Jump to content

Talk:Clint Eastwood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nowofficiallyonhere (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 13 April 2011 (→‎Clint's "partners"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleClint Eastwood has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 22, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Why the pic of Oakland Tech HS if he didn't go there?

Why the image of Oakland Tech HS if the article says he went to Piedmont Jr HS and HS and doesn't say anything about Oakland Tech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom in ca (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did, but this mistakingly got cut out in the condensing process. He transferred to Oakland. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism

This article had a considerable amount of vandalism done to it by someone from an anonymous IP address. Aren't biographies of living people supposed to be protected from such editing? Bardak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

James Bond

This article http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-interviews/2010/02/10/clint-eastwood-on-his-favourite-movies-why-he-won-t-retire-and-how-he-turned-down-role-as-james-bond-86908-22032200/ says that he turned down the role of James Bond after Connery retired. Surely this deserves a mention? Also, his being named "America's favourite movie star"? 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.25 (talk)

Article too large

As of this version, the article is over 155KB in length. I think the article has become too large in size and WP:SIZERULE suggests that articles over 100KB "Almost certainly should be divided". The main disandvantages of an article of this size are that a casual reader can easily lose interest past a certain point and that readers and editors using dial-up internet access are at a disandvantage when waiting for articles of this size to load. WP:SIZE describes other disandvantages as well.

The issue now is to decide what can be split into a separate article and what can be simply trimmed. One of the things that I think is quite excessive is the amount of detailed information for almost each individual film in his filmography. Often throughout this article this information seems better suited for the specific film article itself rather than the Eastwood article; sections on Pale Rider and Pink Cadillac contain more detail about the film than Eastwood's involvement. I think this type of information can easily be removed from the article without loss of benefit to the reader, so long as there exists at least a link to Clint Eastwood filmography. What do others think? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is too much detail. Information about a specific film should mainly belong at the film's article. I think it is best to reference a film if there is some milestone involved. For example, his first acting role, his first direction, his break away from Westerns, etc. I would recommend putting most of these film-related sections in the "Cast" section of each film's article. Erik (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you people would just quit moaning and allow the damn article to be written fully it can be condensed later. The article is already split into early life,. 1960s, I intend to split 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s when fully written too. I also have another biography book which I will use to even out the sources. If you split now it will not be as comprehensive as I intend it to be. I've nearly finished the 70s anyway, so that can be split and condensed ina few days etc. I'll also drastically reduce the earlier sections further.... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Edits like this one really are more appropriate for The Gauntlet than this article. Why would you feel it adds more benefit to this article rather than the film's article? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part about what I said above did you not understand?? I told you let me finish writing each deacade first and then it can be copied into seperate article by decade and also can be inserted into the main film article. Tjen it can be condensed for his main article and remove anything which is not essential. Look I know what I'm doing, I do not have to spend time writing this. If you looked how shitty the article was before I started on it. Once it is written and condensed people will be thanking me, oh maybe not, you haven't so far. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hard to thank someone who has that attitude. Your contributions are appreciated, but why did you not provide the detail at each film's article and summarize some information in this person's article? It's an unusual way to go about it. Erik (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look do you think I'm Jack's nipple? i intend to add all the information about each film in the film articles too. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

We can help you do that. What is the purpose of having the information at this article presently when it can belong at each film's article already? The only reason I can see is a kind of sandbox approach, but we should not be doing that in the mainspace. Erik (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right I guess it has to be done now so I'm about remove virtually all detail from this article. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If I may suggest something, I think Erik makes a good point about the mainspace article being used as a sandbox of sorts. If it makes it easier for you to add all of the newly found material into one location rather than each indivicual film, it may be a good idea to copy the article into your userspace and add the material there. Once it's all added, you can move the material to each individual film from the centralized location in your userspace and you can also enlist the help of the WP:FILMS participants to help you with it. You have created a tremendous amount of material since October and, yes, I do thank you for it. The problem is that information is only useful in proper context and a reader who comes to the Clint Eastwood article may find it to be an unwelcome disctraction when they find dozens of reviews about his co-stars' performances and cinematography information indirectly related to Eastwood himself. This same information, however, would be a much welcome addition to some other articles in need of expansion. It just doesn't belong here, especially if it's only temporary. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sorry I snapped at you but my attitude intitially was only because I've spent hours and huors working on this and planned on writing it my way but I guess givne that it has thousands of views per day it need condensing even as it is being written.. My method though it to add the flesh first and try to provide as much information as possible and then cut down afterwards leaving a refined well written article. It just takes so much time and in the meantime is reading as bloated to you guys. I've begun cutting it anyway. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) But 'd have to disagree with you about some of the cinematography/production information. It goes hand in hand with undersatnding Eastwood's career and films he worked on. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Better so far? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

From the discussion above, one suggestion that may be useful when undertaking a large revision is to place an <in construction> tag(s), therefore ensuring that other editors will provide some respite while the major work is being done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Himalayan Explorer, I can understand what you mean about building the article up first and then trimming and redistributing the information. That's pretty much the same approach I've used on a number of occasions, but always in a sandbox. If you do most of the work in your sandbox, other editors won't see "a work in progress" and judge it negatively as "bloated" or whatever, and you can work at your own pace, without any pressure or urgency. Otherwise, every time you hit 'save' you are handing a new version of the article back to anyone who may choose to edit it or comment on it. I respect the work you've put into this article, and I wish you all the best with it, as it looks like it's going to be a huge improvement over previous versions, once you've finished. Rossrs (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Awards

The article states that he has five Oscars, but it seems he only has four, according to IMDB. Also, he has a lifetime achievement award from the Screen Actors Guild but no regular awards, so I think that should be specified. If anyone wants to contend this, please do, but I'm going to go ahead and change it. Ann (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He also won a Thalberg, which may account for the fifth Oscar, as it is awarded during the Academy Awards (but it is a bust of Thalberg and not the typical statuette.) PokeHomsar (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award article needs beefing up. It should explicitly state that these awards are counted as honorary "Oscars" just like the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and the other honorary Oscars, whatever the shape of the actual physical object may be (which is not necessarily a statuette; sometimes it's a scroll, plaque, medal or certificate). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Carmel

For some reason, I cannot find any information on what party Eastwood represented as Mayor of Carmel, if any. This article does not supply that information, but neither does Google. He may have run as an independent, but I can't find any information to confirm his party. Does anyone know? PokeHomsar (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/8/newsid_2523000/2523371.stm, http://www.clinteastwood.net/welcome/alt/, http://usconservatives.about.com/od/hollywoodconservatives/p/EastwoodBIO.htm, it looks to me that he did not run to represent a party, but purely to reduce the municipal bureaucracy and "make it easier to build or renovate properties". Not everything is party politics. --Andreclos (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

60s 70s 80s

The subarticles linked here are essentially copy and paste jobs of the sections in the main article. The sub articles should be deleted or the sections in the main article need to be summaries like they're supposed to be. As is is not the way to do this. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to help out in trimming this down and making the section summaries (with related content remaining over on the subpages). I probably won't take a stab at it though until I start and finish an FAC candidate I'm working on. At the earliest, probably a month. If somebody wants to try now, I'll help out more later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French article

Why don't translate the French article which is a featured article ? Or, somebody can use the article references or only complete the actual english article. Regards Stef48 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Money Makers Poll

I think the following is worth mentioning, but I can't decide where to put it. Any ideas?

Eastwood appeared in the Top Ten Money Makers Poll of films from 1968 to 184, 1986, 1992 and 1993, topping the list in 1972, 1973, 1983, 1984 and 1993. With a total of 2 years on the list, Eastwood has more appearances than any other star except John Wayne(25).[1] gramorak 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramorak (talk • contribs)

Non-smoker?

Not that I don't believe it, but it needs a cite. He is seen smoking in any number of his films. DavidOaks (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood HATES smoking. Leone insisted that he have a cigar in his mouth in the films and when he found out that Eastwood hates smoking he made him have a cigar in his mouth in even more scenes to wind him up. Eastwood has always been a health freak. Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it. It still needs a cite. He smoked in Gran Torino too -- it was a key plot point in fact. Smoked in Coogan's Bluff (http://media.photobucket.com/image/Eastwood%20coogan%252527s/stefanmiklos/ClintEastwood/coogan-schifrin.jpg) In fact, there's a still of him smoking on the set of that movie while watching a girl being body-painted -- not sure if that was in character or during a break DavidOaks (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a cite. Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was also cited in the biography "Eastwood a Hollywood Loner".

Copy-editing notes

Hello. Taking a whack at this. I'll leave notes for things I've confused by, while I'm at it. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950
  • "[he] played an ex-renegade in the Confederacy in Ambush at Cimarron Pass, his biggest screen role to date opposite Scott Brady" - his biggest role to date ever, or his biggest role to date opposite Scott Brady? As it is without the comma, it looks like the latter.
  • Is it necessary or beneficial to list all the films Eastwood tried out for?
  • Was the contract with Universal, with Lubin, with both, or are they the same? At one point, it says Eastwood is working with Lubin into the 60s, then says he's struggling without the Lubin contract. It can be inferred that they're the same, but the inconsistent wording makes this a bit confusing.
Bold removals
  • I removed the anecdote of Eastwood not talking to Lubin until 1992. The current structure of the article makes it very difficult to add naturally... this kind of worries me, since it looks like Lubin and Eastwood had a good relationship.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clint Eastwood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am considering quickfailing this for length. It is 93327 characters and WP:SIZE suggests 30-50 kb. WP:SPLIT strongly suggests splitting articles over 60 KB. I do not believe the article should be passed with over 60kb of readable prose. This will require an overhaul of the article and may result in two separate GACs. I await a second opinion before failing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld and I have definitely talked about this, and I haven't had time since it was nominated to start whittling things down. To start, in my sandbox, I'll strike through elements that I don't think are essential for his main article (but can still be covered in subarticles or the film articles themselves). I'll give it a run-through once and see if Blofeld agrees with the trimming. That will help to reduce the length of the article. We also need to take note that Eastwood has starred in multiple films in various capacities over several decades. To be concise is challenging, but we also don't need to completely meet the kb thresholds if we want to ensure comprehensiveness for FAC down the line. A lot of that comes from sourcing, and trimming will definitely take that down. Let's try a day or two to see how much can be removed in an initial sweep. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to prune rather than split, you may need 3 or 4 new subarticles with {{mainarticle}} headings for major sections. Please WP:PRESERVE content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there already are multiple articles already split out on Eastwood, so that's not the issue. As for length though, yeah 90kb is overkill for anyone. Trimming should not be a problem since subarticles do exist. Even a trim to 70 would be alright for me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will insist it be reduced to 60 or less to be promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that I've seen on Wikipedia has had becoming a featured article being tougher than become a good article. And yet as far as I can tell, 2007 USC Trojans football team made featured article while being well more than 100k.Naraht (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see length as being a reason for quick fail. FA 2007 USC Trojans football team ia a Featured Article and is 157 KB CTJF83 chat 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clint_Eastwood#Film_career could definitely be cut way back, and made into it's own article. Shortening that section would cut the article down to a third or so. CTJF83 chat 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
USC Trojans is only 65 KB of readable prose. If it were to undergo a review, it would probably be encouraged to be under 60KB as well. This is 93KB or readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article does not appear on Special:LongPages, according to User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics, which measures readable prose, of the 3122 WP:FAs only 90 are longer than 60KB of readable prose. That is less than 3%. Note that as of December 23, the aforementioned 2007 USC Trojans football team was only 69KB of readable prose according to that tool. I see no reason why Clint Eastwood should have an article longer than 97% of the most well-crafted articles on wikipedia. I intend to stick to my guns with 60 KB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a preliminary look, with my suggested initial sandbox trimming, the article could be reduced by ~144kb to ~93. I'm sure more can be removed (and not everyone may agree with what I would trim, so some of that may come back). However, mostly by removing those details, I think having it under 80kb overall would be sufficient for GA requirements. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will need more subarticles for the more recent decades. When it gets close to 60KB, I will start a more formal review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt the article could be cut as short as 60kb without it seriously affecting the comprehensiveness of the article. We have featured articles which are at least eight!! times the recommended length like List of Chinese inventions. Since when has there been a rule that articles should be 60kb max?? I agree with Nehrams I think we should be aiming for about 80kb with this, and even that would be a very filtered version. I'll see how it goes Down to 130kb at the moment. I disagree with Ctif83's comments below, we should not completely reduce the film career down to a mere few paragraphs but we can certainly do some major cutting to ensure that it is comprehensive and concise. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen those arguments at Barack Obama (currently 40765 KB readable prose), John McCain (52247KB). Proper use of subarticles is the solution. Don't try to convince me that Clint Eastwood should really have an article that more than 50% longer than Obamas. Look under the infobox at Obama and see the series technique. Create such a box and start pruning and moving. It can be done. It is arduous. The Hillary Clinton people fought me on a strict 60KB ruling, but it is now inching closer to 70KB and I may take it up with them again soon (68263KB). I just don't see any reason to ask the reader to read much more than 60KB to find out about this guy. I am a fan, but his article is too long. Yes a little longer than 60 KB is tolerable. It is not necessary, but tolerable. You could move text out to subarticles and shorten it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear. Close would be at least as short as 2007 USC Trojans football team in terms of readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the "film career" section should be majorly cut to a few paragraphs total, and the rest to its own page. CTJF83 chat 04:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Clint Eastwood "you may run the risks my friend but I do the cutting". I'll do the "cutting" tomorrow. Give me a day or two on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. I am working on a script. I intend to send it of to the Writers Guild of America, West on Thursday or Friday if I don't suffer writer's block. I won't be dealing extensively with this article until next weekend. Please take your time WP:PRESERVEing content in sub articles. I think you may need some articles for more recent decades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. B, I got your note on my talk page. Thanks for your work in cutting this one down to size. It is now 48414 bytes of readable prose. 48KB is what we are looking for on a subject like this. Regarding Preity Zinta, the article is only 32240 of readable prose and Changeling (film) is only 57537. Both are well within the guidelines I am concerned about. You mentioned that you feel Nehrams may still be at work in pruning this. That is fine. It is going to take me a few days to dig into this one, so I will await word that he is finished too. P.S. create and add a series template for under his infobox like at Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the GA criteria, it does not include article length. So long as the prose is well-written and the article remains focused, length itself is not a basis for objection. It may be for FA, but not GA. Racepacket (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is moot now that the article as been duly revised, are you saying that article size does not fall within 1(b) at WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would never quickfail for being too long - only for being so short that it leaves out important material. SIZE is already not a fixed policy but one that is always subject to specific evaluations. Lots of other GA's are longer - which shows that other reviewers also do not consider this to be a problem. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said it is moot. The article is now well within the desired range. Regarding lots of other GA's longer then 93KB of readable prose, I doubt even 1% of all GAs are that long. Many of those have endured creep from smaller size articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one more outside opinion, I have carefully read the specific sections of the MOS referred to under 1(b), and I can't see any portion of any of them that refers to article length or incorporates the article length policies. I'd therefore have to say that you can't fail an article for GA on the basis of length. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are way past any size issue the article has been shrunk from 93,000 characters of readable prose to 54,000 characters. Maybe I should remove the 2nd opinion request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The major overhaul seems to be complete. I assume you are ready for a review of the current content. I will make sure it is stable for another 48 hours and then give it a look. There is still one problematic link showing in the toolbox above, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup and added citations for the fact tags. It looks to me like it's ready for an initial review. For the requested page number tag for Munn, I'll address that before FAC (the book's in my Amazon waiting list). Blofeld will have to add the page numbers for current citation 194. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread this article today with the intent on reducing it further but really at 88kb (48 kb of readable prose) this is now a finely tuned article and a comprehensive coverage. To reduce the length much further would mean an attack on its comprehensiveness and would affect quality I think. If you read the article through its an effective summary I think and certainly doesn't warble or cover certain things excessively...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The article is now 47193 bytes (~46.1KB) of readable prose. At 46KB, it is well within the desired range. Readable prose is the issue. I will sit on this for another 24 hours to monitor stability and then start a review tomorrow night.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a reread and in order to make it the best I can I had to readd/add some material which I thought was important to his career so the length has crept up a little but only 4-5kb and most of that is improved sourcing. I must have added about ten new sources to it today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't add readable prose. Keep adding them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more reviews and improved the quality of the Eastwood article further, a lot more wider sources than previously now. The quotes I added I think are very important to understanding his film techiques and most acclaimed performances. Its currently on 98kb but I'm now much happier than previously as I've improved the 1990s and 2000s sections now which were its weakest. We are waiting for you review of it now anyway. I anticipate some issues (mostly MOS) but I'll let you identify them in the review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is still only 51262 characters (~50.06KB). It is in good shape. I'll take a look after I think it has settled a bit. Probably tomorrow night, but with your latest edits, I might wait until Saturday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal review

I am going to make a few comments tonight and then dig into this a bit more tomorrow.

LEAD
I strongly disagree with that. The whole introduction should summarize his life/career which is given in the article no in one sentence. Every FA on a film biography I've contributed to like Abbas Kiarostami, Preity Zinta etc does not summarise it in one paragraph but several and looking at our others FAs they don't either. I think I sort of see what you mean though, I've reworded the intro now in a fashion which may be more desirable to you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. It informs the reader that he won Academy Awards and says which films they were for. ANyway I've restructured the intro now so this particular problem may have been solved.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it assumes that he had his first major role in Rawhide, but you have not told the reader that yet. The second paragraph should have a sentence saying, he worked his way up from smaller roles to a regular character on Rawhide, which was a successful show. Then get into what is there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now mentioned it was his breakthrough role, thats enough/♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the intro, should be OK now.
It is now only 1700 chars and two paras. We optimally would have (three or) four paras totalling between 2500 and 3000 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony this is a Good article nom, not an FA nom. Show me the criteria that GA leads must be between 2500 and 3000. Anyway I've expanded it a bit and split into three paragraphs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is shaping up. It summarizes the article pretty well. I want to hold off on striking this until I feel the article is closer to final form. I.e., pending other review elements.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move "Throughout his five-decade career, he has received five Academy Awards, five Golden Globe Awards, a Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award, two Cannes Film Festival awards, and five People's Choice Awards, among other accolades." to the end of the first para, which might solve almost the whole problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've moved it to first paragraph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused on what constitutes critical success in the WP:LEAD. I am not so sure finding a few positive clippings constitutes success. I think nominations that are the result of a consensus of a panel, membership, committee, organization or the like are the proper standard. Even movies that are consensus duds can find a few reviews that make them seem good. Look at rotten tomatoes. If something gets a 15% rating that means there are a bunch of positive reviews out there. I question whether the movies listed in the LEAD in the 70s were critical successes in this regard. Please clarify otherwise in the text or revise the lead. I just don't see someone describing a movie that got no notable nominations as a critical success.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical success also refers to reception amongst individual film critics unless I'm mistaken. The only film in the lead which wasn't very well received by critics initially is High Plains Drifter, but has gradually earned more respect over the years, so much in fact that it now has a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. If what is a "critical success" is to be decided by award nominations then you can virtually exclude every film pre 1990 which is not a balanced reflection of his career.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:LEAD is a summary of the main text. If you tell the reader a film is a critical success in the LEAD, you must give details on that claim in the article. For the early films such as High Plains Drifter, you have to establish in the main text why you made such a claim in the lead with detailed sourced facts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
Agreed, I've removed the sentence entirely, not essential.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early career struggles
We don't have an article about the TV series.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1960
Should all be fixed throughout article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the first one ($100/week). Also, if greater than a Million just use millions like US$8.7 million.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still have to fix all the millions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the formatting, so the numbers should be clearer for readers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why no conversions for Heartbreak Ridge and Dead Pool?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only replaced the existing inflation templates. I've now added the templates for these to films, while fixing the formatting on another. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1970s
1980s
1990s
The awards it won are not really notable but I have now mentioned the Golden Globe nomination for Best Picture and Streep's Academy Award and GG noms which are relevant as Eastwood directed the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I misread the page. I thought it won GG Best Picture. You may also want to mention that it had a César Award best foreign film nom since you talked about how Clint was a hit in other countries and since not many of his films were that highly esteemed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing "The Bridges of Madison County was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture and won a César Award in France for Best Foreign Film." to The Bridges of Madison County was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture, won several Best Foreign Language Film awards in Japan and earned a César Award nomination in France for Best Foreign Film.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is this one of the films that should be mentioned as a commmercial and critical success in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did it win the Cesar or get a nom?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done and sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2000s
Oh I'm sure you could keep going, but bear in mind this is only a GA review.... It doesn't need to be perfect. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you expect me to say this passes WP:WIAGA item 3 if you don't tell the readers which films received which types of critical acclaim for Eastwood.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should cover some of these above, but I don't think each film needs to include all the mentions. That would push off on POV concerns (which so far I think does a good job balancing out with the included poor reviews and awards). Also, there is a separate list for all of his awards, so to help with size constraints, readers are encouraged to visit that page to pursue further information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the most important awards. I really don't think it is necessary to mention every minor award. I think its pretty comprehensive now. There might be too many links though to the awards, more than once. If you spot any Tony please take the liberty to fix them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
Added two sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal
Music
  • Why was this moved from a discography section to a subsection?
  • Why is there no summary of his award nominations in this section?
Because it was supposed to be his personal life/other work content, not career content. But now that the discography is merged its need elaborating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started to write a summary of the discography section, and realized there was a lot of duplication with his music subsection. I merged the two to keep the overlapping details in one place. As his work on music is not extensive as his other career roles, I added the link for his brief discography to this section where all of the music details are covered. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "discrepancy" has now been covered with music awards. How much longer do we have to preen this article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ending sections
Clint Eastwood filmography is an FL. It would be unfeasible to move it back into the main articlr.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and honors

What do you mean by a "complete rundown". You're becoming tedious and rather obsessed with awards. There is really no need for a complete rundown in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Eastwood has been awarded six honorary degrees from University 1....and University 6" would be nice if it were available. It would be encyclopedic if a complete list existed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. The article is already encyclopedic and comprehensive enough. Many of his honors are really not worth mentioning. We've definitely mentioned the most important in various places in the article including his doctor of music degree in the music section which I've added recently. To expect us to tally every single award or honor he ever won with a figure is absurd. He has likely received many more honors from various universities which haven't been reported or are obscure, its impossible to count them I think. Personally I don't think some of the nominations we've mentioned are really necessary but for the fact that you urged them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just saying that a complete list of honorary degrees would be encyclopedic. The current text does not indicate whether the schools listed represent the whole list or a sample.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This weekend, I will make a GA Checklist review. Please try to address any remaining concerns above before that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Current length: 56240 KB readable prose. Length is no issue as long as we stay under 60KB. We just need the text to clarify the main points of the LEAD.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Its a commons image, what are yout talking about?? As for fair use images, a limited number of fair use images to identify the most important roles of the actor are accepted in featured articles like Preity Zinta and Cillian Murphy. Eastwood's roles as the Man with No Name and Dirty Harry are iconic and should most certainly have images in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look I appreciate that you want the article improved but the issues you've highlighted are really not essential for this to pass GA. As a GA reviewer you really shouldn't be expecting this. I've replaced one of the images. Asking us to add a personality rights template and even questioning the image somebody took back in 1979 of the bench during production is a little extreme... I've improved the article this afternoon and believe it is now more comprehensive in the politics and awards section but is probably now exceeding your "guideline" of 60 kb of readable prose. There might be a few ref and links needing sorting in that section now but I believe this is easily meeting good article requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold

Remaining issues:

  • Middle name unknown (not a GA requirement)
  • I have issue with the WP:LEAD claiming films were success without supporting text in the main body verifying these claims. I think all the pre-1990s films need to have the text in the main body reevaluated to make sure they support the critical success claims in the LEAD. Critical success of Gran Torino not established in main text. See suggestion above. I don't really feel the text backs up the claim of In The Line of Fire, Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales and Escape from Alcatraz as critical successes. Presenting individual critics as support is a very low threshold. I think every film has multiple critics that speak positively about it since I have never seen a rotten tomatoes rating below 10 or 15%. Explain to me why each should be allowed to remain in the LEAD.

Because they were all well received by critics. High Plains Drifter though as I say only gained critical respect much later so maybe should be removed. I'll find some more reviews to back them up in the article.. I believe I've addressed this now. I've removed high plains and in the line of fire and added text in the article to show critical acclaim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Gran Torino article says. "An original song from the film, "Gran Torino", was nominated for the Golden Globe Awards for Best Original Song. The music is by Clint Eastwood, Jamie Cullum, Kyle Eastwood, and Michael Stevens, with Cullum penning the lyrics.". Clint's bio says "He also wrote and performed the song heard over the credits of Gran Torino." These are two different levels of involvement that need to be squared away.
That's the fault of the Gran Torino article not this which I've now corrected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would feel better with some clarification of the honorary degrees he has been awarded. Does the current text include all of them? (not required)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't required.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he does oddly enough... I'll check. Mmm Kyle has a son about aged 14 or so from his first marriage but I can't find a reliable source for it... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC) What's funny about this is that Auriscalpium vulgare has beaten Clint Eastwood to being a GA and is barely a week old and has one tenth of the sources... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complain all you want, but we have to get the image issues right. Tagging images is not optional. Would also be nice to know about grandchildren although it is doubtful they are notable if they have not already been mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed in the haste with which you handled the image issues. Regarding File:ClintEastwood.JPG, although it has been removed from this article, there is no reason to leave a FUR for this article there. There is also no reason why the image should not be in each of the films for which the Man with No Name appeared. This should be regarded as an attempt to improve WP with respect to this topic and not a race to get a GA. Since you care enough about this topic to do this bio and I care enough about it to review, it I would hope you could take care of these non-required issues. I can not fail this article for failure to remove a FUR on an image that has been removed from the article, but come on let's do things right around here. It would not be beyond a reasonable effort to help WP on this topic to include File:Clint Eastwood man with no name.jpg at Dollars Trilogy and spaghetti Western.
I am also disappointed at the haste with which File:Eastwoodrawhide.jpg, File:CAHoF Entrance.jpg and File:Malpaso prod (bench).jpg were removed. The former clearly should have its FUR removed if it is no longer at Eastwood and should be at Rawhide (TV series) (with a FUR). However, in all three cases (especially the former and the latter), there is a good shot that an image expert would allow them to stay. Why not request a 2nd opinion rather than remove possibly appropriate encyclopedic content. The latter should be at Malpaso Productions, which is curiously absent from the template below the infobox. This article could pass GA as is if there were any time concerns. There are not, and I see no reason to resolve issues hastily rather than optimally.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for making requests of your time that are beyond the required elements for this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is Malpaso Productions absent from both the template and the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that essential for this to pass GA? Really... I'm tempted to open up an RFC on good article reviewing as what you've demanded in this review (and its duration) exceeds what other reviewers demand for a good article by at least ten times. There needs to be firmer guidelines which stops reviewers demanding excess. I would rather spend the time promoting other actor and film articles to GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with recently added images in terms of tagging? File:Clint and Dina Eastwood.jpg, File:Frances Fisher at the 2010 Independent Spirit Awards.jpg, File:Clint Eastwood DOI 1675.jpg, File:ClintEastwood6.jpg, and File:Eastwood1981.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of demanding excess. The article is still hung up on basic tagging of images. The other image stuff is stuff that in the heat of the moment you wish I would just pass over. I hope your co-editor is more responsive to reasonable requests to improve the article and topic in general. I am going to assume if you refuse to do basic FUR removal that your co-editor will have enough gumption to do it and will wait 48 hours for him to do some basic stuff that will help people who want to read about this BLP of an American hero and icon. It is all stuff that with a good internet connection can be handled in a total of twenty minutes (except for waiting for responses on the questionable images). If I were to look at this in terms of a final decision, probably only the tagging is required. It would be nice if since we have created a whole bunch of supporting articles that we would move pictures to the right supporting articles when we move them out of here though. If both you and your co-author demand an pass/fail decision without doing anything beyond getting the tagging right, I will grant one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on securing some free images for several articles recently (including this one), so I apologize for not helping to look at these images earlier. I found one from him in 1970, and have contacted the Florida Archive office to see if we can potentially add two other images of better angles. Although it seems tedious, these images do need to be resolved, and the earlier the better, as it helps us to look to see what areas we need to search for potential images (also, better now than FAC, which will probably be a long enough nomination as is). I've had some long reviews for GAs as well (some for Tony as well, so he may finally be getting back at me!), but we do need to realize that the comments are for the bettter on the FA path. For the most part, it looks like the images have been solved, and I'll keep looking for finding additional free images where possible. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION/NOTE: I'm obviously not the primary reviewer, but I was reading this article and noticed one thing under "Politics". "During the 2008 United States Presidential Election, Eastwood endorsed John McCain for President; he has known McCain since 1973, but wishes Barack Obama the very best upon his victory." That sentence reads incredibly awkwardly to me, could it get fixed up? At very least shouldn't the wish be in the past tense (but wished Barack Obama the very best upon his victory)? More fundamentally it just doesn't read like an encyclopedia sentence. Cool stuff though, I never knew he was a mayor at one point. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo, it was supposed to be wished not wishes. Well I don't want the reader thinking he is anti-Obama, that's why I think it important to mention his positive comment towards Obama.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine, but it still reads somewhat unprofessionally if it isn't a quote. If it is a quote (something like "I wish Obama the very best") I would put in actual quotation marks to make it clear. And either way I would make the bit starting at "He has known McCain since..." into a 2nd sentence. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on images

I haven't read GA review, but I note a third opinion is requested on the subject of images, so I'm going to give the article a vaguely FAC style image review. Any pic currently in the article I don't mention is fine.

For such an important article, it'd be great if the illustrations were squeaky-clean copyright-wise. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it did once discuss his clothing but it got removed during the condensing...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, I assumed as much. Thanks for taking the NFCC seriously! J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you image assessment, I agree. I do suspect the 1954 image is not public domain... The bench also really doesn't add anything of informational value. I've removed the fair use images and marked them for deletion. You're an admin right Milburn, can you delete them? So no need to remove rationales Tony... The Dirty Harry wall image and artists rendition of Man with No Name are far from perfect but seem OK unless of course people claim that a wall in a public place is copyrighted... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be... It wouldn't technically be covered by freedom of panorama in the US (I assume the pic was in the US), but I know it's something people like to scrap about on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was taken in Mexico, where there is full freedom of panorama (I've tagged it). Unless someone is going to argue it's copyrighted as a derivative work of the film, I reckon we're good here. J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm honest, I'm not keen on the newly added File:Clint Eastwood man with no name.jpg. It could be argued to be a derivative work, and, if not, perhaps suffers from OR issues. It doesn't look that professional- who's a random Flickr user to say what The Man With No Name looks like? We occasionally have free images from trailers in this period- is that something that has been looked into? J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an opinion on File:CAHoF Entrance.jpg, which is a picture inside a museum?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the trailers, that was up to 1960 (I believe), and I tried searching for the trailers for all his films prior to that point. Unfortunately, some don't exist (or haven't been posted to the Internet) or don't feature him in the trailer (he had small roles at this point). In addition, the Dollars Trilogy is an Italian film, so I don't know what the copyright is for their trailers for that period in time (all after 1960). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly most films pre 1980 have expired copyright in Italy so the images of the original Italian movie are publid domain there but there is a problem with US copyright I think. Somebody might want to look into that. I hate the vector picture in all honesty... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PD-URAA may be of interest there. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, no great concern. The copyrighted elements are small enough that they're ok to include, and, though the museum may well have a "no photographs" policy, that won't impact upon the copyright status. Nehrams, to be considered free on the English Wikipedia, images need only to be in the public domain in the US; it's possible you would be able to upload images with {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Milburn I uploaded File:Eastwood Good Bad and the Ugly.png from here but the licensing need reversing. It is public domain in Italy and the image is taken from the Italian version of the film. Can you sort out the licensing? I really don't see why it isn't public domain elsewhere... It is 100 times better quality than the vector image.. We really suffer with film images on here. How awesome would it be to have all of those images.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bobby Orr GAC is awaiting resolution of two images. One is very similar. Can you comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HHOF1999-Orr.jpg regarding a similar issue. Wouldn't mind a comment on the other issue at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobby Orr Star on Canada's Walk of Fame.jpg as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of the image tagging?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this image is tagged correctly, but the image page could do with more information. Other than that, it's good. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

Thanks for all the efforts at improving the article. We have moved it well up the quality scale. Shrinking it from 93327 characters to 60700 (approximately 60700/1024=59.28 KB) brings it within the desirable range of less than 60 KB of readable prose. All images in the article is fine and a lot of text was moved out to daughter articles. I did not really check that content was WP:PRESERVED at these articles. It would also be good if the daughter articles contained all content in the final version of this since they are suppose to have greater detail. Images were moved and removed from this article. Many of these would be well-placed at related articles. Also, FURs linger at some of these images. However, none of these issues bear on this GAC. If this is headed toward FAC, try to find a middle name in some of the legal records mentioned in the article. Also, since he has so many WP:N offspring a rundown of grandchildren might be appropriate since some of them may pass WP:N now or in the future. I am going to pass this as it is since our visiting expert image reviewer is on board.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few dead links to deal with: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Clint_Eastwood. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clint's "partners"

Info-boxes are for the few pieces of information that one needs to compare similar subjects, in this case actors. Available info-box parameter are to be used only if appropriate. Former girlfriends and mistresses are not needed to compare actors so I removed it from the info-box. That information is mentioned in the body of the article for those that are interested.

Also, the use of the word "partner" in this context is iffy at best. Abbott and Costello were partners, as were Batman and Robin, but not in the same way. This relativity recent usage of this word is not widely accepted. It's meaning varies from one person to the next, one country to the next, one decade to the next. It's too vague and "PC" to be in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro2 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia infoboxes, partner means domestic partner, not business partner or sports partner. People whom the subject of a biography have cohabited with are routinely included on their biographies, when known. They are relevant to the subject's life; the infobox is not only for info that is about the subject's career. Jim Michael (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that parameter name was changed to "domestic partner" I think the ambiguity issue would be adequately resolved. "domestic partner" is a recent invention and isn't fully accepted. While many people have adopted it, it makes others squirm. I don't have a big problem with including such information the article and therefore haven't removed it, but there are policies regarding what gets included in the info-boxes and this info doesn't belong.Micro2 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says not to include the subject's (former) cohabitees in infoboxes? They are routinely included there on thousands of Wikipedia biographies. Jim Michael (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why else do you think the "domesticpartner" (it appears as "partner" on the page) section even exists on wikipedia? Look at Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's pages. He lived with Sondra Locke for 14 years. He lived with Frances Fisher for five and had a daughter with her.

You obviously aren't too smart to be calling her a "mistress." She was actually the one who was married, not him (well, in the beginning of the relationship he was still legally married, but legally separated). Locke is still married to her husband, Gordon Anderson (in name only, she says he is gay). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.96.193 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It'd be better off discussing whether to use the parameter on the infobox's page. If it's deemed vague from the infobox documentation, then it should be clarified there so that other articles that may have similar situations can have clearer guidance. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put any weight into the comment by the 76.* IP above. It's a banned user. Nymf hideliho! 11:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Mr. IP says is true actually. Locke all along was still married to Gordon Anderson who is gay. But she was living with Eastwood and was his mistress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the basic parameters for people: name, image, caption, birth_date, birth_place, nationality, known_for, occupation. Here's the policy for including additional parameters: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". "Infobox templates contain facts and statistics that are common to related articles." Not all actors have unmarried cohabitees. The "partner" parameter was formerly named "domesticpartner". In the infobox documentation, "partner" refers to "life partner", which according to WP includes Abbott and Costello etc. I really think that all this nebulous terminology needs to go. I would agree that it is best done at wherever the source of that parameter is, however I don't know how to do that. Micro2 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the infobox parameter in question should be changed to domestic partner. The two long cohabitations concerned are relevant to his life and as such are notable information about the subject. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the name would be an improvement. After some digging I found that a couple of years ago the name was changed to domestic partner for the reasons we've been discussing. Later there was a merging of 2 templates and the change was lost. So we can try to get an admin to restore it, or even better, change it to something like cohabitee. Micro2 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is erroneous and without merit. Partner has only one meaning in any wikipedia infobox. Note the text in the editing template is actually written as "domesticpartner" but shows up on all pages simply as "partner." Many people have them and you might want to take a look at some other actors' pages for example such as Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie, or Natalie Portman & Benjamin Millipad. In the cases of former partners, examples include Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins, Katharine Hepburn & Spencer Tracy, or Audrey Hepburn & Robert Wolders. Clint Eastwood's relationships with Sondra Locke and Frances Fisher are no exception. He cohabited with both of these women for a long period of time, and had a child with the latter. Stop removing them from the infobox. Your argument that the term "partner" is confusing/misleading makes no sense, because most actors/actresses who have partners have the section on their infobox filled out. Nowofficiallyonhere (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lazy quote box, Rawhide section

This quote, very prominent, early in the article...starts with "Lazy..." gives undue wt to this point of view. If one takes the time to read the section, which some people may not, it's more balanced "grueling" work hours vs "lazy". Reccommend deleting the quote. 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirboj (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't. Actually most directors said this about Eastwood in the 1950s and it is VERY relevant. PLus the article says thst despite him working gruelling hours for Rawhide they still perceived him as lazy because he put minimal effort into it. Many critics have even said he doesn't act, just stands there and hisses his lines and looking menacing..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.quigleypublishing.com/MPalmanac/Top10/Top10_lists.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clint_Eastwood&oldid=423793014"