Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christopher Reeve/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gunkyboy (talk | contribs) at 12:31, 24 November 2006 ([[Christopher Reeve]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Self Nomination. I added a lot more secondary references, and cleaned the article up a bit. Gunkyboy 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you broke something with your page move/archiving. --Ideogram 07:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to work on this right now. --Ideogram 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited and found no major problems. I am very pleased to change my vote to Support. --Ideogram 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Terrible prose, as per Ideogram. Bad grammar & flow.
  • Reeve had an unusual medical history. He suffered from asthma and allergies since childhood. He had suffered from alopecia areata since age sixteen, a condition that caused patches of hair to fall out from his otherwise healthy head of hair. Generally he was able to comb over it and often the problem disappeared for long periods of time.
1) To begin the medical section with the 1st bold is marked with too much enthusiasm on the fact that he had unusual medical history.
2) On 2nd pair of bolds, shouldn't childhood sickness be w/ "had", and teenage sickness be w/o it, considering the timeline?
  • Reeve's first role after Superman was as Richard Collier in the 1980 romantic fantasy Somewhere in Time.
1) "was as" should be "was".
2) correct: "romantic fantasy, Somewhere in Time" (disregarding italics).
  • Reeve was a licensed pilot and had flown solo across the Atlantic twice.
1) Has to be organized better or written more clearly b/c I thought this was about his movies. Try to separate trivias from his roles in movies. (Wikimachine 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - I made some of those changes. The licensed pilot thing, if you read further, is important since a few sentences later I cite it as the reason why he did the movie The Aviator. Gunkyboy 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I found this an excellent article. Very well researched, well written, and highly deserving of being made FA and being placed on the main page. Wikipedia can be proud to include an article of this quality. Jeffpw 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks Jeff. Yeah, Ideogram, I think I did break something. I was confused with the whole archiving of the old featured article discussion. Hopefully it's not too screwed up. I took your comments to heart and have made a few changes. Those suggestions were very helpful, and if you have any other suggestions for the rest of the article, I'd be happy to consider them. Before objecting the nomination flat out, please know that I am willing to make any changes necessary. The intro was never the strongest part of the article because it was written in haste after someone said I needed to expand it. Gunkyboy 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. I will get back to you with more comments. --Ideogram 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that line was a bit fawning, so I got rid of it. Also fixed a sentence in the Activism section. It's a long article so it's hard for one person to notice everything. Gunkyboy 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the External links section is a bit bloated. Why is the Why You Should Respect Christopher Reeve essay part of the external links? Is it really that notable? Also the National Health Promotion and Information Center... one is a subpage of Christopher Reeve's own home page, so I don't think you need to include that. Did Mr. Reeve have any ties to Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics? The article doesn't mention it, so why is it in the external links? I'm sure there are many memorial sites out there dedicated to him. Why is http://christopher-reeve.memory-of.com/ the one in the external links? I'm concerned that this invites random users to shove more and more random links in there, and that the section might devolve into a link depository. Finally, ref 65 is missing access date/author/publisher information. Gzkn 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]