Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography/archive2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Clint Eastwood filmography

Clint Eastwood filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I just finished rewriting it, and I have added about 150 archived references (one for each film/television series Clint Eastwood has appeared in), making this list notable for FL. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

  • Add brief alt text to all images, to aid readers with impaired vision
  • You have forgotten to close the italics in the caption Eastwood with actress Susan Clark in Coogan's Bluff (1968)
  • The lead is quite long - in particular, the third paragraph is long enough that it begins to feel like a "wall of text", making it uncomfortable to read. Remember that the lead is meant to be engaging (FLC criterion 2), and to serve as an introduction - you don't need to list off so many of the items individually in the lead, one after another, because that's what the list itself is for. Because a rewrite may be necessary here, I am holding off on reviewing the lead in detail until then.
  • Link Man with No Name at least the first time the character is mentioned in the list
  • Some of the characters listed do not seem to be names, but descriptions - I would expect those to be written in sentence case (ie change Man in Crowd on Pier to Man in crowd on pier)
  • It is not immediately obvious what Carlo/Charlie means for someone not familiar with the film - clarify that Charlie is what the character is renamed to in the English release
  • Titles beginning with "The" should not sort on that when the reader chooses to sort by title - for example, The Witches should be sorted as "Witches, The"

Please ping me when you have addressed the above or if you have any questions, and I will take another look. Thank you.--AlexandraIDV 06:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra IDV: I have addressed / completed all of your suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 13:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and sorry for the delay, I will take a look at the lead today.--AlexandraIDV 13:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His most recent acting role was in Cry Macho (2021), which he also directed. - this is an upcoming film, do we know if production has finished? Otherwise, it should be in present tense ("is in Cry Macho (2021), which he is also directing")

Otherwise, this looks good - clarify the Cry Macho bit, and I'll support.--AlexandraIDV 19:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "In 1971, Eastwood made his directorial debut Play Misty for Me." => "In 1971, Eastwood made his directorial debut with Play Misty for Me."
  • "In 1973, Eastwood starred in yet another western" => "In 1973, Eastwood starred in another western"
  • "Three years later, he starred as Confederate guerilla and outlaw Josey Wales in The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)" - if it was three years later then obviously it was 1976, so no real need to restate it
  • "He has even lent his voice to a song" => "He lent his voice to a song"
  • "At the early stages of his acting career" => "In the early stages of his acting career"
  • In the TV section it seems odd to list his director/producer roles first given that a) in the film section it's the other way round and b) they came later than almost all his acting roles. So I would place the acting roles first.
  • That's all I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although no one owns articles here, I put in a decent amount of work rehauling this article from here to there. I am still the number one contributor in terms of edits. I also listed it as one of my projects on my userpage. It would have been polite and nice if you had contacted me and I would have been completely fine with you taking over. That being said, the following changes are needed.
  • There is no reason why score credits should not be in table format like all of the other ones.
Created a table. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
Could you add notes columns to the tables as well? ~ HAL333 02:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note columns have been added. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
Was Eastwood the sole person who received score or song credits? In the "Films directed or produced" table, could you also move "Executive" into the notes column? What were the specific songs that he was credited for? All of them? Or just two? Was he uncredited for any? Etc. These are the kinds of things that should be included in the note columns. ~ HAL333 04:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • The names do not sort properly in the "Acting roles" table.
Added "Sort" to every role. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • I am also not jazzed about the sourcing. To pick one example, you could have picked The New York Times or Ebert for Blood Work, but you chose a local newspaper from Rochester, NY?
I was trying to add references from multiple sources when I first started, as well as one source for each mention of each film. I guess it was to have a "diverse" set of references so there wouldn't be consecutive citations from the same source. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
There is nothing wrong with relying on a single source if it is reliable. ~ HAL333 02:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also nothing wrong with using multiple reliable sources. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • Did you check that this list was complete as is? A random spotcheck found that you are missing Dave Brubeck: In His Own Sweet Way.
Thank you so much for this suggestion! Somehow Eastwood's role in Alfred Hitchcock Presents went overlooked. Thank you so much. However, doing a "spotcheck" gave up a lot of "short films", such as The Beguiled: The Storyteller, Monterey Jazz Festival: 40 Legendary Years, Budd Boetticher: An American Original, and an unsourced producing credit on American Masters. Should I include these? Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
If you can not find a reliable source, it should not be added. ~ HAL333 02:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linking within Gary Cooper: American Life, American Legend seems strange.
Removed the partial link to Gary Cooper. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • Repeating roles that have an article should be linked each time.
Added duplicate links. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • I have been told that the lede shouldn't include future projects.
Removed the mention of Cry Macho using WP:HIDDEN. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
That's it. ~ HAL333 00:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: I have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 02:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Added more comments. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 04:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Added additional comments. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* In the lead, most of the claims that go beyond "Eastwood appeared in X" need an inline citation, including (but not limited to): ... beginning his acting career exclusively with small uncredited film roles and television appearances ... (particularly important as the work itself then wouldn't verify that Eastwood appeared in it); his breakout film role was ...; made his directorial debut ...; was a departure from his typical genres .... There are some such sources but unless I'm missing something, the rest needs sourcing.
 Done
  • There's some precedent for Screen Rant as a reliable source but I'd prefer something higher-quality for analysis of how acclaimed or well-received things were, as they have a tendency to use sensationalist language. Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic would work (if there are enough reviews) as proof of positive reception. Also, it's not quite close paraphrasing but I'd prefer another word to "spawned" in "spawned a sequel".
The sources in the article from Screen Rant are used mainly for the film titles, with only one being in the lead about box-office information. So, overall, none of these references are used "for analysis of how acclaimed or well-received things were". Therefore, I have kept them.
  • I'm agreed with HAL333 that there's no problem with consecutive/heavy use of one citation as the filmography list just contains simple, uncontroversial claims. There's no problem with variety of sourcing but it does all have to be reliable. WP:CITOGENESIS is a real issue with some local sources and claims that could originate on Wikipedia or IMDb or similar. So I'm not bothered if the sources below are replaced by the exact same source throughout, or completely unique sources (or if you can provide convincing reasoning that the source already is reliable), as long as the end result is something reliable.
 Done
  • Can't read either Wide Open Country directly or through the archive link. Is it by chance associated with the radio station? Otherwise, why is it reliable?
minus Replaced with sources from IndieWire, RogerEbert.com, and Rolling Stone.
  • Closer Weekly is a tabloid—better source needed.
minus Replaced with The New York Times
  • Why is Country Thang Daily reliable? Also, The Stanford Daily is student-run so likely dubious. These two are very easy to find better sources for as they're just about Dollars credits.
minus Replaced both references with articles from RogerEbert.com and Slant Magazine, respectively.
  • Our article on All About Jazz says it has a "volunteer staff"—why is it reliable?
minus Replaced with BBC Online
  • Why is Most Wanted Western Movies reliable?
minus Replaced with the British Film Institute
  • The Elkhart Truth is definitely not right as it cites its sources as "entertainment news sources including [...] IMDb".
minus Replaced with the Tulsa World
  • AllMusic's WP:RSP entry concerns me a little.
Kept - The AllMusic WP:RSP says that it shouldn't be used for reviews, but says nothing about using it for music listings.
minus Replaced with Yahoo! Movies
  • MonFilmCulte looks like a blog/amateur site.
minus Replaced with the American Film Institute
  • From their website: "HeadStuff.org is a collaborative hub ..." Sounds user-generated—can definitely improve on this one.
minus Replaced with Vulture.com
  • VHS Revival is a (WordPress-hosted) blog.
minus Replaced with The Times
  • What makes the following reliable: FozFan, 50+ World, The Second Disc, We Are The Mighty, Cinemaholic?
minus Replaced FozFan and The Second Disc with the Library of Congress, 50+ World with the American Film Institute, We Are The Mighty with CNN, and The Cinemaholic with Esquire and Rolling Stone.
  • TheGuardian.com should just be The Guardian to fit with the style used in other references.
 Done
 Done
  • Why a pipe character and not a colon in the reference for Aim for the Heart: The Films of Clint Eastwood (second part is a subtitle)?
 Fixed
  • 15 sources in the body spotchecked with a random number generator. 12, 22, 23, 56, 63, 82, 83, 85, 91, 97, 99, 104, 105, 107, 115. No issue at all with 13 of them. HeadStuff already mentioned above. Screen Rant (#63) is not good in this case because it's citing IMDb.
minus Replaced source citing IMDb with the American Film Institute.

Other comments:

  • Not sure what Zombiesnyder's edit here did as there's no edit summary but the tables should be sortable exactly as they were before this edit.
 Done Their edit has been reverted.
  • After beginning his acting career exclusively with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, his career has spanned more than 60 years. – Odd wording and tense change. Maybe His career has spanned 60 years and began with small uncredited film roles and television appearances.
 Done
  • most notably – just "including" is better (the reason you're mentioning it is that it's most notable).
 Done
  • (Not an FL criterion.) In "External links", "the Rotten Tomatoes" should just be "Rotten Tomatoes".
 Done

A bit of a harsh review but hopefully these comments are helpful! — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, happy with all of these improvements but just two more things:
  • Although it received largely negative reviews, Eastwood starred opposite an orangutan implies more of a relationship between these two facts than there is.
  • The film was immensely popular is unsourced and would be better if more specific (popular as in huge audience, or critical acclaim?).
— Bilorv (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Both issues have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Clint_Eastwood_filmography/archive2&oldid=1004083174"