Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brad Pitt/archive2

< 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 promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 27 March 2010 [1].

Brad Pitt edit

Brad Pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for featured article status as I believe this article meets the required criteria. The Brad Pitt article was previously submitted to FAC last year, and since then, concerns from the first nomination have been dealt with. Now, I look forward to any new feedback that arises out of this process. Note: Ref. 90 is not a dead link. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have copyedited this article and attempted to assist in addressing issues raised in the previous FAC. I will do all I can to assist ThinkBlue in addressing any issues raised here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also copyedited a few months ago before I took a break. I am also willing to lend a hand in anything that needs to be completed in order to assure the quality of this article is up to standards. –turianобсудить 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links. Huge number of external links which are all fine. Alt text good. Ucucha 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments Ref check initially looks good. All are to newspapers, online versions of television magazines, a few to some networks (Fox, CNN, and others). The pinked link in external links (#90) is indeed not dead, but leads directly to the article. Alt text looked good. Do we now want the name of the individual in it? or not? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you refer to "The Brad Pitt article" in the opening? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ALT advises that in a biographical article you can describe a person in detail, and then just use his name in subsequent images. You could do that here, but I don't think it's necessary. Ucucha 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, silly me, I was confused to what Auntieruth meant. If you believe it's not necessary I won't do it. I apologize, I'm still getting a hang about this whole ALT thing. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
same here (re confusion!). I meant that I think it's okay (now) to use the person's name in a a bio article in the alt text. as Ucucha said above. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was close to supporting this last year, after numerous issues had been resolved. However, one point that I made at that time referred to the overuse of verbatim quotations, and this remains a problem with the current version of the article. There's nothing wrong with using quotations to an extent, but in this article there are around fifty quotes, many of them for everyday terms such as "career-making", "great movie", "credible", "his film career" etc. The over-willingness to use direct quotes rather than paraphrases detracts from the neutral, encyclopedic tone we are seeking. I recommend that you go through and see how many of these quotes you can knock out, particularly the common speech ones. This is really the only issue I have with the article at present, which otherwise seems to be a comprehensive and interesting account. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the ones I changed:
"further cement [Pitt's] big-screen, romantic leading-man status" to "would solidify Pitt's reputation as a lead actor.
There is no need to really pull the nitty-gritty specifications about what he would become.
"great movie" "acting horizons" "credible" "visibility" removed
As states above, they are every day terms.
"It's not just that Pitt's performance is bad. It hurts. Watching Pitt struggle, with inert face and glazed eyes, to make an audience believe that he knows all the mysteries of death and eternity is painful." to concluded that Pitt struggled to portray an accurate representation of a character who comprehends death.
Not sure I like this one, since I think it can be shaved down even more.
"Pitt has proved he's not afraid of experimentation, and this time it pays off" to noted the risky yet successful nature of the film
Kind of iffy on the wording here as well. I kept the other quote in the same sentence since I don't think it can be summarized correctly/easily.
that "in a role that requires larger-than-life dimensions he [Pitt] is pretty terrific." to "that Pitt excelled at such a demanding role."
No real comment.
"one of the best decisions of [his] film career" to basically the same
Not sure this requires a quote
"when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able" to when everyone in America is legally able to marry
Not really necessary for a direct quote.
"She was a big part of my life, and me hers." to that they were both big parts of each others' lives
No direct quote needed.
Feel free to change what you think needs to be changed. Paraphrasing can get kind of hard after you do it many times in a row. I am sure other ones can be fixed as well. –Turian (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I have a tough time with it. I was going to change the Seven review to ---> "Variety praised Pitt's performance commenting it was "screen acting at its best." The magazine remarked on Pitt's ability to turn in a "determined, energetic, creditable job" as the detective... well something like that, but ended up getting an edit conflict, maybe it was a sign. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to since there are so many. We won't want to remove all of them or it will sound a little weird. –Turian (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes sense I'll change it. If not, tweak it a bit, and I'll add it. Yeah, only some of the reviews should be paraphrased, not all of them; to have a consistency, you know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would work:

Variety praised Pitt's performance, saying that it was "screen acting at its best," and further remarking on Pitt's ability to turn in a "determined, energetic, creditable job" as the detective...

–Turian (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, HJ Mitchell got to it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but feel free to change my wording if it can be improved. I trimmed another one as well, but I can't remember what it was. Good work, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? Alright, I did it, I hope it reads fine. If not, please correct it. Um, it was the quote about his decision to do Seven. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I see that an effort has been made to remove some of the unnecessary quotation marks, and I've zapped a couple myself. I still feel, however, that excessive verbatim quotes are affecting the encyclopedic tone adversely. I recognise that sometimes direct quotations are useful and necessary, but as far as possible they should be kept short, and limited to a few vivid phrases. Take this extract:-

"Pitt said in later interviews, of his decision to leave school, "I had this sinking feeling as graduation approached. I saw my friends getting jobs. I wasn't ready to settle down. I loved films. They were a portal into different worlds for me, and Missouri wasn't where movies were made. Then it hit me: If they didn't come to me, I'd go to them."

This is OK as magazine journalism, but relying on Pitt's direct speech to describe situations is unencyclopedic. I would paraphrase the section: "As graduation approached, Pitt saw his friends getting jobs but did not feel ready to settle down himself. He loved films – 'a portal into different worlds for me' – and, since films were not made in Missouri, he decided he would go to where they were made." This limits the quote to the one individualistic phrase.

There are other instances, throughout the article, that if similarly edited, would improve the neutral tone which encyclopedia articles ought to maintain, even if it deprives the prose of some colour. I believe it would be worth taking another pass through the article to see how much more of this could be achieved. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though, I hope I ended up adding it right. Um, I'll take a look around the article and see what I can do with what you suggested. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with regard Criterion 1a. The article is much improved since the previous FAC and is engaging, informative and interesting. Am I right in thinking that any concerns over sources and images have already been resolved? If so, I am happy to add my full support for this candidate. Graham Colm (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written and comprehensive account of an interesting life and career. Pyrrhus16 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is certainly not bad by any stretch, but the section on his career is just an imdb entry in text form with a few quotes from reviews thrown in. There is no flow to the listing or a sense of how past successes led to future opportunities. There is also no information on how he ended up landing any of these roles (not every role has an interesting casting story behind it, but at least some of these must). Without greater cohesion, this section is not FA worthy in my mind. Indrian (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how that is any different than other FA-biography articles. You are judging it based on the potential for it to have something more, even though you admittedly say you do not know if there is more to the filming stories. –Turian (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I too cannot accept this criticism. To say that it is "just an imdb entry in text form with a few quotes from reviews thrown in", is not at all fair or true. This section flows well and maintains WP:NPOV. To include any discussion on how Pitt "ended up landing any of these roles" would be very difficult to reliably source and thus would be tantamount to WP:OR. Graham Colm (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am glad you think it flows well, but I have disagreed with an actionable objection. Also, you have chosen to focus on one point to the exclusion of the other. It is an imdb entry I am afraid. Every paragraph starts "in 199X Pitt starred as Y in film Z" or some variation on that forumla. This is not effective transitioning, this is just listing stuff. Therefore, it fails the well-written criteria in addition to my comprehensiveness concerns. I don't comment on nearly every featured article I find, but in my experience when I do comment I find the author willing to work with me and we reach a compromise, or the author dismisses me out of hand and the article tends not to be promoted (please don't take this as an inflated sense of self importance, I merely point out that when a poster has actionable objections that the nominator does not attempt to correct, articles tend not to be promoted). I am willing to work with the nominator to help overcome my objections, but your attitude and appalling inability to take constructive criticism are not helping matters. Some other FAs on actors that might help get across my point about transitions and mixing in both filming stories and placing certain roles in a larger context would be Bette Davis and Reese Witherspoon, the latter of which does devolve a little into the same IMDB list mentality but has enoguh interjections about the overall shape of her career that you do end up getting a sense as to which roles particularly mattered in her overal career development and how she approached some of her most iconic roles. I get little sense of the big picture of Pitt's career from the current article. This really should not be hard to fix. Indrian (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would help if what you said was true. Out of the many paragraphs in the article, only three or so start with "In 19XX". So again, I fail to see how this article is different. –Turian (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Or some variation on that forumla", but I am done parsing my own text above for those not willing to read or comprehend all of it. My objection stands, and I am happy to work with the nominator to resolve it. The article is good overall and just needs a little push to get over the top. Indrian (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am incapable of reading nor does it mean I didn't read it. I read it. And your argument makes no sense. I have just told you why your point raised is wrong, with observable facts, and you come back to say I didn't read it. We can't fix what isn't broken. I am going to ask you to remove your "vote" or provide a reasonable issue. –Turian (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lack of comprehensiveness due to inability to provide big picture information on the flow of Pitt's career, nor any significant information relating to how he landed and/or approached some of his more important roles that is surely covered in magazine profiles, DVD commentary tracks, etc. While generally well-written, the career section could use better transitions so that it does not feel like an imdb role list rendered in text form. Both actionable objcetions based on FA criteria, both relatively easily solved, both impossible to deal with if the nominator takes constructive criticism as poorly as the above poster. I await constructive dialogue on these issues. Indrian (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your big picture information:

While struggling to establish himself
Pitt's onscreen career began in 1987
Later in 1988Pitt was cast as Billy Canton
Broader public recognition came for Pitt
Following the success of Thelma & Louise
Pitt reunited with Juliette Lewis
1994 marked a significant turning point in Pitt's career
Following the release of Interview with the Vampire
In 1995 Pitt starred alongside Morgan Freeman and Gwyneth Paltrow
Following the success of Seven
The following year he had a role in the legal drama
Pitt then had the lead role in 1998's Meet Joe Black
In 1999 Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden
Following Fight Club
The following year Pitt starred opposite
In February 2002 Pitt appeared in two episodes
Pitt had two major film roles in 2004
2005 saw Pitt star in the Doug Liman-directed
For his next feature film Pitt starred opposite
Reprising his role as Rusty Ryan in a third picture
Pitt's next appearance was in the 2008 black comedy
Since 2008 Pitt's work has included a leading role

Kindly point out the problems or retract your vote. –Turian (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • On that list of 22 things, about five speak to the big picture. No where does the article mention that Seven or Fight Club, to mention two important movies, were important for Pitt's career. Critical and commercial success implies this, but we just need to connect the dots for the sake of comprehensive treatment. The article needs to demonstrate how the high profile he received from certain movies turned him into a star and a media darling. Right now, the supporting details are there, but the main idea itself is not clearly presented. That is the big picture issue I refer to. Indrian (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try putting it another way. Lets say I am a wikipedia reader forty years from now who has barely heard of Brad Pitt and never seen one of his movies. If I were to read his wikipedia article as it stands now, I would have a very good picture of what movies he starred in. I would be left wondering, however, which movies were particularly important in terms of advancing Brad Pitt's career and I would have little sense of when his promenience as a movie star peaked or when he was most in the public conciousness (though obviously some of the sexiest man awards and the like mentioned later on would help a bit with that last part). Right now the focus is on the details, when the details should be helping focus on a bigger idea. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with what Turian and Graham Colton stated, I too disagree with this IMDB comparison. But, I'm not here to argue, instead, I'm here ready to work to improve whatever needs improvement. If that's what you're asking, Indrian, I'd be more than willing to do whatever you suggest. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think the article is close, I would just like to see some material that clearly identifies key points in his career basically. Which films particularly placed him in the public conciousness. When and why exactly he became a box office draw and media icon. The supporting details are mostly in the article already I think, its just a matter of backing up a little and concretely connecting the dots. I imagine Brad Pitt has been profiled dozens of times in print sources, and this would be the place to go for some of this material.
As to my second point, I don't think the article is just an imdb listing; I think it is an imdb listing interspersed with review quotes. In other words, it definately provides more information than imdb, but structurally it starts to feel like a list after a few paragraphs. A little better transitioning and contexturalizing would make it feel less like a litany of roles and more like an encyclopedia article. I would be happy to take a crack at some of this material tomorrow if you like. Indrian (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect to you, Indrian, it would have been a lot easier if you'd said that in the first place. Like the three editors above me, all of whom I hold in very high esteem, I disagree with the IMDb comparison. However, now that you raise it, I can see your point on the "bigger picture" issue. I (and I'm sure ThinkBlue, though not wishing to put words in her mouth) appreciate your offer to help and I'd be more than willing to work with you on this and bring it up to a standard we can all agree upon when I've had some sleep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever it takes. If you want me to expand on a couple of things I'll do it. If you want to fix stuff up, you're welcome do it. Like I said, whatever it takes so that this article be FA material. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found some stuff, but have not had time to edit yet, sorry. Later today I should get to it. Just a little tweaking, I think, and I will be satisfied with the article. Indrian (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Firstly, great work guys, I learned a lot. I had my own view of Pitt from seeing a fair few of his films but this article gave me a whole new perspective on his career.
  • Section: From 1999 to 2003: "portrayed Tyler Durden, a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind". This brief description seems very wrong to me. There is little "straight" about Durden to my mind... perhaps "uncompromising" would be better? And "mastermind" also sounds a bit odd. I appreciate you may be struggling with this in order not to give the ending of the film away but even so I'd still say "mastermind" is rather a funny description and chimes badly with what happens in the actual film which is very much about the mind of the protagonist. How about "Tyler Durden, an uncompromising and charismatic individual"? The weight on "individual" will be apparent to those who have seen the film whilst not registering much for those that haven't seen it and hence won't pay it undue attention.
  • Section: Personal Life: Third paragraph "production on Mr & Mrs Smith would continue". In the context of where this is said I wasn't at all sure what was being conveyed to me. I briefly wondered whether it were some snide euphemism, but I dismissed that. Nevertheless it does give the impression it's somehow supposed to inform me of something to do with the relationship that I can't grasp. Why wouldn't production of the film continue? Am I supposed to think that - at some point - they considered abandoning film production for the sake of Aniston's feelings? Obviously that would never happen... utterly confused by it.
    • Mr. & Mrs. Smith first began filming in 2004, when Pitt admitted he "fell in love" with Jolie in 2008, many speculated that he had fallen for her while he was married to Aniston. Though, in a 2009 interview, he clarifies that after he and Aniston separated, in 2005, production was still going on for the film. I don't know if that helps, or not. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't often say 'support' or 'oppose' as I am quite a new reviewer and I understand it's best to limit myself to comments for now. But good luck with reaching FA status. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The issues I raised earlier in this review have been addressed satisfactorily. I don't know if Indrian is still opposing, and if so on what basis, but I can see nothing of significance that needs doing. Sure, we can tweak the article until kingdom come, but I don't think that its promotion has to be further delayed. I believe it meets the criteria now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, real life intervened and I have not been active for the last couple of days. I have added some material to the early career section, which I think helps tie that material together a little better. I still feel that the critical success section could present the big picture material a little better, but I do concede that a careful reading of the material would allow a user to see the scope of his career sufficiently, though some more connecting material would still help. I am willing, however, to remove my objection at this time. I will not support, because I still feel there are some small issues, but none of these are large enough to go against the general consensus that is building here. This is a good article, and I am sure it will only get better with time. Indrian (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for your time and your efforts. If you have any further suggestions, I for one would be glad to hear them here or on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Spent a while going through this and I concur with Brian's opinion. I saw things I might tweak, but to no end other than subjective indulgence. Let's see if we can set a precedent for notable biographical topics. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prose is ordinary to substandard.
  • Does it use spaced en or unspaced em dashes as interrupters? I see both.
  • Plea for plain English "before" ... "Two weeks prior to earning his degree".
  • "Also in 1988, the Yugoslavian-U.S. co-production"—erky ... please don't start a paragraph with "also", which is a strong back-reference and ungainly in sentence-initial position. "In the same year", I suppose. And there's another also later in the para. En dash better, I think: "Yugoslavian–U.S.", or "Yugoslavian–American".
  • "The film was however shelved on the outbreak of" ... no: "however" is either bound by commas or, better, appears first in the sentence, followed by a comma. Then we have a confusing first, second, first.
  • Bumpety-bump: "Pitt reunited with Juliette Lewis, co-star from Too Young to Die?, in the 1993 road film Kalifornia, in which he played Early Grayce, a serial killer and the boyfriend of Lewis's character."
  • Rather a lot of "also"s. Some could go—an audit is required. For example, the one in the "Pitt reunited" para could go. So could the one in the "In 1995" para. I'm sure there are more redundant alsos; in fact, I can see them now.
  • "His approximation for the accent received divided opinion"—"for" is wrong, and receiving divided opinion is kinda odd.
    • Would "of", instead of "for", work? Also, what do you suggest "divided opinion" be replaced with? I want to have a consistency with "not well received", "mixed", etc. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your suggestions. I'll try to make some headway on those later today, though any help you coulld offer would be very much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - beginning a read-through now. I will attempt massaging the prose as I go - please revert any inadvertent changes to meaning I make. Will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the prose I feel did flow a little oddly in places, and I tried massaging it a bit. No really jarring bits stuck out. I do sorta see where Indrian is coming from WRT more anecdotes about how he got some roles, roles he (might have) rejected or missed out on, material he brought to a film where he changed the film's direction etc. But I have no idea how much of this has been written in a reliable source though, and therefore none might exist. Nevertheless, it is an engaging read and there is enough material on personal life, views, activism, etc. to round it out nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (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/Brad_Pitt/archive2&oldid=1166569758"