, it really is very difficult and would represent a minority view, giving undue WP:WEIGHT. Just ask Peter Bradshaw: "Almost every single one of his credits had something special about it" ([2]). I have, however, now added a negative review for Death of a Salesman. --Loeba (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Loeba and Dr. B for your further research. I withdraw the "cherry picking" comment above, and I most appreciate your willingness to revisit the reviews. Very happy seasons greetings to both of you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving another read through now and trying to reword in parts to ensure that neutrality isn't compromised, but can't really see anything tremendously wrong with it. If Ssilvers you could find some solid negative reviews on his performances I agree they'd be good to add, but genuinely I couldn't find any attacking his work as a film actor. I will go through the rotten tomatoes lists and try to see if I missed something, but I do think for the widely acclaimed films to add negative reviews for the sake of it will affect the general outlook. Even for his stage work, critics like Brantley who may occasionally give a poor review of a play will say "one of the greatest actors of his generation" even if saying he was uncomfortably cast. It's difficult to be critical when they're saying things like that. So I'd argue in a lot of places to include negative reviews when the vast majority are positive would seem more like conscious picking and not reflective of the general outlook. We don't want it to read like a puff piece, but we also don't want to evade the truth and hide things. On some of the lesser films though I think you can get away without saying anything on the reception.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody find any negative reviews of his actual roles in films like Along Came Polly and Twister? I believe I've read one or two which thought his character repellant or obnoxious for a few films like Happiness and Talented Mr. Ripley, but little else. Along Came Polly was certainly panned, but I've not yet seen anything directed at Hoffman as being a really poor film performance. For some of them I'm not really sure it is worth adding quotes, even if you could find them, especially where he had minor roles. Most film reviews tend to sidestep criticising him directly, even if they thought the films were terrible. I found a quote on Synecdoche even though many of the reviews were very positive of his performance. I don't think we can afford to do that on many of his films where it really wasn't the majority consensus. newspapers.com might turn up something critical on his stage work though which me missed, I'll try to look tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could find very few decent sources in Newspapers.com, it has an awful search engine! Trying to find negative comments on Hoffman from reviews like this, and even if they don't rate the films they call Hoffman's acting "impeccable". Believe me, it is extremely difficult to find negativity about his acting!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've probably done enough now anyway; I hope Ssilvers and the delegates will check the article history to see the changes. --Loeba (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the nominators for considering my comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers I've restructured the reception too to make it crystal clear that he was never one of the most popular "movie stars" and put it in context. I think the lede quote is fine now. The most admired or ambitious doesn't mean "greatest movie star of his generation". I could add some more negative reviews on his actual films like Boat That Rocked and Along Came Polly, but I can't find anything solid directed at Hoffman himself so I'm not sure it's worth it. I will continue to go through the rotten tomatoes reviews though and see if I might find something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and much appreciated. A few more specific comments on the Lead section:

  • "prolific" in first paragraph. He made 58 films and appeared in, or was somehow involved with, 23 theatrical productions listed on this page. Only 9 theatre roles are listed. This is not "prolific" for theatre appearances at least (as I note below, this list should show the name of the theatre/city in which he appeared in these theatre pieces). This article calls 120 films "prolific". Instead of starting out with an arguably puffy/controversial statement (and awkward usage of the word prolific), why not say something like: "He appeared in more than 50 films and also appeared in and directed theater productions...."
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I agree, actually I was only thinking that last night when viewing his Off-Broadway credit, I'd thought it much much higher. I don't think it was more than 50 films though, I'd thought it somewhere in 35-40 range, over 35 films I think would be OK. Imdb fails to list some of his very earliest ones I believe. I've reworded it as "He appeared in more than 30 films and was involved with theater productions, both as an actor and director, until his death at the age of 46, after which The New York Times declared him "perhaps the most ambitious and widely admired American actor of his generation"." I didn't want to repeat "appeared" twice in the same sentence, it might be reworded differently somehow. Didn't he also produce plays? Involved with as an actor, director and producer might be a good thing to say.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list shows 58 films. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right! Crikey, I've seen a lot of films :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph notes that he usually played smaller roles throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, but it should point out that he also played a few leading roles (like in Flawless and Love Liza). By the way, further down it says that Love Liza was his first starring role, but Flawless was a leading role.
  • In the last paragraph of the Lead, it says that he performed in and directed "numerous stage productions" at LAByrinth. Instead of "numerous", can you say how many? It looks like he did as many for the Public Theatre as for LAByrinth, and perhaps this should be noted. Also, I clarified that LAByrinth is in New York (as opposed to LA, where his film career was based, or any other place). Indeed, his stage career seems to have been largely (entirely?) in NYC, but this list does not have a column for the name of the theatre/city where these productions were mounted (or a footnote about it).
  • Throughout the article it keeps saying that he "received nominations" for this or that award. You "receive an award" if you win, but you are merely "nominated for an award" if you do not win. It is much clearer to say, with respect to nominations, that he was "nominated for the x award for his 2004 performance in the role of...."

I note that Tim riley asked me to look at this article, and I would not have commented otherwise. I tried to read the article to support the nomination, and I feel rather badly about this, but I am unable to do so. Here is just one example of how the writing makes me uneasy:

The experience of seeing him show up in various films was likened by David Kamp of GQ to "discovering a prize in a box of cereal, receiving a bonus, or bumping unexpectedly into an old friend".

Here is a colloquial expression "show up in various films", and then the quote uses a singular metaphor "A box of cereal". "show up" bothers me, as well as the disagreement between the plural "various" and the singular "a box". I really would like to support, and I admire how much work you have put into this, but I am afraid that I don't feel comfortable with the prose (though you have much improved the balance). Perhaps it is my own bias, as I generally did not really enjoy Hoffman's performances. I do not want to oppose, and if others are satisfied with the prose, I hope that it passes. So, I think it is best if I just leave you these comments and dewatch this page, if that is ok with you. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Honestly, your comments are most valuable and welcome, but we'd prefer it if you didn't imply we'd intentionally made it a puff piece as we know the score. Genuinely, we tried to follow what the general media consensus was over his actual performances. If you are concerned with the prose, I want it improved to a standard you're also happy with as I value your input as a reviewer. Your involvement with the John Barrymore article I think showed that. I wouldn't be content with this passing and a reviewer/editor as competent as yourself thinking the article is shoddy and a puff piece. That you weren't impressed by Hoffman and are surprised at the article I think is valuable in some respects as you might represent the average viewer who is not all that familiar with Hoffman. I would like to see your suggestions for improvement by paragraph, even if we might not always agree. But I do think there's only so far we can go with trying to neutralise it without affecting accuracy in terms of reception and I think the more you look into sources for this you'll realise how difficult it is to really assume a critical stance. If you're certain that it can't reach a standard (without a biography) which you'd be willing to support then fair enough, but I do want you to know that neither I nor Loeba are editors who are just out for "trophies", we really do want articles we're involved with writing to be approved of by decent people and anybody good enough to spend the time reviewing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not mean to imply that, and I am sad that you read my comments that way. To be clear, I am certain that any language that looks like puffery to me is inadvertent. I also do not at all think there is anything shoddy about the prose; I think this is a very serious FAC nomination. As I said above, I think you have largely addressed my concerns about balance. If you really want to address my prose issues (but I only if you *really* do; I don't really have any interest in this article), and you are very patient, I can try to do a section-by-section copy edit of the article (feel free to revert my changes), but I can't promise a timetable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already I think you've made a number of good points for the lede alone, especially over the prolific issue and the nature of his theatre work which was certainly not all for Lab as implied. I think you could definitely be of much benefit to this article. I'd be happy to see what you have to say, provided that there is a hope of you changing your mind and feeling more confident with it, Loeba, what about you? My main goal is to make it the best possible article we can, given the sources we have right now. I don't agree that we've cherry picked reviews, there's lot of them for most of his films like that, but I think you might have a point on the approach to some of the films and coverage in parts. A lot of material did come originally from quotes and in some places some readers such as yourself might still think it is jarring and affects readability or neutrality. I did spot a few which I thought a bit superfluous when checking through for neutrality. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points Blofeld, but I was already really pleased with the article so my main goal was just to get this on the main page on Feb 2 - a tribute to an actor who has given me so much delight over the years. That's the reason I wanted to put it through FAC, I wouldn't have felt any need to otherwise. So for me, anything that could take time and hold up that goal is risky. We still haven't had declarations from Cassianto or SchroCat - there's a chance they think the article is supportable as it is. If so, we won't need Silvers to go through it (no pressure on either of you two though - don't worry, you can be honest).
As for the "prolific" point, I definitely think 54 films in 22 years and 22 plays in 16 years constitutes prolific. I also don't see it in anyway as a "puffy" statement: in fact being prolific is sometimes considered tacky - I've definitely seen it used in a derogatory way against e.g. Woody Allen, Jess Franco...I don't think the current version is an improvement, as we have "actor, director and producer" repeated very close together. --Loeba (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Love Liza is generally considered his first leading role as it was the first time he was sole lead, the driving force of the film. In Flawless he was, at best, joint-lead (although I De Niro is the more obvious lead IMO). --Loeba (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue with this in the next couple of days. Based on what I have read so far, I will indicate a support vote based on the resolved points thus far. However, I will update this when I finish. CassiantoTalk 00:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what Loeba says above, I will not bother to copy edit the article, as I don't want to intrude further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

[edit]

Support: An excellent, well-sourced, and well-written article on a great actor. Having conducted its GA-review a few months back, I'm happy to see this at the FAC and am happy to support it with no added concerns. Also, I don't see any problems with neutrality with the article, especially since Hoffman was such a universally adored actor. Negative reviews on his acting prowess no doubt represent the minority view and shouldn't be picked up for representation. Great job guys! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Krimuk!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And from me, much appreciated --Loeba (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
I know some people can be really uptight on fairuse images in film articles, let alone biographies on wikipedia, but I think we agreed it was very valuable to at least have one image representing him as an actor, and one in a particularly "delicate" role opposite somebody as big as De Niro I thought about as definitive as you could get, perhaps aside from him masturbating in Happiness! Perhaps one of these days wikipedia can make some agreements with film companies to use images, after all, I can't see such images in wikipedia articles as seriously damaging to them, if anything it will raise reader interest and make them want to buy the DVD. The problems might arise from the fact that wikipedia can be used by others for commercial gain though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"perhaps aside from him masturbating in Happiness!" - Hahahahahaha, oh man, imagine! --Loeba (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you imagine :-)!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, would you perhaps be able to do a source review for this FAC? I wouldn't normally be "pushy" about it, heh, but we are eager to get this scheduled to appear as TFA on February 2, which would mean getting it to TFAR pretty soon. I went through all the sources very closely, so hopefully you won't find much! No worries if you'd rather not, I can try asking someone else. --Loeba (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sock

[edit]

Support: Dr. Blofeld, Loeba, I can not give the two of you enough kudos. This article is fantastic. The research put into it shows, and the sources are great. The prose is excellent with few exceptions (which I will address), and despite some itchy necks involving neutrality, I don't see much of an issue. If nothing negative is written on Hoffman (which appears to be the case), how can you source anything negative? I'm sure when a biography about him is released, this article will grow and improve even more than it has since the GA review in March.

Resolved comments from Sock (tock talk) 12:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for my few netpicks (I made a few small changes as I spotted little things, such as fixing "directed directed the feature film Jack Goes Boating):
Lead
  • It's stated that he gained recognition for playing "losers and degenerates". Isn't loser a big slangish? Not essential to fix, but I'm not sure it's exactly correct either.
I don't think so. Dozens of reputable publications refer to his characters as just that, in fact many use far stronger language to describe them, see the quote in the reception.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, ignore this one. Sock (tock talk) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoffman won multiple acting awards including the Academy Award for Best Actor. His profile continued to grow, and he received three more Oscar nominations for his supporting..." Wording needs to be consistent. Those unfamiliar with the Academy Awards will not necessarily know that the Oscars are the same thing.
I respectfully disagree, it's very widely known, and it would get repetitive saying Academy Awards again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would, but you say "Golden Globe" and "BAFTA" every time. People familiar with film will certainly know what an Oscar is, but those unfamiliar may not, especially those outside of the U.S. It won't make me deny supporting the article, but I'm gonna have to counter-argue on this one. I really think that repetition would be better than potential confusion in this case. The complete lack of indication that they're the same award is where my concern enters. Sock (tock talk) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point Sock, but it in all my time writing and reviewing actor articles, I don't think I've ever seen the use of "Oscar" flagged-up as an issue. I think "Oscar" is a term that's used widely enough, in fact probably even more so than "Academy Award". --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica uses both♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you both seem to support it, let's chalk it up to personal preference. I'm happy to drop the stick on this one :) Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
Early career
A rising actor
"Cocksure" fits the character he played perfectly. Look it up in the dictionary.. This describes the character as a "cocksure greaseball" which is about as close a description as you can get I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cocksure and arrogant are practically synonyms, my main argument is that the definition of this word is not common knowledge as it's seldom used. I can drop this one too. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not common knowledge?? Cocky or cocksure is a widely used term, 136,000 hits in google books alone with many books using it in the title! If it's not familiar to somebody then they need to broaden their vocabulary :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, compare those numbers to "arrogant", with 3,020,000 results on Google Books and an additional 37 million on regular searching. It's not uncommon knowledge, but arrogant serves the exact same purpose and has much wider usage, in my opinion. I'm not going to fight this further as I'm not that adamant that it be changed, but it seems that "arrogant" should do the job fine. Sock (tock talk) 15:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theatrical success and leading roles
  • I don't think that "(despite joking at the time "Even if I was hired into a leading-man part, I'd probably turn it into the non-leading-man part")" is relevant enough to include, as fun as it may be.
    • Do you not think it's quite insightful into how he approached roles? --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's in the presentation, because it came off more as a fun fact than as insight to me, and it still does when I read it now. I can see what you mean, but I don't know that the current wording conveys what it's trying to. I also don't really have any suggestions for improvement, so if we can't come up with anything, don't sweat it. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but few witnessed this" smells like original research. Despite low box office numbers, it's impossible to know how many people have seen the film (for example, I have). If this is sourced wording, I'd quote it.
    • It's definitely just paraphrased from the content in the source and not original research. I don't think we need to quote someone saying that the film didn't get a big audience (which is all we're talking about - the initial release). --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a case where the numbers can speak for themselves: clearly $210k isn't a big haul, and it received a limited release. This might also be personal preference. I think many of my criticisms are that I work on film articles where it's pretty much all facts, and I tend to stay away from biographies. It still comes across as unnecessary to me, but I'm willing to let this one go too. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a very different film", same problem as above. I sincerely think that you should consider writing a biography on Hoffman, because you have the style of one down pat, but it creates a few problems in terms of the verifiability of the language for Wikipedia, at least in my opinion.
    • Ha, thanks...ummmm I don't know, I think there is a different between "original research" and "common sense observations", which I think this falls under. And we can try and make our writing a bit interesting, can't we? Lots of the best "person" articles that come here, such as those by Brianboulton, have a touch of "biography style" writing just because it makes it more engaging. --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "single-largest fraud" is over-emphasis, "largest" does the job.
  • "arguably due to its unpleasant nature", see the OR concerns. If this is sourced wording, quoting would be a better idea. This just sounds like opinion.
The source says because of its unpleasant nature, but I think it clear that there would be a range of reasons, that was why arguably was added as it's just the opinion of the author. Might be best to remove it altogether as I'm not sure I fully agree with it! The film wasn't really that unpleasant, just about a gambler really.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say removal is probably the best idea.
Now cut --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical acclaim
  • "Oscar" again. I'd suggest sticking with Academy Award throughout.
I don't, I think it breaks the repetition.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to this above. There's no problem with repeating Golden Globe or BAFTA, so why is it an issue to repeat Academy Award? Sock (tock talk) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Golden Globe and BAFTA aren't commonly known by other names. You might want to read this article on Anthony Hopkins on Britannica "pathetic misfits" and duel uses of Academy Award and Oscar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't really understand the point of alternating over consistency, but as I said above, I'm fine with letting this go. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that many reputable publications such as The Guardian and top critics commonly refer to them as "Oscar bait", it's become a widely used term for a film seemingly made with the sole purpose of garnering Oscar wins and nominations. In fact before long I wouldn't be surprised if one film scholar authored a book on something like "Oscar baiting". What would you suggest instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point with your last sentence, in that I don't really know what you could say instead. It's still a term pretty exclusive to those familiar with film and film awards, but I have no idea how else you could word it. I suppose I'll drop this one. Sock (tock talk) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final years
Personal life
  • This part mentions that he worked on In Arabia We'd All Be Kings, but this doesn't appear anywhere in the Career section. How significant was his work on it?
  • Some inconsistency with the lead. Lead says he relapsed in 2012, but this section says he started doing heroin in 2013. It also says he was sober for 23 years, which adds up to 2012 from 1989 if my math is right. Long story short: I'm confused.
    • I think it was exactly in the period between you writing this review and posting it that I fixed the lead to 2013. The problem arose from the fact that the article used to say he began drinking again in 2012 at The Master's wrap party. It was removed because this wasn't mentioned in the source; I then researched this and found that it was originally reported by TMZ, and could easily be rubbish. But it took me a few days to notice the disparity in the lead. Anyway, the "23 years" figure comes from the Independent source, which would mean he went sober in 1990 and that makes sense. --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Work ethic
  • "low-brow studio films" comes across very snobby.
    • Maybe, but it's also just a fact and the way these films are seen...it's not necessarily derogatory either: it just means they're films you watch for enjoyment, not intellectual stimulation. If anyone else reading this has an opinion, please share, as it's a tricky one. --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would be a place where a brief quotation from him (for instance: if he actually said low-brow, put quotes around "low-brow") could clarify any objectivity issues. I know that tons of people take offense when films they like are called "low-brow", and it's constantly used as a criticism by film critics. The negative connotation of the term, at least in paraphrase form, outweighs the encyclopedic value of it in my opinion. Something alternate like "took roles he was not passionate about" or something would be better than the verbal scoff. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But in a 2012 interview he confessed that this was not easy: "It's hard. The job isn't difficult. Doing it well is difficult"." is pretty sloppy wording, and doesn't need the quote. I'm not even certain this needs to be here, but if it does, it needs to be integrated much better.

I'm sure all of these issues will be addressed promptly, given the behaviour I've seen throught this FAC, so I have no issue maintaining my support before my issues are addressed. Despite my extensive nitpicks (apologies for the sarcasm in some of them, I can't do these reviews too straight-faced), this article is looking absolutely fantastic. Sock (tock talk) 19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review and kind comments Sock! Yes, I think if you're very familiar with his career you can see that we understand him and it does him justice I think. Will address you points tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc! I replied to some of your comments above, hopefully I've explained myself a little better. Sock (tock talk) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You comments made me very happy, thanks Sock! You're very kind. Thanks so much for taking the time to read through and review. --Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I do my best, Loeba! Happy to help review. I don't usually do a whole lot at FAC, but Hoffman is one of my favourite actors of all time, and seeing an article done this well deserved as much support as it can get. Hopefully my replies to your comments help clarify my points a bit, and you may have even convinced me to drop a few of them :) Happy New Year! I'll be back on Friday to look at any further responses. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x3 Happy new year to you too, and thanks for being flexible. Oh, and go and watch The Master, NOW! --Loeba (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

Late in the line of admirers of this article, only few comments (and I made minor changes).

  • Infobox: link to the two dedicated articles mentioned in filmography?
    • I've added the awards link, but I don't know what parameter could be used for the link of credits? --Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could add it under occupation, years active or |misc=, but I would try to first get rid of the tags. ---GA
  • Lead
    • Perhaps a bit more character of roles rather than types? Some of "No modern actor was better at making you feel sympathy for fucking idiots, failures, degenerates, sad sacks and hangdogs dealt a bum hand by life"?
      • I've genuinely just spent 20 minutes looking at/playing with the lead to think about how this could work, but it's difficult when its already long. One option would be to completely remove the descriptions of the characters, which would make way for some comments on how he made his roles sympathetic..? I don't know. Dr. Blofeld? The descriptions are quite nice, as they show that he played a range of interesting characters... --Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is there's so many roles you could talk about which would bloat it I think. I think the role summaries display his range of acting work without going into detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No torture intended, it was just an idea. ---GA
    • Think about the conclusion "an unexpected event that was widely lamented by the film and theater industries." - End on industries? What about the fans?
      • "by the film and theater industries and fans"? Hmm, not sure about that. I don't really think we need to mention fans (it goes without saying that his fans would be sad). --Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps not the word fans. It probably goes without saying also that the industries would be sad, - after emotions were raised so far, the term leaves me on the cool side ;) ---GA
    • delink U.S.?
As all comments: just asking. To me, something in brackets looks like of second-rate importance. May be it's only me to feel that way. ---GA

That's it for now, moving story, will there be a movie on him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, unlikely I'd say but I guess you never know! Thanks very much for commenting. Just so you know, I've added back "Roman Catholic" as this clarification was requested during Tim's review (and it is good to be specific). --Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim: I don't think Catholic is ambiguous once it's linked. Our article is NOW Catholic Church (used to be Roman C C), - I believe our articles using the term should follow, slowly slowly. Thanks, Loeba, for thinking and acting! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for acting on my comments. I would still like one sentence in the lead about his way of making strange characters likable, and the lead not end on "industries", but it's no prerequisite for FA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Remembered for his fearlessness in playing reprehensible characters, and for bringing depth and humanity to such roles..." which I think covers it. Thanks very much Gerda! --Loeba (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • Per MOS:ACCESS, don't use semicolons to create bolded headings in References - either use level-three headings or just normal bolding
    • Fixed
  • Where is this link meant to go?
    • Fixed
  • When citing sources accessed via databases like HighBeam, try not to combine the database and the original publication details in a single parameter - see the example citation at WP:HighBeam for one method to avoid this
  • Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are typically not accurate representations of critical response for pre-2000 films. They also aren't generally appropriate for judgements like "more mainstream". Suggest reviewing use of these sources
    • The three pre-2000 films that had RT references have been changed to a different source (and the one I added for Patch Adams supports the comment that it was a mainstream film).
  • FN34 needs publisher (AP is agency)
    • Fixed
  • Sometimes you combine two sources in a single citation, other times have two citations - why?
    • I combined sources whenever possible (I think), but if the references are used more than once and have a "ref name" this isn't possible.
  • FN70 is incomplete
    • Fixed
  • Fn88, 104, 143, 156 should italicize publication
    • Fixed
  • Compare FNs 100 and 109
    • Fixed
  • FN111 doesn't match other similar sources, nor does FN116
    • Fixed
  • FN115: Hornaday is missing publication name
    • Fixed
  • FN151 is not a reliable source for what it's citing
    • Usually I'd agree that it's not a quality source, but I think it has some use for what it is referencing? We're trying to show that PSH wasn't a major movie star, and that's a website where regular people vote for their favourite actors. It was added after Ssilvers suggested we incorporate this point.
      • Perhaps there are lists from more reputable film sources like AFI or Empire or something, I couldn't find any at the time though, and as Loeba says it's just an example of polls without Hoffman in it rather than claiming something important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been searching but can't find any reputable lists online. I've found Premiere magazine's list of the "Greatest performances of all time", but that one does include Hoffman! (at #35, for Capote) I actually wondered if it was worth including? --Loeba (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely mention that somewhere!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not with this source, I'm afraid - not being a "favourite" doesn't in itself mean they weren't a major star. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the last one, it's a detailed chronological coverage and might prove very useful for the reader who might not see the source among the many cited. It's there for convenience, and if some rule tells you that you shouldn't then I say ignore it in this case!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Agreed--Loeba (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that Nikki, amazing that I looked so closely (more than once!) and there were still inconsistencies. You have some sharp eyes. --Loeba (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug comments

[edit]

This is very good.

  • What's the need to quote the opinions of tabloids (Daily Mirror) and conservative rags (Washington Times)?
Which citations are those?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CTRL+F is your friend, Doc :P FN97 for the Times and FN111 for the Mirror. Sock (tock talk) 18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources were added in response to another reviewer's concern about neutrality. Negative reviews of Hoffman are extremely difficult to find, and I think they're important for neutrality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American actor, director, and producer"—he's directed and produced two films. He isn't at all independently notable in those fields, so there's no need to mention them in the first sentence.
I think there is. And he wasn't just a film director and producer, he did a lot for theatre. I'm sure had he continued living he'd have focused more on the directing as he got older.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2012, Hoffman expressed his appreciation for Anderson"—abrupt; why is this in a 1996 para?
  • Reception and acting style is excellent, the best part of the article (and what a beautiful quote to end it with!). Can more of it be incorporated into the lead? The kind of actor he was, the type of roles he got etc. The lead doesn't even mention that Hoffman primarily played character-actor roles. You'll find that having this stuff in the lead will summarise Hoffman and capture his spirit much better than listing out the names of his movies.—indopug (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do mention quite a few different roles he played which reveals a lot about his character work. I'm not sure we can really say a lot of what is said in the reception without bloating the lede. ", typically playing losers or degenerates in small but significant roles; notably a conceited student in Scent of a Woman (1992), a hyperactive storm-chaser in Twister (1996), a 1970s pornographic film boom operator in Boogie Nights (1997), a smug assistant in The Big Lebowski (1998), a hospice nurse in Magnolia (1999), a music critic in Almost Famous (2000), a phone-sex conman in Punch-Drunk Love (2002), and an immoral preacher in Cold Mountain (2003)." I think tells you that he was primarily a character actor and covers it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indopug, I've altered the lead so that it discusses his typical roles etc a bit more, and reduces the amount of films/plays that are mentioned. Please take a look and see what you think. --Loeba (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late comment
In some places you have "publisher=Rotten Tomatoes" (which it isn't); "work=Rotten Tomatoes |publisher=Flixster" is the correct version. You also have a couple of others that need looking at, such as "publisher=Belfast Telegraph" (it isn't: "work=Belfast Telegraph|publisher=Independent News & Media" is correct. (Ditto "publisher=The New York Times": it isn't - that's the work. If you're using the {{cite web}} template, you don't need to use italics to get the correct version, so that's the easiest way to check. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's considered okay to only mention the specific company, without its "main publisher" (ie Rotten Tomatoes without Flixter) so long as you're consistent with it? Nikkimaria? And I know that sometimes the paramater isn't technically correct, but when I was going through and formatting, I just made some of them italic text because it was quicker than changing the parameter...surely that's fine so long as it is rendered correctly? Thanks though! --Loeba (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes is an interesting one in that it could be described as either a work or a publisher - Flixster is more accurately described as the owner, and need not be included. Schro is correct that you should be consistent in whatever choice you make, though. I also agree with him regarding italicization - the visible output might be correct, or it might not depending on the circumstances, and the metadata isn't correct. It oughtn't be hard to change the parameter name. Also, while I'm here, it seems a {{citation needed}} has appeared? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems hyper-nitpicky to me, to be honest, but I went through and fixed all the parameters. I can't see a citation needed tag? --Loeba (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Graham Beards: I know it's considered imprudent to nudge you to look at an FAC, but I'm going to shamelessly do it in this instance..! As stated at the outset, the goal here was to get the article on the main page for February 2. I just looked at TFAR, and "officially" we need to nominate there by Monday - eek. We're at 7 supports and have had an image and a source review. Hoping you'll be able to look in here soon :) Cheers --Loeba (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine, it was on my list for attention this weekend and I think we can safely close now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose, and thanks to all who contributed to this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 11 January 2015 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philip_Seymour_Hoffman/archive1&oldid=1151014693"