Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phil Hartman

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 SandyGeorgia 23:40, 29 March 2009 [1].

---

Phil Hartman

Nominator(s): Gran²

"Ladies and gentlemen of the FAC process, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your encyclopedia frightens and confuses me!" yet somehow I was able to write this article... Joking aside, I've been working on the great Phil Hartman's page since October last year and after two peer reviews and several copyedits from users such as Scartol, I think it's ready for this. For the record, despite the efforts of Nehrams2020, no free-use image of Hartman has been located. Thanks, Gran² 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is a Yahoo biography a reliable source? (Pls fix WP:PUNC, logical punctuation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll fix WP:PUNC. As for Yahoo, I don't see why it wouldn't be, the bio is written by the site's staff, as opposed to users. Gran² 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yahoo removed, see below. Bradley0110 has kindly fixed WP:PUNC.

• Tech. Comment -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS), and dabs/external links (toolbox checker tools) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on sourcing issues.
  • The Yahoo source in unacceptable. That text is all over the web, with no attribution or indication of fact-checking or editorial process. A first step to getting this to meet WP:RS is establishing the actual authorship and publisher.
  • Why are we using a book named The Hollywood Book of Scandals to source basic facts, except for perhaps his going into rehab? Surely you can find more serious pieces of journalism to source this article.
  • Universal Publishers is a self-publishing house - any hack can get their book on Amazon through this service. Therefore, Milhorn is not a reliable source.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Okay, I'll remove Milhorn, as you claim it to be unreliable. The Hollywood book is primarily used to back up other points. I personally consider it "serious", despite the title, is there a problem with its reliability? As for Yahoo, I don't understand what you mean by "all over the web"; where else is the text used? Gran² 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I suppose there isn't a problem with the Hollywood book - it just seemed odd to me. No biggie. If you google the first sentence of that Yahoo article, you will find that it is mirrored in many places. The problem is, we don't know which is the original since there is no attribution. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah I see, well I'll look into it, but it'll probably be easier to just find some other sources. Gran² 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, Yahoo has been removed. Gran² 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support from Dr pda. I reviewed and copyedited this at peer review, and my concerns were addressed during this process. The sourcing issues mentioned above have also been resolved now. Dr pda (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comments (I might add more as I read through the article.)

• Though Laser brain seems to have dropped his argument about the Hollywood Book of Scandals, I still think it would be better to use a different source. The book may be perfectly reliable and all, but first impressions are important, and seeing that title in the refs won't give a good first impression to readers. They might think this article is amateurish or sensationalistic, and might stop reading altogether. I doubt that the author of that book did much original research into Hartman's life, so everything you got from it can probably be cited to other sources.

• To be blunt, I doubt the average article reader would ever even look at the sources, but that isn't the point here. I disagree with this argument.

• Well, this isn't the sort of thing I would oppose over, but I still think it's something to consider. (Some people do look at the sources, especially if they're the sort who just like to complain about Wikipedia.) Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll maybe try a replace it, but I'm not going to go crazy about it.

• The article says a couple times that Hartman was looking for a "more creative outlet" than album covers. Is "creative" the best word here? Designing album covers does require a good amount of creativity. Zagalejo^^^ 08:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well the quote (the reference for which someone moved) is "He was also a little lonely working at his graphic designer desk every day, by himself, usually entertaining only himself, with flights of voice fantasies." "I had to find an outlet," Any suggestions? To me, he wanted to perform comedy and he thinks that is more creative than album covers.

• It seems like he wanted an outlet for the voicework, not creativity in general. Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've found another quote: "I was going a little buggy, 'cause I was spending long hours at a drawing board by myself and I had all these voices and characters, and I just didn't have much interaction with people," ... suggestions? Perhaps, a more "social" outlet?

• Maybe... but "social" doesn't make sense in this sentence: Eventually he felt he had developed this talent by attending evening comedy classes and began looking for a more "social" outlet. I'd say that the evening comedy classes are a social activity. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• How about switiching: "Eventually he felt he needed a more "social" outlet and developed this talent by attending evening comedy classes."

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• In "Early career", there is a sentence fragment that simply says, "Pee-wee's Big Adventure." I think you might have accidentally deleted something. Zagalejo^^^ 08:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed.

• OK. But I think Hartman also has a small role in that film, as a journalist or something. Is that worth mentioning? Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll add that.

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• ...revolving around a family who "live next to a toxic dump site, their water supply is poisoned, the mother and son go insane and try to murder each other, the father's face is torn off in a terrible disfiguring accident in the first act. It's heavy stuff, but it's got a good message and a positive, upbeat ending." -- The quoted section is poorly integrated into the surrounding prose. (Try reading it without the quotation marks.) What comes before "live next to a toxic dump site" in the original quote? Maybe we can reword this section slightly. Zagalejo^^^ 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Hartman describes it as sort of a merger of horror and comedy, like Beetlejuice and Throw Momma From the Train. It's an American nightmare about a family torn asunder. They live next to a toxic dump site, their water supply is poisoned, the mother and son go insane and try to murder each other, the father's face is torn off in a terrible disfiguring accident in the first act. It's heavy stuff, but it's got a good message and a positive, upbeat ending." Gran² 09:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I'll think about this one. Zagalejo^^^ 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• I took a stab at it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• In July 2007, at the Laugh Factory comedy club in Los Angeles, Andy Dick had an altercation with Hartman's former SNL colleague Jon Lovitz, who claimed that a year earlier, Dick had approached him at a restaurant and said, "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you; you're the next one to die." Lovitz alleged that Dick gave cocaine to Brynn, causing her to relapse and suffer a mental breakdown. What exactly happened at the Laugh Factory? Is that where Lovitz suggested Dick gave cocaine to Brynn? This section isn't entirely clear. Zagalejo^^^ 09:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• They had an "altercation" over the issue; Lovitz has always alleged Dick gave Brynn cocaine. Gran² 09:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Any more specific details about what happened? Zagalejo^^^ 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was trying to avoid BLP concerns (for Dick and Lovitz). [2] That's the transcript. Lovitz has long accused Dick of giving Brynn cocaine, which may have led her to eventually murder Phil. Years later, a drunk Dick told Lovitz "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you. You're the next one to die." A year later, Dick came up to Lovitz at the Laugh Factory and denied saying that etc. (you can see it in the transcript) and then Lovitz shoved him a few times. Gran² 09:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm.. perhaps we shouldn't discuss these allegations at all. If you do decide to discuss them, you'd still need to make the sequence of events clearer. It's confusing to start from the Laugh Factory incident and work backwards from that. Zagalejo^^^ 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to agree, but the fact that Lovitz said this live on TV (and he was essentially Phil's best friend) gives it enough weight and notability, I think. I'll rejig it so it's chronological. Gran² 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looking better. Is there anything you can briefly say about Andy Dick's side of the story? Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• [3] - According to Lovitz, Dick claimed Lovitz had said Dick has "murdered Phil" although Lovitz denied that. All he says in that response piece is that he didn't know Brynn formally had a crack addiction and says that him giving her crack "couldn't" have done anything because it was months before the murder... So, that's not brief, but is it really more mentioning? Gran² 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• If we're going to mention the allegations at all, we probably should say something about Dick's side of the story for the sake of neutrality. One sentence should be sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the response piece doesn't say anything other than Dick didn't know/mean for their to be any problem after her gave Brynn the crack. On Lary King, Lovitz states that Dick approached him at the Laugh Factory because he thought Lovitz had said that Dick had (indirectly) murdered Phil, which Dick disagreed with. So, how about: "Dick does not believe he is at fault in relation to the incident." Thoughts? Gran² 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• That might work. Zagalejo^^^ 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• And that's done. Gran² 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Emigrate/immigrate [4]. Can remove a few alsos. Did he collaborate on the Pee-Wee Herman character itself, or the project? Some lines seem like they hide more information: "Hartman eventually grew tired of SNL" and "He remarked, 'My favorite fans are Troy McClure fans.'" Why? "Dick does not believe he is at fault in relation to the incident" - which incident, the comedy club in the previous sentence, or the cocaine? Overall, provides insight into the person. Good job. Gimmetrow 16:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Removed a few. Both, where exactly is it not clear? That's expanded by the following sentence. I don't know why, that's all he says in the source. Fixed. Thanks. Gran² 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm getting at is: the linked article on the Pee-Wee character says that Reubens created the character. It doesn't say Hartman and Reubens created the character. I don't see anything which discusses Hartman's involvement with that character itself - rather more the project which involved that character and Hartman's character. With SNL, saying "grew tired" seems too vague. (It sounds like a euphemism for a salary dispute.) If the real reason is that he was the last of his original co-performers, then perhaps say something like "he eventually felt out-of-place as the SNL cast changed". Gimmetrow 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand the Pee-Wee thing. The article doesn't say Hartman created him, it says he developed him with Reubens, as well as the shows. Do you have a problem with the word collaborated? Would you prefer developed? Gran² 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've rejigged the SNL thing to remove all mention of being tired (although I disagree that there was any problem with it). Gran² 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Revisiting the article, the sourcing is no longer a concern but I'm not encouraged by the prose in a random sampling. I started reading at "Personal life" and I'm inclined to maintain my opposition. It's not far off, but it lacks attention to detail that a couple solid hours with an effective copyeditor could remedy. Examples:
  • Attention is needed throughout to MoS issues such as logical punctuation in quotations and times.
  • Why do you refer to some people by their first names ("Brynn") when everyone else is on a last name basis?
  • Your use of quotations is confusing. Are they quotations from the source, or from the actual subject? If the former, what is the purpose of quoting simple phrases like "own identity"? Can't we paraphrase unless the quotation is impactful or profound?
  • Is it "the couple's ... home" or "Hartman's house"?
  • "Upon seeing Hartman's body, Douglas called 911 at 6:20 ..." State a.m. or p.m.

--Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well it's been copyedited by several people, and a user went through and fixed all WP:PUNC issues. Perhaps you could either: have a go at copy-editing yourself? suggest a copy-editor? (mainly for any WP:PUNC issues) point them out in turn? As for referring to "some people" by their first names - just Brynn - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Family members with the same surname. Gran² 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• As far as copyediting goes, it's quality, not quantity that counts. MoS issues remain, and the text needs massaging. The whole Legacy section is lurching and not compelling. The Brynn issue is therefore one of clarity; you never mention that she changed her name to "Hartman". You give her maiden name and then start referring to her as "Brynn". In these social circles, it's not uncommon for people to keep their surnames through marriages. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, fine. Could you perhaps say what these MOS issues are? I'll have a go at copy-editing the legacy section myself. As for the Brynn thing, what do you want: "She changed her surname to Hartman after their marriage"? Gran² 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• As noted above, the MoS issues are with logical punctuation. I strongly recommend you get someone new to the text to copyedit it, as it can be exceedingly difficult to spot our own prose issues once we're too familiar with the text. Like I said, it's not far off, but it's not meeting 1a currently. --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Cirt is currently copy-editing. Gran² 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Just did a pass of copy-editing. Weren't too many issues that jumped out, just some minor tweaks with punctuation and sentence structure. Overall it is a well-written article, a good read, and also on a personal note it was poignant and moving to read about the tragedy and legacy. Great work. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

oppose - none of the non-free images are justified under NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I asked you to help me improve the rationales of the images in November, and you didn't respond. It would be therefore helpful for you to say how they could be improved. Gran² 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Oh, look who's back. Gran2, you'll need to try to find the author and copyright holder of File:HartmanPhil.jpg--the current source (MSN) is just a downstream user. Additionally, if it was originally a stock photo (GettyImages, et al), using it on Wikipedia could harm commercial opportunities. File:ClintonHartman.jpg currently isn't referred to in the main text, only the caption. You should expand the adjacent paragraph to include some info and direct reference to the scene (shouldn't be too difficult if it's his most famous sktech). Bradley0110 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks Bradley. Gran² 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely I'll be able to find the official source of the image, so do you have any suggestions as to where the best type of place to find another one which does complies with the policy would be? Gran² 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If sourcing does become a problem, could the article just use a SNL screenshot or even the Best of Hartman SNL DVD cover? Here is one from E! Online that might be a suitable replacement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try getting a Flickr image relicensed, like this one. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Already tried, and failed (three times). And those are the only even potential free-use images on Flickr. Gran² 18:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue then. The problem is that to use the image you must prove that no free alternative can serve the same encyclopedic purpose rather than no free alternative is available. Some articles show that leeway is given to deceased people (especially those who died before the advent of things like Flickr) so the image's FUR should reflect that. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll remove the main image. That seems to be the easiest option. Gran² 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the best solution. You never know what images could turn up in the future. I've left a note about this on Fasach Nua's talk page but judging from his history of opposes, I doubt he'll bother to come back here and review. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Still finding MoS problems (ex. more logical punctuation problems and WP:DASH violations) and grammatical issues. It's not ready. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, I would appreciate it if a) You try fixing the problems your spotting yourself b) You point out explicitly what they are so I can fix them c) recommend someone to take a look at these problems you're finding. - I appreciate your concerns, but I'm not an expert on the MOS, and if two users who know a lot more about it than I do couldn't fix them all, then It'd be useful to know the exact problems. Gran² 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying as I have time. I'm mostly making the point that I shouldn't be finding them at this stage in the game; it indicates that the article was not fully prepared before bringing it here. The FAC instructions are to make sure the article meets all the criteria before nominating it. If you know you are deficient in certain areas, you should get someone to review those things (like MoS) and not depend on reviewers to fix them. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, well I thought I had. And indeed, I did get several people to fix issues I was not an expert in, before the FAC. I was therefore under the impression they had been fixed. I wouldn't nominate an article if I thought it didn't meet the criteria. Gran² 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I know, it's a pain. I fixed whatever I saw. My advice? Go look at what I fixed and learn. Most of your problems revolve around WP:DASH, WP:NBSP, and WP:MOSQUOTE. Learn them at least enough to make a targeted request of a peer reviewer ("I don't have a keen eye for logical punctuation; could you review it for me?") I know it seems nitpicky, but it's one of the vast differences between average writing and FA writing. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment regarding preparedness. When I (Dr pda) copyedited at Peer review I audited the article for dash compliance. In the last round of copyediting, Cirt introduced some spaced ndashes. These are permitted by WP:DASH as an alternative to mdashes, providing one form is consistently used within the article. When this edit popped up on my watchlist I had a quick look but didn't see any mdashes within the article body, so I just left it (though having another look now there was one mdash, so there was inconsistency). Dr pda (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this was the one subjective matter. Since there was already one em dash in a quotation, and we try to maintain the formatting of the original quotation, I thought it better to change the en dashes to em dashes. Mind-numbingly mundane, really, but there you have it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, according to WP:MOSQUOTE, changing dashes in quotations to conform to the style chosen for the article is allowable :) Dr pda (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A well-researched and -written article that nicely balances Hartman's better-known work with his other roles. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Query: Why is CNN in italics in the citations? See WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The "work" field of the cite news template automatically adds italics. I've changed then to the publisher field, which does not do this. Gran² 21:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.