Talk:Forest Whitaker/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a brilliant actor; his enlish accent in the Crying Game, for example, was so good that I actually thought he was a British actor!


- "large, baby-faced black actor who has eluded stardom despite a number of varied leading roles." I think this quote is inappropriate for the introduction and worse yet, it's not cited.

Heh, I was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw it. If it's in quotes, it had better be cited. And I can't find anything on it, so I removed it. -- MrDolomite 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Battlefield Earth language

With apologies to the author, I have hidden (rather than deleting outright) the following two sentences: "He also was cast in the 2000 film Battlefield Earth, which was critically panned, and performed poorly at the box office. He has since gone on record as regretting his participation in the film." My reasons: (1) relevance -- Whitaker has an extensive filmography. Is this the only film that he has regretted participating in? Or is it particularly important that an accomplished actor regrets participating in an infamously bad movie? (2) source -- if he has "gone on record," then the source should be cited; (3) flow -- this language doesn't fit with the structure and flow of the rest of the paragraph, which otherwise follows Whitaker's career in a logical progression. --Vbd 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Trivia deletion

See WP:AVTRIV. Also, trivia section of IMDb.com is not a very reliable source. If there is a better source to support that Whitaker turned down a part in "Lost," then add the information to the appropriate section of the main text of the article and provide the citation.--Vbd | (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DeForest Whitaker

From what I can tell, DeForest Whitaker is not his birth name, but he is sometimes credited under that name. If you can provide a reliable source that says it is his birth name, please provide it.--Vbd (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The copyrighted images need fair use rationales or the article will be quick failed. Look to other actor GA/FAs for examples. --Nehrams2020 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Good, good. I think a better image than the poster for The Last King of Scotland can be used, but good enough. Alientraveller 10:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

eyelid

The medical term for drooping eyelid is incorrect. the article calls it strabismus. That term refers to a condition where the eyes are not properly aligned with each other. Whitaker has the condition called ptosis of his left eyelid. Still a cool guy.69.122.62.231 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I corrected the section. None of the references made about the subject were actually about him and appear to be the error of the initial writer. I'll try to link the Wiki subject about ptosis, but I'm not very knowledgable about the format. --72.237.107.17 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

add Light It Up

he was in the movie Light it Up 1999

72.187.112.172 (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Forest Whitaker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA onhold.svg This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

This is a typical example of an article that was good once, but has fallen into neglect and been filled up with cruft. This is particularly the case with current issue articles, like biographies of artists who are still active in their field. Although most of the article is good, there are so many issues with it that I currently don't think it qualifies for GA status.

  • Early life - ok
  • Film work - ok up until Last King (which was about the time the article was made GA), but it gets listy after this.
  • Television work - not so good, there's little coherence or context, apart from a little bit on his Shield and ER roles. The rest is just a listing of different roles. Retelling SNL jokes is not very funny, and of course there's the invariable reference to Family Guy or one of its spin-offs. Family Guy reference removed
  • Producing and directing - this is much better.
  • Recent honours - words like "Recent" should be avoided. Some of this is relevant, some of it is not. All of it needs to be cited. Fixed.
  • Personal life - ok
  • Filmography - too extensive, it doesn't need to be complete since Wikipedia is not a directory. Lampman (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd argue to compare this to myriad other filmographies on featured articles like Reese Witherspoon and Angelina Jolie or good articles like Scarlett Johannson, Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. The requirement is that articles be comprehensive in scope and covering his appearances falls under that heading.
Hi Lampman. I am going to take on working on this article but wanted to note that due to a vision disability, I am sometimes a bit slow in working. I've got a WP:GA review pending on Kate Winslet and a WP:GAR on the table for Daniel Day-Lewis, so my editing is a bit scattered at the moment. I plan to start working on this one tomorrow. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, there you have something in common with the subject, and he turned it into a strength. Let me know how you get along, and if you need an extension on the deadline. Lampman (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll also go through this as time permits. I'm reluctant to touch the filmography. On the one hand it's exhaustive and that's something to be avoided, but on the other hand, a selective list is bound to be tinged with the POV of whoever creates it or trims it. I think it also introduces an element of instability - a lot of editors make additions to filmographies when they see that something is absent and I don't think it would take long before someone reinstated the complete filmography. Complete filmographies seem to be becoming more and more common-place, particularly for current high profile and/or notable actors as per the few examples Wildhartlivie gives above. Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I won't fail it on the filmography alone, though I think it's a bad practice. With very prolific actors in particular, the article gets unneccessarily bloated. How are we doing with the rest, should I give the hold another week? Lampman (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do. I got caught up in issues at the GAN I've got up and at another article, which has taken my focus. I appreciate the hold! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the work of Nehrams, Wildhartlivie and others, the article is now in a much better state, and I have no problem passing it. Lampman (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)