Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Josh Hutcherson

Nominator(s): Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about actor Josh Hutcherson, most well known as of late for his role as Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series. Hutcherson has also been in well known films such as Firehouse Dog, Bridge to Terabithia, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Kids Are All Right. The article was up for a peer review in December 2013, which closed without a single review, passed its GAN in February 2014 and then failed a FAC in April 2014 due to a lack of reviewers. I began working on the article again and brought it to another peer review which closed a few weeks ago again with very little success, put a little more work into the page and now I'm back with it and hoping to gain some more reviews and pass this one through to become featured.

As always, I'm open to any suggestions for improvement and welcome the feedback. Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mark Miller

Image review

• There are 6 images being used in the article. All have proper license and attribution. However I believe there may be too many images with little EV. I would suggest losing File:Josh Hutcherson 2012.jpg as it does not add very much to the article and another 2012 image is represented of the subject in another section. Also File:Josh_Hutcherson_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg is decorative and redundant. It has no relevance to the section or list.
• The main image had a proper free license but was uploaded as a very small version and was very washed out. I have taken the liberty at Commons to upload a newer version in the cropped but full size version of the original and corrected the washed out look of the image from this to this.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed those two images, good point. And wow! Thank you for uploading a new version, that looks much better. I'm no image-pro, so the help is much appreciated. Gloss 03:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well written?

• The article needs a bit of a general edit to help the writing, just a bit, to be more engaging, and more focused.

Lede section

• "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American actor." should actually read: "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American film, television and voiceover actor." Here is where it is important to be focused and precise. As an actor we want to know what kind of actor and what genres.
• The line that follows goes directly to his acting career and skips over his personal life. At least add some mention of his being a native of Kentucky and having working parents. The personal life section is short and could use some expansion but something along the lines of: "A native of Kentucky who's working parents held careers in the air line industry and US Government, Josh began his acting career in....."
• He received eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor in those five years, half of which he won. is awkward. That should read something like: In that five year span, he has won four out of eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor.
• The line: Beyond entertainment, Hutcherson is heavily involved in a gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, "Straight But Not Narrow." Should read: Aside from the entertainment industry, Hutcherson is heavily involved in the gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, they call "Straight But Not Narrow." Be sure and say "the" gay-straight alliance not "a" as we are being specific to a particular group the subject created.
• Also...there is a mistake here referring to Hutcherson as a co-founder of "Straight But Not Narrow." He is actually an "advocate" but is not listed as a co-founder. See this Facebook image with its caption.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(I have more but this is some this to start)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Given I've gone a year with this article getting very little feedback, I just want to say how much I appreciate you reviewing this! I've taken care of all of these points.

I agree with you about the writing needing to be a bit more engaging. I've read the article 500 times over, so it's hard for me to think of different ways to word things. I brought the article to the WP:GOCE and a user copyedited the article. However some further rewriting/rewording could definitely be beneficial.

As for the personal life section, are you referring to the early life section? The personal life section I feel accurately covers a good amount of information. The early life section is rather short, however not too much information is out there on his early life. I'm going to look into this some more and see what I can come up with.

Thanks again! Gloss 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time for lack of comprehensiveness and per SNUGGUMS comments and concerns as well as my own that this will certainly take longer than the period of the FAC to bring up to criteria. There are sources out there to begin a more detailed coverage of the personal life section. The subject has been very candid in a number of interviews and his story may not be as exciting as a film plot but there are points that are worth encyclopedic coverage. One other source to look at is: "Jennifer, Liam and Josh: An Unauthorized Biography of the Stars of The Hunger Games" by Danny White. This goes into more detail about the early years to at least begin researching other RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry but I can't be neutral on this part. The personal life section must be expanded. He's not gay but he does support gay rights. So...uhm, the personal life section is almost entirely about his advocacy for gay rights. He has to have more of a personal life than that even at the age of 20 something. It isn't that I am looking for a long personal section. They tend to be a little short, but his advocacy is only about philanthropy. We don't want gossip and who he is "dating", but if he is in a serious relationship that may be mentioned in a reliable source.
• I think the early life section has more that could be added (it also doesn't need to be a long section, just comprehensive). There also should be some education background. Did he attend college? I don't see mention of that.
• The career sections are great but the reception section seems rather small compared to the career section. He may be young, but he has a large body of work and if you are including a reception section it should cover from his first notable work to his most recent notable work and touch on the biggies in between.

I think at the very least, if you can expand on the personal life section at least 2/3 larger with maybe a mention of politics and other interests (see Jake Gyllenhaal and Ethan Hawke) and, either incorporate the existing reception section into the career section (they go together anyway) or expand on it a bit to have broader coverage of critics reviews etc., I could support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding some more comments. I'm very eager to keep this ball rolling, so I'll put some serious thought and work into these suggestions. Just to answer one of your quick questions… no, he didn't go to college. He didn't even go to high school. Gloss 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Update: He did apparently attend high school for one semester. Information added. Gloss 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Also just to note, there isn't really any confirmation on a relationship at all right now, let alone a serious relationship. Neither the previous relationship or supposed current one have ever been fully confirmed in the first place, so I've come to 100% agree with that information being removed. Gloss 07:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would look for a source for his home schooling and I would also look for a source for his relationship/s or I would take a moment to reconsider the overall size of the personal section and the undue weight of the gay advocacy issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: - check out this version of the personal life section. This is from before the GA review. The reviewer felt a lot of that information was irrelevant and some more has been chipped away over time. Is there anything in there that you think could be re-inserted? I'm going to re-add the political information back in… that seems ok. Gloss 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

[outdent] @Mark Miller: So what are your current thoughts? You made some of your own changes to the personal life section. Is that something you feel looks OK now? You mentioned about the reception section, which has been the hardest section to find information for, but I'm still searching. Most comments tend to be about him in a specific role, so finding comments about him as an actor outside of a role is tricky, but at least for now I'm happy with the information in there so far. Gloss 23:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

=/ can't say I'm not trying. Gloss 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: -> have you seen Gloss' latest comments? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's more or less a lost cause. I pinged Mark Miller twice here and was also ignored with attempts to contact him on his talk page. Gloss 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd, but I seem to remember discussing the issues on my talk page and I made a number of suggestion after those pings and even addressed a few on the article myself. Collapsing a !vote that is clearly opposition is wrong on many levels. Whether you feel it is a lost cause or not, never collapse a !vote in a FAC and title it as if the concerns were all addressed. Some stuff you made excuses for and frankly the writing is not on a par with other Feature Articles yet and seems to fall short of comprehensive to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to contact you four times since the last time we spoke. You addressed your concerns here and I've taken care of all of them. After four messages with no reply, it seems pretty safe to assume you have no more interest in the FAC because I've taken care of everything. If you still stand by your oppose, that've great. But ignoring me just showed me you didn't feel you had anything else to say about the article. Gloss 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not sure that you are using the FAC to the standards this venue is used to in the way you closed that !vote but for now I am not neutral or supportive, please respect that. I have and continue to watch the article but was not inclined to support it then. I can look again but much of what I find wrong is the writing and general comprehensiveness of the article. I will take some time to look again and re-review the article but please respect whatever the opinion is.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that if closing off your comments was wrong in terms of how things work at FAC, then I apologize. You seem pretty upset about it. But as I did with Snuggum's comments, I used strike-through to show which concerns were taken care of and then once all of the concerns were taken care of, the text was collapsed. Thought it was safe to do the same thing here. But like I said, if that's not how things work, I apologize. Been well over 5 years since my last time at an FAC. Gloss 22:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) moving comment down so this conversation makes more sense Gloss 22:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-review by Mark Miller

• The Personal life section still has the same issue as before...it has nothing that is not gay related. The section has an undue amount of content on his gay advocacy but nothing else (if nothing else, move the last two sentences from the early life section about inspiration to the Personal life section as that does not pertain to his early life really and find at least one more sourced piece of content for that section that isn't puffery etc to be as comprehensive as possible).

• I've added to this section. Let me know your thoughts! Gloss 07:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Filmography - add notes to all the sections in the film boxes or remove the notes section (but for comprehensiveness it should have notes in all)

• What do you think about Jake Gyllenhaal filmography#Film? I like it and I'd be willing to make the switch. Gloss 01:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I support that if you do what was done on the Gyllenhaal article, split off to a separate, free standing article and just add a link to it at the end of this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Hutcherson has enough to split it off to a separate article, so I'll leave it as it after making your suggested fixes. Gloss 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, he is a young and very determined actor. I don't foresee his career stalling from everything I see and believe at the rate he has been working the section will grow rapidly. Splitting is not required but may be a good idea and would certainly help towards keeping these articles consistent, if not I wonder if collapsing is commonly done with FA articles? No, seems not, but it does appear just from the selection of FA actor biographies linked below to be an "either or" situation. Either use the current set boxes for the filmography or split off and just link here, so just adding a note is fine.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the other FA's listed below, none of them have all of the spaces in the notes section filled. Is there something specific that you think should be filled into the blanks? Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. Gloss 07:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I had not noticed that much. I will not hold you to a higher level. You have done a good deal of work and I feel good enough to support this now.

• Under Awards and nominations you have the GLAAD award listed. That needs to be moved out of the box as it does not strictly pertain to that sections awards for performances. I suggest simply removing it from the Awards box and leaving the prose as is where it mentions it.

• Also noting that this was taken care of. Gloss 07:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• The writing in general needs copy editing for clarity. For instance, the line: "The day following Catching Fire's United States release, Hutcherson hosted his first episode of Saturday Night Live.[69][70]" This needs a date (and probably quotes around the title of the film for clarity) if even just the day and month or even just the month as context and a point of reference for the reader. Another thing is the way it reads. It states this was his first episode...has he done others? Legitimate question. If he has not, that is a presumptuous statement and if he has, a mention of how many times would be encyclopedic. Also, that whole part is really a mention of his reception so I would move that content to the reception section. Guest appearances on SNL are more public reception subject. In general, the article needs a good copy edit for flow and some clarifications here and there. I believe the reception section may have too many quotes. We don't need to have that many. trim back to just discussing or summarizing what has been said. It seems to "magazine like" coverage to me.

• I've taken care of the specific requests in this comment, however the need for a copy edit is something I strongly agree with. I believe the prose is pretty good but I do think there's room for improvement. The only problem is getting somebody to copy edit. It needs a fresh pair of eyes. I've read the things on this page 500 times by now. I'm crossing my fingers someone bored looking for a task will come along and see this and copy edit it. I don't have many connections with good copy editors on here so I'll continue to do my best in the meantime. Gloss 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think these are my major issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support FAC for comprehensiveness. Pinging SNUGGUMS to see if their opinion has changed from neutral after improvements have now been made.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Snuggums doesn't often receive pings, for some reason. But I really appreciate your support Mark, and thanks for coming back to re-review. Means a lot. Gloss 12:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I DID recieve this ping, though. I don't know why Justin Timberlake was re-added when being a fan is not by itself worthy of inclusion, and I'm not sure about the second paragraph in "personal life" with sports and such. Still at a neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Timberlake stuff was never removed. And as for the second paragraph, I was going off of Mark and Starship's suggestions that something else needed to be added to the personal life sections and Hutcherson is actually pretty vocal about his fitness and sports love in different interviews. There's at least 5-6 different interviews/sources in that paragraph which show how it's a pretty big part of his life. I also used got some inspiration from Julianne Moore where it discusses how she is with her fame and personal life, so I figured I'd transition into that and give it some attention as well. Gloss 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Oppose I'm very sorry Gloss, but this doesn't meet FA criteria. 1a: Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. As Mark said above, this could use work..... "A native of Kentucky who's working parents"..... whose "Josh" should read "Hutcherson" per WP:SURNAME. "In that five year span" reads somewhat awkwardly and isn't really needed "He is the son of"..... this suggests he is the only son. Try a son of or the elder son of since he only has one younger brother. The Kids Are All Right should only be linked once in the "Early roles and breakthrough" section GQ should be italicized CNN should not be italicized- it isn't a print source "In Little Manhattan, he appeared alongside his younger brother, Connor, for the first time"..... why include "for the first time" here if not mentioning Connor was featured in any of his brother's other films? "Peeta’s" → "Peeta's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS "Hutcherson previously dated Journey 2 co-star Vanessa Hudgens, and they have been seen together in public"..... it would help to include when they dated, and something about "they have been seen together in public" doesn't seem like the best phrasing I've removed the awkward phrasing. I've researched information on the two's relationship and they kept things as private as possible. So being that any kind of confirmed time frame doesn't exist, it's probably better to leave that out. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "revealed that they are now simply 'good friends'"..... were simply 1b: Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Definitely not. In fact, I'm not sure it meets 3a of GA criteria. There is no detail on how Hutcherson first became interested in acting There is nothing on who influences him and his work aside from one brief mention of how he cites Jake Gyllenhaal as an inspiration I've looked into this one a great deal. Gyllenhaal is the only one he's cited as an inspiration for his work in entertainment. However he does say his two gay uncles passing influences him with his LGBT advocating, and that is mentioned in the article as well. Gloss 01:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Information added. Gloss 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) There are no quotes from Hutcherson himself on his influences or film/TV work except for Peeta losing his mind in Mockingjay As for these three, I'll continue looking for information but not a lot seems to be out there. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Information added. Gloss 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Early life" is rather short with only one paragraph. As I mentioned to Mark Miller, I'm going to continue looking for information. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Between Mark and I, we've put together some more information in this section. His early life seems to be a very simple story. Gloss 22:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I'd also include more critical commentary on Hutcherson's performances; for example, why is there no commentary on him for Catching Fire when there is for the Part 1 of Mockingjay and the first Hunger Games movie? It would also help to include quotes from critics on him as an actor in general, not just pertaining to specific roles. Having trouble finding much of anything. The little bits and pieces I'm finding are about him in a specific role. Gloss 02:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Information added (thanks to Mark for the great book finding) Gloss 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) The fact that he won the MTV Movie Award for Best Male performance in the first Hunger Games is definitely worth noting in prose 1c: Well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. Needs work. EthniCelebs (the source used for ancestry) is NOT a reliable source, and neither is SugarScape. I'm not too sure about "Bustle.com" or "Zimbio" or "MovieVine". As for SugarScape, that was an interview with Hutcherson. I don't think we're pulling out controversial information, but a quote from an interview, which is likely OK. Bustle.com is just one writer's review of Hutcherson in the Mockingjay film. The two reviews found were the only ones around that didn't review only Lawrence's role in the movie. As for Zimbio, MovieVine, and EthniCelebs, I've removed them. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1d: Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. No complaints here. 1e: Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. All good. 2a. Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. Looks pretty good. 2b. Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Nothing of concern. 2c. Consistent citations: consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). Not exactly..... See note above on CNN "Biography.com" should link to FYI (U.S. TV channel), and why is there a "p.2" when this isn't a printed source? Fandango links to the dance, should be Fandango (ticket service) "Cincinnati.com" should read The Cincinnati Enquirer "empireonline.com." should read Empire (see article Empire (film magazine)) I'm guessing that for the "Dove" links, it was supposed to be The Dove Foundation "MLB" should link to Major League Baseball, and should not read "MLB.com". "MLB Advanced Media" should also be removed from the ref. The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized as it is a print source. Not sure why this has a publisher when the others don't use them. I'd remove Prometheus Global Media from its ref to match the others. FN53 is missing its work parameter The following terms are italicized when they shouldn't be: CNN (as stated above) Nike Dove Fandango MTV (which also shouldn't read "MTV.com") CBS News Yahoo! Anschutz Entertainment Group E! Prometheus Global Media 3: Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Looks better with Mark's input, though I'm not sure the pictures with Vanessa Hudgens are needed. If anything, I'd only use one image. Removed one. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 4: Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Needs cleaning, and might not meet 3b of GA criteria..... I'm skeptical about including hobbies. No need to talk about a friendship with AnnaSophia Robb, or how she did not read Bridge to Terabithia prior to the film or awards she won. However, mentioning that Hutcherson hadn't read it beforehand is fine. Maybe add quotes about that instead. Removed the Robb information, however the quote from the website is about the pair not reading the novel first, and would look awkward to rework the quote to not include Robb. Is "He was described as very patient and confident while working on set with the animals" really needed? For the Catching Fire box office, only the $420 million figure is needed- the span between 2013 and 2014 isn't very long compared to things like 1972 to 2002. "Being from Northern Kentucky, Hutcherson has been a lifelong fan of both the Kentucky Wildcats and the nearby Cincinnati Reds. He was invited to throw the ceremonial opening pitch before the Reds' game against the Miami Marlins on April 7, 2012." is completely trivial and unneeded. Dying his hair to match Justin Timberlake's is something I'd also scrap. If anything, it would be better to discuss things like how Timberlake influenced Hutcherson. Being a fan isn't by itself worthy of inclusion. I suggest withdrawal as there's simply too many flaws to address during an FAC. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I am not so sure all of the above cannot be addressed in a timely manner and I would be willing to edit the article to help Gloss address the issues raised. However, withdrawing the article does not mean that it can't be put back up at a later date for FA. I have not really opposed or supported the candidate, just commented on the things I saw at a glance. I think it is clearly not FA at the moment. Withdrawing really depends on if Gloss feels the issues can be done quickly and whether or not Snuggums feels there may be more still not addressed. But thank you for the comprehensive list. Clearly a direction to go.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC) @Mark Miller: Withdrawing is absolutely not an option for me at this time. I've been looking for feedback for over a year, and to finally get something to work with is great. This can all be dealt with pretty quickly, I've run into a lot of free time as of late. @SNUGGUMS:, I've noticed, has a habit of suggesting withdrawal on a lot of GAN/FAC that he doesn't seem to want to bother spending time on. I'll address all of these issues very shortly. Gloss 17:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I've taken care of a bunch of these concerns. I hope you don't mind that I've crossed out the ones I've completed. I find it easier to see which issues remain. Anything I didn't comment on or strike through, I will be working on soon. Gloss 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) The editor may simply have felt the amount was more than the nominating editor could handle by themselves in the amount of time a FAC runs. That is surely a matter of a good faith opinion. I know I have declined GA nominations after finding and listing a large amount of work I thought was too much for the single editor to handle in a timely manner. I have since stopped doing that as I feel that once you list issues, editors should give some time to see if they are addressed before either declining/opposing or asking for the article to be withdrawn. Not everyone will support an article even after all the issues are addressed. But I did think, even with the amount of work I was sure there would be, if it could be addressed it might become FA through this process. I hope SNUGGUMS will reconsider the oppose !Vote after the work is put in but also hope others will comment and add to the consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I agree, it's usually best to give the nominator time to address issues (in my experience). I've taken care of I'd say 90% of the issues listed and will remain working on the others. Gloss 00:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Upon further review, I believe I've taken care of or responded to all of the issues. @SNUGGUMS: So if you have a desire to add any additional comments or collaborate with me on the items I replied to you about, please feel free. Gloss 02:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Looks better, but I still stand by my oppose. My main concern is comprehensiveness. It might not be an easy find, but I'm confident that Gyllenhaal isn't the only one who inspired him in acting. Keep looking for quotes from Hutcherson himself on his work and how he feels on acting in general. Do more research and look into cover stories such as this piece from Out. As for other bits..... No need to mention that AnnaSophia Robb, Jennifer Lawrence, or any other costars won awards alongside him. Their awards belong in their own respective articles. "A more negative review came from Peter K. Rosenthal of The Onion who criticized the casting of Hutcherson saying" seems somewhat long, break it up with commas or even split into two sentences. The info on Gyllenhall doesn't belong in "personal life", I'd probably place it in "early life" as this gives me the impression he was a role model to him while growing up "were now simply" → "were simply" Even if the exact time he began dating Hudgens is unknown, it would be useful to include when they first met. Looking into sources, I see this was originally from Glamour. In cases where one source replicates a previous publication's word, I'd go with the original source. The cover story linked above from Out is worth using as well for the bit on his sexuality and perhaps more. Here is the review from The Onion on Catching Fire. FN49 incorrectly italicizes MTV I know you've put substantial work into this, and commend your efforts, but this isn't FA-material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Before I address these, care to explain why? You laid out the FA criteria and your only remaining concern outside of a couple of easy fixable problems seems to be comprehensiveness. But what about it? Is the "actors who inspired him" issues your only issue or is there something else you're not sharing? I'd also invite you to search for information on that bit, since you're convinced something else HAS to exist. Gloss 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I might not have listed all my concerns at first (sorry for not doing so sooner), but it simply seems too lightweight to be FA. Yes, comprehensiveness is a big concern, and I believe the use of cover stories (such as the Out piece I linked above) would add to comprehensiveness as FA criteria 1c includes "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If available, books on him would also help. It also does feels empty with only one influence. I'll look into more myself, and will let you know if I can find anything on my own. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Alright. Just to note, I've made the adjustments from the comments above. As for books, there is one that exists that is accessible over the internet, which Mark Miller found and has used as a source in the article. Gloss 04:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) @Mark Miller: @SNUGGUMS: That's OK about the Oppose !votes. Frankly, I'm not too concerned about it. What I am concerned about is improving the article as best as I can and since you both seem to have legitimate concerns, I'd still appreciate the help you both were offering and the feedback, either with me as I continue with the article or along the sidelines throwing some tips my way. The Jennifer, Liam, and Josh book is a great find, and I thought the OUT article was covered more or less, but it doesn't hurt to see what else I can squeeze out of it. And by the way, Snuggums.. found another inspiration :) Gloss 13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC) And then there is this which removes a bulk of the personal life section. That's an edit I tend to agree with, however I've never been too sure on whether or not past relationships are notable enough for inclusion on any BLPs, unless it resulted in an engagement/marriage. Gloss 21:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC) @Mark Miller: @SNUGGUMS: One way you guys could additionally help me out a bit is to help me figure out what the article is still missing, if you feel it's still missing anything. As comprehensiveness states: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" - and since you've both last commented, I've added a good chunk of information to the article, mostly using the book but also with the help of the OUT article. One concern was that the personal life section is too short, and I noted in the comment above that all of the relationship stuff was taken out by another user, shortening it even more. Is there any topics you guys can think of that aren't covered that information may exist on? Gloss 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC) If anything, might be worth looking more into his career outside of acting. Overall, I'm neutral now, and will end with that. His relationships can stay or go, no preference there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC) OK after seeing substantial improvement since I last commented, I had to revisit and just have a couple things keeping me from supporting: 1) When including in prose a nomination Hutcherson did not win, also say who the winner was (see for example how the Robert Downey, Jr. article says that he lost his Academy Award nomination for Chaplin to Al Pacino). As for the sports, I see they made it difficult for him to gain weight for playing Peeta, so maybe connect any mentions of that to ways it affected his career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC) For the sports suggestion, I'm not sure I understand. Did you see somewhere that mentioned it affecting his career? I've never read anything about him gaining or losing weight for another role out of all of my readings, only for The Hunger Games, but if you saw something about it affecting his career, it's very possible I missed it. Hutcherson isn't an actor known for having weight issues whatsoever, but his Hunger Games character was supposed to be more buff than his actually body type, so for that role alone he had to gain some weight. Gloss 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC) The first paragraph of "The Hunger Games and breakthrough" contains In preparation for the role, he had to bleach his hair and gain 15 pounds, which he found difficult due to his dedication to sports. I'm saying that if including sports later on in article, they should have connections to his career like this bit did. It otherwise just looks like a trivial interest listing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Understandable. I think it may lean towards being too trivial, so I've removed that bit. I also added in who the winner was of that second YAA nomination. Gloss 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Now we just have that bit in "personal life" to either connect or remove. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC) How do you think it could be connected? It's not really related to his career. It's his biography personal life section, and it seems like sports are a big part of his personal life, but don't have anything to do with his acting career. Gloss 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Hmmm..... I don't see how it fits for one's "personal life" section. However, one portion says Hutcherson has been a keen sports enthusiast since his youth, playing on his high school's soccer team, also displaying a passion for football and tennis. At the age of 13, he participated in a triathlon. After giving this some thought, it's probably best to move that to "early life", and could perhaps be used for commentary on school experience. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Very good suggestion. Moved it! Gloss 23:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good now, so I'll support. Kudos for your dedication! If anything seems subpar to me in the future, I'll adjust it later on myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving it a third look and now supporting, and yes of course please fix anything as you see fit. Gloss 00:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint

Resolved concerns from starship.paint

Lead I have concerns about the length of the lead. Having taken a look at other FAs of others like Eric Bana, Reese Witherspoon, Kirsten Dunst, Cillian Murphy and Jake Gyllenhaal, they all have had at least 6 more years of acting experience, but shorter leads in their articles. My own notions of popularity is that I have heard of all of them except Gyllenhaal, and I haven't heard of Hutcherson either, so I'd expect the rest of them to have more success and notable stuff, though I might be mistaken. How notable (commercially successful) are all the films in the second paragraph of the lead? I only know of The Polar Express, Zathura and Journey to the Center of the Earth. I don't doubt the importance of the Hunger Games, but there's no need for the play-by-play with timeline in the lead. In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role ... based on Suzanne Collins' novel series ... time-frame which would prove the keep the young actor busy ... were released in November 2013 and 2014, respectively, with the final film Mockingjay – Part 2 scheduled for release in November 2015 Don't think the Basketball game is needed for the lead. Howl's Moving Castle (film) states that the English dubbed version of the film was only released in 2005. It was the original Japanese version which was released in 2004. Fixed all of the above. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I'm still finding the lead too long. Red Dawn (2012), 7 Days in Havana (2012), The Forger (2012) should all be cut from the third paragraph, I feel that they are all relatively minor films. Forger is in the fourth paragraph anyway. Proposing Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in the box-office record setting The Hunger Games film series, which has released films annually from 2012 to 2014. Then talk about Journey 2 and Epic. Escobar: Paradise Lost should be hidden until the film is released. Once it is, it can be lumped together with Detention (2011) and The Forger (2012) as Hutcherson is also playing a lead in Escobar, it seems. I found a website Box Office Mojo. I hope it's reliable, because it has left me questioning the choices of the films in the lead. Even if Hutcherson has lead roles, the worldwide grosses for Manhattan, Firehouse and Kids are 1, 17 and 34 million dollars. In fact, almost all of Hutcherson's other films (before 2010, then I stopped checking) grossed better. Kicking, Zathura and RV grossed between 55 to 90 million dollars. Seeing as he won an award for Zathura and Kids and was nominated for RV, I'd swap Manhattan and Firehouse for Zathura and RV. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I agree as well, seems reasonable to assume these are more notable for the lede as described by Starship through Boxofficemojo.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Box Office Mojo is reliable, and that's a very valid point. I've made the switches and taken care of the comments above. Gloss 06:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Great, now, I'd like to propose changes to the third paragraph of the lead. "In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in the box office record setting The Hunger Games film series, which has released films annually from 2012 to 2014. He has ten minor award nominations for the released films, having had twelve nominations. Please Explain The time-frame proved to the keep the young actor busy, with During this time, Hutcherson also played a lead role in the adventure comedy film Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) and a voiceover role in the animated action-adventure film Epic (2013)." starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I've clarified the awards line. It was supposed to say that he has ten award wins out of 12 nominations. Fixed. Also fixed the second half of that. Gloss 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Early life Regarding his younger brother, the Ellen source doesn't say anything about a brother in the text and I'm not getting video playback. Biography.com does not mention the name of his younger brother. Found a source and added. There's more stuff in the source I added, like triathlons and Justice League. I think Justice League warrants a mention later, would like to see information on that. I went to go to the link for that interview, but it brings me to a link of an accident news report? Gloss 16:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, I'm an idiot. But like I said below, I've heard concerns in the past about including sports hobbies, which would probably include the triathlons. Your point about Justice League brings up a good question though. Out of the television appearances he has (listed in the table in the filmography section) only the television films and the episode of ER are included in the bio. I think the times where he's appeared in one episode of a TV show are likely not notable enough to talk about in his career section, though. So I'm thinking the move here is to remove the ER prose. Does that sound right to you? Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Problem is, ER is a very successful TV series that even a cameo is probably worth a mention in the body. Justice League Unlimited doesn't seem to be as successful so it need not be mentioned then. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I can't read the Northwest Herald source. Could you use an archive version with Archive.org or WebCite? Done Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Where does he live now? Still in Kentucky? Maybe for the personal life section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Added. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure whether where he currently lives should be in early life instead of personal life. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC) You're right, moved it! Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC) MoviesOnline.ca interview has stuff on his sports interests and something when he was "three or four". I've had sports interests on the page before, but they were removed once and argued about the second time re-added. It seems the feeling is that everyone has their hobbies and to list that he enjoys playing football and soccer and basketball would belong on a fan site and not an encyclopedia. And the info about when he was three or four is already in the article, just worded a bit differently since sources vary about what age he actually started bugging his parents about acting. In the article it says "Although his parents were hesitant, Hutcherson's interest in acting developed and blossomed at a young age." - but let me know if you don't think that covers it. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Movieline interview has something about when he was eight years old, as well as something about Oakwood apartments. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Added, and thanks for finding these two sources. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Personal life I saw the old version of personal life you brought up above. With reliable sources, I would add the fandom of the Wildcats and the Reds. The house he bought might be relevant if he lives there currently. His previous dating of Hudgens is worth a mention. Before I get to the rest of the comments later, it seems like most users agreed that teams he roots for and housing information is irrelevant, as well as only the rumors of dating Hudgens. It was never confirmed outside of some side comments that media people twisted into what they wanted it to mean. Gloss 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC) RE: sports interests, sports teams, Mark Miller has concerns about the over-abundance of gay-related content in the personal life. This content will address that issue in my eyes. Unless you have better ideas? RE: Hudgens, I watched that interview on YouTube. The "we're really good friends now" is telling. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Seems telling but that isn't a reliable source confirming a relationship. Seems just like a (likely) way of reading into his words. And I have an idea for the sports stuff, I'll try again with adding some of the information in. Gloss 06:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "Each year since 2012" is not a timeless statement. I'd edit to something like "annually from 2012 to 2014". Fixed Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) GLAAD award is worth mention. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC) This was mentioned in a previous version, not sure when it got removed. I've re-added it, thanks for catching that. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Good job on expanding the Personal life section. Why, thank you! Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Reception and acting style Are there any weaknesses in his acting craft, considering the two paragraphs of praise? Other than this, the section is fine. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I used Julianne Moore#Reception and roles to help me put the section together. There aren't any negative comments in there, and I feel like the sections in general are to show how critics have found the actors growing and their abilities developing. It's usually unlikely for a review about a certain actor to be negative unless they hit some kind of downward spiral along the way in their career. But for someone like Moore or Hutcherson whose careers have only gone upwards, you'd have a hard time finding negative comments about them as an actor. Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Filmography What is a "television film"? found out, I wiki-linked Television film What's the difference between "Short film" and "Television film"? A short film is simply a film not long enough to be a featured length film, I believe. See short film. And a television film would be a film that was made for and released on television rather than in theaters. Gloss 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Then what is House Blend? It's a discontinued pilot episode of 22 minutes? That's not of feature length right? Similarly Becoming Glen is 22 minutes long. In the same vein, could you find out how long Eddie's Father was? Not sure why those were listed as television films, this section was the first thing put together on the page way back when and the spot I've focused the least on, admittedly. I'll go back over and double check the notes on everything. However all three of these are shows he appeared in only a pilot episode for, so I've adjusted the note to say that. Gloss 07:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Acting career The quote on Peeta -> It seems more relevant to the character than Hutcherson, especially the first two sentences. So essentially the quote regarding Hutcherson is along the lines of "I'm excited and nervous about portraying a PTSD-suffering person because I've never gone crazy before in a movie". Reading it like that, it doesn't seem worthy of a standalone showcase quote to me. Naturally, there will be more to come regarding this section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I moved this quote into the article, it's something I've been thinking about for a while but someone else bringing it up confirms that it should have been moved. In place, I took a quote from the reception and acting style section and put it into a quote box and I think it added some extra flavor to that section. Gloss 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Why is a review by The Onion, a humorous satire site, in the article? It's not a serious review. It was the only negative review I found, and didn't think much about how it may not be a serious review. Not sure I have a strong enough opinion about it though, so I've removed it. Gloss 04:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC) That role is so key to have a boy that can use language. That’s how Peeta navigates the world, that’s his gift, and Josh was the one who could bring that to life in such a real and natural way - Collins reference [49] - worth a standalone quote? Sure! I like that. Added. Gloss 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Is there anything that could be written in this section for the television film Party Wagon? I personally feel it wouldn't be necessary, being that it was a small TV film, with very little coverage and his role was also particularly minor. Like I've said, it's impossible to cover everything he's done, so in the career sections I feel it's best we stick to the notable appearances. However, if you feel strongly that it should be added, I suppose something small can be added in. Gloss 07:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah okay I understand. I'll tackle the rest of this section at a later date. The rest of the article is good to go. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Okay, thank you. Gloss 07:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Once in Hollywood, Hutcherson got a start by appearing in various television commercials. - I would like to get a sense of timing of this, which year or how old was he? The source is a book, so I can't read it. You have great timing, I just logged on. Added in. Gloss 03:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I prefer Metacritic's rating system than Rotten Tomatoes, but if other FAs use it and nobody else has objected then ignore this. For the Polar Express, the source states that Hutcherson was the young version of the Hero Boy, the adult version is played by another actor. Mention Polar and Howl's are fantasy films? Yeah, I noticed other FA's use Tomatoes, so that's the one I went with. Fixed other two issues. Gloss 03:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Since Zathura was much more commercially successful than Manhattan, perhaps it should get more weight. Any comments on Hutcherson's performance in RV? Any genre for Cirque? While these two can be done, we don't want the bloat the prose by going into major detail about every film, since the article is about Hutcherson and not really supposed to be a movie-by-movie review of him in all of his roles. There's a reason some films have very little while others have a solid amount of content. It depends on what the sources have to offer. Little Manhattan for example had some good stuff in the interviews and reviews which is why there's a lot of content on it. And we don't want to get too repetitive, so if we give comments on his performance in one paragraph, it helps the flow a bit to talk about some different things in the next paragraph, especially for a film like RV which received such negative reviews and isn't considered any kind of big point in Hutcherson's career, and then go back to talking about his performance the next time some good content comes up. Gloss 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC) The thing is - first things first I'm judging by the film's commercial success - and therefore exposure for Josh. RV had about five times the commercial success of Little Manhattan. What then matters to me is not if the film was good - it's whether Josh's performance was good. He was nominated for an award for Motocross Kids. Is that worth a mention? I'll put some thought into the RV/Zathura situation. Motocross Kids was only a young artist award, and only a nomination and not a win. The YA award is mentioned 2-3 other times in the article usually around a spot where he actually won one, and this isn't a very notable film. Gloss 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Added in a bit more about Zathura since it was more on the successful side. Threw in a genre for Cirque. But like I was saying, we don't want it getting too repetitive and if the film wasn't a big part of his career, I feel like it's better to not bloat anything up when the rest of the article contains plenty of reviews on his performances and a whole section on him as an actor. Gloss 04:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) If Brendan Fraser is mentioned for Journey, how about the Rock for Journey 2? Both or none, IMO. Weird suggestion -> contact the owners of his fan site to ask for their comments on anything you might have missed? OK I'm taking a (hours-long?) break before the next sub-section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Removed Fraser. But owners of a fan site aren't experienced at all in how Wikipedia articles work and the kind of information they should consist of. They're a fan site, we're an encyclopedia. Our ideas of what should belong in an article are likely to vary. Gloss 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I acknowledge that. I was just thinking, it is possible that our article has missed out on something we haven't even read about, especially something not related to film, and who would have read more on Hutcherton than his fans? I don't see need for mention of Beyonce and Farrell for Epic. In Early Life, Fightmaster needs a source. Journey 2 is his most commercially successful non-Hunger Games film. I'd like to see more on that film. Prose seems fine, I copy-edited what I saw, but not sure if His father stated "Ever since needs a comma in there. Otherwise, that's it for the article. I'd be on Wikibreak the next few days, will pop back in to check on the changes eventually. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I believe I've taken care of everything! Hope you enjoyed the holidays. Gloss 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I rechecked my comments, the article seems to have addressed all of them already. Here's my support, and you can hat the above if you wish. Well done, and Happy New Year in advance, @Gloss:. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll go ahead and collapse, this page is getting long. Gloss 04:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

Lead

• He is an "American film, television and voiceover actor". Simply saying "actor" should be sufficient in the opening paragraph, as a high number of American actors work in both television and film.
• "...he landed his first acting role in 2002, in the pilot episode of House Blend. " The comma seems unnecessary.
• "...and the film adaptations of Bridge to Terabithia (2007), Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008), as well as The Kids Are All Right (2010)." Awkward phrasing, as The Kids Are All Right is not based on a book. I would suggest removing "film adaptations" here.
• Any reason why his success at the Young Artist Award is in middle of his career description?

• It originally was about how he won those awards for his work in the films that are mentioned in the previous sentence. But someone had suggested I just leave it as the way it is now. I'm not opposed to taking it out though, so I'll do that. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "...also played with a lead role". "Played with" is awkward. Simply "played" should be enough.
• "Throughout his career, Hutcherson has expressed an interest in the other side of the film scene, including directing and producing." Awkward phrasing. Can be shortened to simply say: "Hutcherson has expressed an interest in directing and producing".
• Since he is "heavily" involved in the gay-straight alliance, he must be active in it, so the final sentence seems like repeated information.

Early life

• "..Hutcherson took it upon himself to go through the yellow pages.." Just saying "went through the yellow pages.." is sufficient.

Acting career

• "Hutcherson got a start.." Can this be rephrased to something more encyclopedic?
• "His character Laser in The Kids Are All Right was a teenager with a lesbian couple as parents". Awkward phrasing. Can be changed to "...was the teenage son of a lesbian couple".
• "Hutcherson's role in the film was seen as a pivotal point in his career where he assured that he would be continuing his acting career long past his days as a child star". According to whom?
• The heading "continued success" seems like a case of POV, since the previous section doesn't mention anything about achieving success.

• I've tried something else, let me know if you have a better idea in mind or if the change I made is okay. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Too many quotes in the first paragraph of the The Hunger Games section. And why is there a separate quote from Collins in a quote box when a quote already exits in the prose?

• "Hutcherson again had to get his body in shape". Not very encyclopedic. Please change this.

• I am not sure why the Rotten Tomatoes rating is mentioned so often in the article. Most biographies simply go with "positive", "mixed", or "negative" reviews. Also, the 92% audience approval for Catching Fire seems unnecessary.

• Hutcherson's quote on Mockingjay - Part 1 is huge. Can this be trimmed down and/or paraphrased?

• "..assured the executive producer role "wasn't just a vanity credit"" Maybe instead of the quote, his production contributions can be mentioned, if available.

• I've actually looked for more information on this in the past, and I'm not sure if maybe it's because the film hasn't been released yet and still has about a month before the release, but all I've been able to find is the mere fact that he was an exec. producer. Hopefully info on his production contribution shows up when the film is released, or around then. For now, I've removed that bit. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception and acting style

• Per WP: OVERLINK, his film credits don't need to be wikilinked again.
• Any reason for Mark Levin to say that it was "impossible" for him to have turned him away from the leading role? Without a reason, this sentence serves no real purpose.

• I had moved the reasoning over to the quote box, so thanks for catching this. I've clarified in the prose. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of the quote "For me, I like to do all different types of films and to go from having that awesome [indie] kind of thing that I love doing so much with great characters and a really great script to a bigger kind of studio film, to just cover the whole kind of spectrum of movies is really, really cool." seems limited. This can easily be paraphrased into one short sentence and not lose it's essence.
• "Over time, he has become known to many, including Lawrence, as "the biggest prankster on set"". Redundant and unnecessary POV.

Personal life

• ".. he had experience running in a triathlon under his belt and was continuing to train for more". "Under his belt" is not an encyclopedic phrase. Please rephrase. Also, what does "more" signify here, since the triathlon happened when he was 13?
• "He has always held true to his belief that his fame has not changed him as a person". Again, "held true to his belief" is quite redundant you see.
• Good job on the last paragraph. Very well-written.

• Thank you! Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard-work that has gone into this article, and I must praise Gloss for all his efforts. This article seems to be moving in the right direction, although I believe some trimming is in order to tighten the prose and remove some POV and excessive details. I would also like to see comments from seasoned editors like Dr. Blofeld who can guide us more thoroughly. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: I've taken care of all of these notes, and your praise is much appreciated. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be willing to support this, given that the excessive praise, as pointed out by Dr. Blofeld, is trimmed down in the reception section. I believe the Jack Lemmon comparison can go, as can Lawrence's overwhelming praise of him. Something about how he chooses his roles, how he prepares for them, his acting style etc. can be included here, instead of giving an undue amount of praise from his directors and co-stars. For actors such as Philip Seymour Hoffman or Julianne Moore or Meryl Streep such "toning" down isn't necessary, as they have established themselves in the industry, but for an up-and-coming actor like Hutcherson, who hasn't had much award success, some trimming down is definitely in order. IMO, it will be beneficial to come up with some negative comments from critics about his performances in general. Surely there are critics who have criticised some of his performances or his choice of roles. Again, I appreciate all the hard-work, and I can understand that sometimes the FAC is a frustrating experience, but the article does need a dose of neutrality. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding the frustration. I do look forward to this being over. But I'm hoping I can resolve all of these concerns in the meantime. Gloss 09:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: So I've since removed a ton of praise, added in a negative comment here and there to help with the balance, and overall added in some things I believe improved the article. I'd love to hear some feedback from you, on the current state and what (if anything) is left to do. Gloss 03:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Only pinging you incase you haven't seen this, as it's almost been 5 days. Gloss 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good to me now. Best of luck! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support! Gloss 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Not had a chance to really look at this and read fully but in glancing at it, Red Dawn really was a bog standard film. I can't see any review, even "escaping embarrassment" as a credible one. I wouldn't mention anything in quotes for that one. I guess at least you don't say it was a masterpiece though! A young Jack Lemmon?? Seems excessive to me, I've seen 5 or 6 films with Josh in I think and I wouldn't consider him anywhere near Jack's level of brilliance, wishful thinking by the director? The prose in numerous places doesn't really appear to be up to scratch, "Hutcherson does his best to maintain a normal life, and says he will often go to a local park to join in on football or soccer games, even if he gets recognized." for instance reads like a narrative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Removed the Red Dawn quote. The Jack Lemmon quote is from the director of the film he made his breakthrough in, so to remove it would make me feel like we're taking personal feelings about the comparison into consideration. I've also cleaned up the sentence about his personal life. If you have any other comments about the prose, I'd very much appreciate it. I've been working on improving this article by myself for the past year or so instead of with a partner or two like a lot of editors are able to do, so it's mostly based off of one editor's writing style, assisted along the way by a variety of reviewers helping to clean it up. Gloss 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, well, it does seem rather generous that's all! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you source the Washington and Chicago Times reviews for Bridge to Terabithia. Also you should name the film critic and say xxx of xxx where possible. Especially if it's somebody like Roger Ebert!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Gloss: this is unresolved. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The reviews were sourced from the book (reference #1) but I tracked down the original articles and have added them in. I've also added in the names of the film critics in wherever it had been left out. Gloss 06:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've improved the prose I believe and did some merging which looks more appropriate I think. You can't really have an acting style and reception section on such a young actor really without it looking like puffery, which it largely was with gushing tributes from directors and costars. It would be different if there was really a fair bit of decent book coverage analysing his acting. I merged in some of the material to the body into production but I do still think that this still needs to be toned down, more quotes removed or paraphrased, and I'm not sure his film work is really strong enough yet to have the material to make this a really good FA article. I know he's been around for over 10 years but it just seems to be lacking something. It's a fairly satisfactory account of his career to date but difficult to support as an actual featured quality article at present. If it passed, would I and others genuinely consider it an example of our best quality work? I wouldn't, would you? It's not your fault Gloss really, and I don't think there's much you can do about it at present. I think it would be best to wait five years or so and wait for more depth and coverage. It's decent for GA but really doesn't have the material for me to make it worthy of further promotion. I'm pretty sure attempts to make it look more worthwhile like that reception section make it look like puffery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, saying to wait five years or so for more information seems completely opinionated and not based on any kind of criteria. The article covers his entire career, despite how short of a career it may be compared to some other actors' articles. There is no criteria for an article to be featured that states their career needs to be a certain length. Give him another 5 years and you'll probably get another 4-5 films added… is that really a big difference between then and now? If you wouldn't consider this to be an example of our best quality work, then you wouldn't support this FAC which is obviously OK. But I wouldn't have nominated it for FAC if I didn't think it was. The section you're referring to is something that a few other editors have requested, so that's why it's there. Going off the information that exists for his career, I'm doing the best I can to avoid it being puffery but still containing a solid amount of information. Over time, I'm sure as new information is added, some may become less important. But that doesn't mean the article as it stands is suffering. Gloss 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to discuss this here further. You completely removed the reception and acting style, and personal life sections. You put info on his inspirations on top of the section where we talk about his early life. Surely you see that doesn't make sense. It's not like he cited them as inspirations when he was 10, while getting his career started. But I'd like the other editors who commented here to weigh in if you feel so strongly about removing those sections. Your claim that he's too young to have a reception and acting style-type section feels like another personal opinion. If he's an actor that has been widely discussed during his career, there's absolutely no reason to say he's too young to have a section for that information, I feel. Gloss 00:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much he is too young as such, he's had a fair career already, it's that he obviously yet doesn't have a wealth of scholarly material discussing his actual work to make such a section valid, it reads as pure fan cruft. If you had some scholarly material on themes and style in with some of the gushing quotes it would be more valid and stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Mark Miller:, since a lot of the review he gave centered around these two sections. Gloss 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is pretty much right on everything but waiting five years. Time is not an issue with a feature quality article, even if the artist is young. It is the body of work and the coverage. What this article really lacks is a smooth copy edit, more sources, better summaries of the sources and really looking at other FA quality biographies, not juts actor biographies of a similar type.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What I mean Mark is that it doesn't have the scholarly material to really look like anything other than a recital of imdb with some gushing quotes and tributes. So in that respect, I do think time is an issue. When there's clearly a distinct lack of biographical or a wealth of material other than fluff to add depth to the article, I can't support that as an FA until there's more "meat on the bones" so to speak and it reads better. Perhaps there is actually a lot more biographical material available but Gloss has not seen it. Does he have access to Highbeam and Newspapers.com etc? I think you'd be amazed at how much material can be gleaned from such sources. It is possible to get it to FA on technical merit and fairly comprehensive outline of his career, I can think of several younger actor biographies at FA which passed without much real coverage, I wish you luck with it, but I don't think it's worthy of it. The main obstacle is really depth and neutrality. As if it's not enough for all those gushing comments in the acting body, you then have more of them in a section dedicated to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the main concern here is the excessive praise in the reception section. Although I believe him to be a good actor, I agree with Blofeld that Hutcherson has very little experience to warrant such high praise, like the Jack Lemmon quote. I believe that some trimming is really in order. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely understandable. I'll work on this so more and get back to you (hopefully tomorrow) when it's all done. Gloss 08:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose I see the cruft section has been restored despite my efforts to neutralise it. I'd be most concerned if this was passed in its current state.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You made a very bold choice in completely re-working the article. I've explained above why I wanted to discuss the changes here first and attempt to work with you to fix the issue you've presented but also not completely getting personal opinions involved. Gloss 08:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I cut out a big chunk of the reception section just now, as per you and the other's comments above. I'm absolutely open to making big changes if that's what the article needs. But I'm afraid you're jumping to an oppose means you're not willing to continue collaborating with me on this since I reverted some of your edits in an attempt to discuss. So if that's the case, I'll accept it and move on. Gloss 08:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to discuss changes with you. You don't own the article. You kept on and on for me and others to review this so I did, and I made some major changes which I think improve how encyclopedic it is and at least give it a better chance of passing. If you insist on having an acting style and reception section you'd better make sure you can find the scholarly material and decent analysis and coverage to make it stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed to own the article. You made changes I disagreed with and wanted to discuss. That's how this encyclopedia works. Discussions instead of edit wars, at least that's what I think. You made changes where his influences were moved to the top of his career section and it all didn't make much sense. I didn't keep on and on, I asked twice and when I was ignored the second time I dropped it and let it go, while another editor pinged you into this discussion. Please, don't stick around if you feel like you're only doing me a favor. I'm only interested in improving this article, not gaining the review of someone who doesn't want to be here. Gloss 09:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Rose You might want to examine this blind revert. I spent a fair bit of time last night copyediting it and improving readability and neutrality. It was more than simply removing those sections, I merged a lot of it and rewrote a fair bit of it in places which I believe was an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What is this, tattle-tailing? Please don't call my edit a blind revert, unless you're openly admitting an assumption of bad faith. If you'd even looked in the history, I've since added back in a large majority of your changes. Gloss 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not tattle-tailing, just a concern that this has been open a full month and when an experienced editor stops by to try to make some considerable improvements and state their concern with it you become all defensive. I was asked by several people, including yourself to take a good look at this. I did so, and made changes I thought necessary. You seem too hostile here to real criticism, so I'm not sure FAC is for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor's first FAC is usually a little difficult to handle. Given the work Gloss has put into it, I think he was a little rattled with the major changes, and thus reverted your edits. I think he has realised that it wasn't the right move, and will hopefully not be as defensive to criticism from here-on. Gloss, I have known Blofeld for far too long to know that he his edits will only improve the article, and I hope you can see that now. If we can forgive Gloss for that revert, I think we can manage to get the article into good shape. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

His second, and looking at the current article does not seem to have yet realised that it wasn't the right move as my prose and paraphrasing improvements to the career do not seem to have been fully restored, even if he insists on the reception and personal life sections. I agree the article visually might look better with a reception section and personal life section for balance, but when you really read and look into it you'll see how weak it is when you remove the puffery. If Gloss could really find some strong material about his acting and some decent personal life info, at least a compromise could be made once dialling down the gushing tributes. I'm not sure how presenting Saturday Night Live and being a prankster is encyclopedic coverage of his acting! You move that to the appropriate section in career and what are you left with? "Josh is awesome!"♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now made some updates while retaining as much of the material I could and tried to tone it down a little. Hopefully the current version will be acceptable, and it can be worked on from there. I included the recent negative quote you added. It could still really use some further research in things like Highbeam I think to really try to glean some more material to reinforce it and push it over the line, but my subscription has not yet been renewed. Perhaps google books will pick something up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems I was right on Highbeam, fortunately I can pick up a bit of text but not access the full articles. Google books on the other hand has virtually nothing of substance written about him as I suspected. At some point it would be good to have some critical commentary on his acting by authors and scholars to reinforce it. I'm sure eventually there will be biographies published. You can only go by what material is available right now though. It's not too bad in its (current) condition, but I still think it's lacking that little something to really make it passable. There's still quite a few unsourced reviews too, the BBC and Chicago Times ones stand out in particular.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

They're now sourced. Gloss 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Can you try to add a bit more background/production info and character descriptions on some of them to try to make the article more readable/informative? Obviously nothing excessive, but I think in some places you can afford to be a bit more detailed over certain films and reinforce the article. If you do that I think it'll improve the overall tone too and disperse some of the reviews. Other than that it's difficult to really find a wealth of information. If we can get this to a level where it's good as it's going to get based on the limited resources available then I do think it is possible for this to pass, we do have similar FAs on some of the Indian and other younger actors. I do think that it may be a long time before there are really biographies and a wealth of biographical material about him though. There's a fair few self-published recent resource books on him and The Hunger Games cast from people looking to make a quick buck but still very limited.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that later tonight when I get back home. If there are specific spots you're looking for more information, let me know. Gloss 17:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The period between 2007 and 2010 I think is a bit weak at present but in a fair few areas I think you could elaborate a little. Even if some films were not mega successful blockbusters, although not for the very minor earlier roles. Every film doesn't need it of course, but a nice mix in places of filming info which implicates Josh, a character/plot basic summary or a brief critical analysis of the film or character, or some brief background info on him and CGI during production and how certain things were done to make his characters on film or whatever might also be of some use. It depends on the film, whatever you think somebody reading about Josh might like to know about his film work. Something though that won't be enough to detract and bloat it, but which succeeds in making reading it a bit more pleasurable and informative if you know what I mean. Don't worry about overcooking that aspect for now though as it can always be trimmed afterwards. I'm pretty sure afterwards it'll read better for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I've added in a good amount of information on some of the films that were less-covered before. I'm trying not to bloat it but also not trying to add in irrelevant information on films that were very small points in his career. What are your current thoughts? Gloss 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Only pinging you incase you haven't seen this, as it's almost been 5 days. Gloss 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

Nope, I am not going to seriously review this, but I have only two comments: please empty the lead of ref's per WP:LEAD, and try expanding the infobox. Otherwise, just remove it per WP:DISINFOBOX. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I've added his residence to the infobox, as that's sourced in the article. But I'm not sure what else would belong in there? Do you have any suggestions? I've also removed the ref from the lead. Gloss 18:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also added nationality in. It's rough with this one. He has no specified religious views, did not attend college to have an alma mater, he doesn't have a spouse, children, or notable family members, etc. For an FA like Jake Gyllenhaal, if he didn't have those notable family members, his would be even shorter than Hutcherson's currently is. Gloss 18:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for solving my comments. Hope this FAC gets promoted. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Oppose after a review of the prose and sources. Two big concerns:

• I'm of a mind to agree with Dr. Blofeld about the "Acting style" section. There is no real body of journalism to back up a section like this. It's mostly comprised of sources in which he's talking about himself and the types of roles he takes—that has nothing to do with acting style or any serious journalists writing about his acting style. The only statement in that whole section that might pass for "acting style" is "With a comic acting touch and timing that has been noted from an early age, Hutcherson has been both compared to Jeff Goldblum and a young Jack Lemmon." Unfortunately, it's sourced to a questionable book (White, more about that below) and one snippet from a news article. That's not sufficient to do any kind of serious writing about Hutcherson's acting style.
• On the topic of the White book, which you cite ten times: Who is this author? A former football player? How/why is he qualified to write serious entertainment biographies? I sought more information about the "Unauthorized Biography" and found no serious reviews, no references to it in other reliable sources, and a tiny publisher that accepts direct submissions (a sign of a vanity/self-publishing house). Reviews of White's books are mostly comprised of school-age girls (the primary audience) commenting that they keep the book on their bedside table. Those are a lot of red flags for a source you use so prominently. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Understandable. Do you think it should be used less, or that perhaps this one shouldn't be used at all? Gloss 15:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed more than half of the uses of the book. I think the spots it's left in should be okay, but please do let me know. I've also removed the acting style section, merged some information into other sections and removed the rest. Gloss 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's probably OK for anything that is a straightforward fact and not analytic in nature, if that makes sense. I thank you for your quick response. I will review the changes you made and revisit my comments very shortly—I know it can be frustrating to get new opposition when the nomination has been running this long, so I thank you for your patient response as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• If there's anything this particular FAC has taught me, it's some extra skills in patience ;) Gloss 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• The changes you made addressed my concerns, so I am striking my opposition. I'm afraid I don't have time for a full prose review, so I am unable to support. Good luck! --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks for that, Andy. Gloss, would I be right in gathering that this will be your first successful FAC if it's promoted? If so it's common for the coordinators to request a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and perhaps Andy could look at that (unless he's done so as part of the above review and I missed it)... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose: Second, although it's been years since my first (under my old username). Gloss 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that I'm content with the neutrality and prose work on it now and would lean on weak support, but still remain relatively neutral given what I've said previously. The problem I think is the lack of scholarly and biographical material which can add weight to the article. A lot of existing material is too weak really to justify an acting style section, glad to see it's been removed. Given time I think it will improve. Me personally, I'd have waited a few years until it becomes more resourceful, but in fairness he's no spring chicken as an actor compared to some and we do have similar FAs on some of the younger actors which also suffer from a real depth of coverage. You can only go with the material you have at the time of writing, and I've had a good look through my sources and am convinced it's pretty comprehensive. What I might suggest Gloss, is if you can try to access more of Josh's interviews, whether on camera or from magazines and try to glean more biographical content from them. I did a similar thing with Dolph Lundgren, given the lack of real biographical coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'd be surprised if there's a written interview with him that I haven't read while putting this article together! But in reality, I'm sure there is. Good suggestion though, and regardless of if this FAC passes or not, I'll undoubtably look into this more. Gloss 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks found some problems:

• "Also born and raised in the state of Kentucky, his parents met in high school in Dry Ridge" is cited to pages 6-8 of this source - the first part appears on page 5, I don't see the second anywhere

• The part about meeting in high school is in the other book, I've re-added that source to the end of this sentence. Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, but the first part is still on page 5 and we're still citing pages 6 through 8...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, missed this. Fixed. Gloss 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• "He attended New Haven Elementary School in Union until he began his career at the age of 9" - source doesn't specify when he left school

• Information was in FN15, added it to the end of this. Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "he returned to Kentucky to go to school for only one semester at Ryle High School" - source only says Ryle is his alma mater; this detail is actually in FN15

• Fixed! Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The house cost Hutcherson $2.5 million (not $3 million). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed! And thank you for finding these problems. Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: are you happy with the fixes (and reasonably confident overall as far as accurate use of sources goes)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• No on both counts, for the moment - one fix above yet to be made, and checking a few more sources I find that "displaying a passion for basketball, football, tennis and bowls" is not in the source given. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Above fix has been corrected, and the source for the sports passion is after the following sentence (about his triathlon) so I've added it in again in that spot.. and removed basketball (not included in that particular source) and bowls, I'm not sure who put that in there. I'd be very confused if it was myself, because I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Gloss 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay. There still seem to be problems with sources supporting text - for example, the source for "Hutcherson and Queen Latifah presented trophies together to four young actors" says that the trophies were presented to young volunteers, not actors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching it. Please do let me know if you find anymore. Both of these examples are text added in a recent copy edit by Dr. Blofeld which I didn't fully review, rather AGF'ed that all of the sources added supported the text added. I've made the correction here. Gloss 05:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I've gone through most of the article and double checked that each source supports the text it's citing. Are there any more that you've found? Gloss 06:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: It's been over a week since I've last gotten a reply, though I have tried. I'm not sure what I should be doing, if anything at this point, or just continue slightly stressing over this FAC still being open! Cheers, Gloss 04:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

Resolved comments from AJona1992

I don't like "blossomed at a young age", sounds too WP:EDITORIAL. Wikilink breakout role and utopian Delink dvd There's too many instances of "he played opposite of", its getting annoying to read it over and over again. Overlinking (Rotten Tomatoes, Los Angeles) "which will be released on January 16, 2015" - we're in February now. Provide context to the uniformed reader: what does LGBT stand for? Awkward sentence structure: LGBT, basketball game, then more LGBT. I weak support the article at this time. Best, .jonatalk 19:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC) @AJona1992: Thanks for the comments, I've taken care of everything. Gloss 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC) There are several films not mentioned in his filmography. Best, .jonatalk 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC) @AJona1992: You said several but I only found one, a short film (The Third Rule) which I've added in. Everything else is there. There's something written into IMDb called "Krystal" but a google search turns up no reliable sources for that film or Hutcherson's involvement. Gloss 19:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC) There's nothing about his philanthropy work, and this one, this one, and this one. Best, .jonatalk 20:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) There's also a film listed there called "Journey 3: From the Earth to the Moon" however sources I've found all are from 2012/2013 which say the film was to be released in 2014, but it's now 2015, and there don't seem to be any updates on the production of it, if it's even still happening. There are also no sources confirming Hutcherson would have been reprising his role in the film, though one source did say that the character would return (but didn't confirm Hutcherson to be portraying it). Gloss 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC) As for the philanthropy, the ice bucket challenge doesn't seem very relevant. It wasn't an extravagant effort by him for the cause, he was just another celebrity who posted a 10 second video dumping ice on his head. Similarly, the Sean Penn benefit doesn't seem notable for inclusion since it looks like a benefit event that he simply showed up at. Celebrities are always showing up at various benefit events, but searching through information about it, it doesn't seem like he did anything significant there. The same unfortunately goes for the Ebola campaign. It was Jeffrey Wright's campaign that the entire Hunger Games cast made an appearance in, rather than philanthropy work that Hutcherson himself had a major part in. The gaystarnews website strikes me as slightly unreliable, but I've looked up the "Power On" campaign and found a better source to include and have added in information on "Power On". Gloss 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC) There's a dablink that needs to be fix. Best, .jonatalk 18:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Fixed! Gloss 18:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I now support per above. Best, .jona^talk 18:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan

• Support - This is not going to be a long review. The article looks good to go. My only suggestion is: Reword the sentence "Growing up as a child actor," to "Growing up as an actor," or maybe just "As an actor,". Because when you are "growing up", you are not a child through the whole process or even when growth is completed. Regards, MaRAno ^FAN 12:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC).

Comments from Graham Beards

Oppose - with sadness and for the time being. The prose is not quite up to scratch. I have mad a few edits (two obvious errors, others more stylistic) but I think the article lacks the shine of a Featured Article. It suffers from proseline in parts and some of the language is too colloquial. I would like to see a further copyedit, preferably by a competent editor who can bring fresh eyes to the article. Also, have Nikkimaria's concerns been fully addressed? Graham Beards (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: I'm not sure, I've tried pinging her two times but she hasn't returned for further comments. Do you know any competent editors who can bring fresh eyes to the article? Gloss 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you ask User:Eric Corbett politely, he might have the time. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, that would be great! Eric's been a favorite of mine for a few years. I'll leave this here instead of his talk page, as your comment probably pinged him. But that would be amazing, if Eric could give this article a copy edit. @Graham Beards: I absolutely agree with you on some of the language being too colloquial, and not just because I had to look up what that word meant. I've never prided myself on mastering the English language. Gloss 18:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: - looks like that one isn't going to work out. Anyone else in mind? Gloss 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Ssilvers can tale a look at it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reached out to Ssilvers and they responded that they do not have the time. Graham, is there any specific spots you're concerned about? Can we possibly identify issues here and work them out together? Gloss 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've given the article a light copyedit, since it has been about two weeks since I've looked it over and have some fresh eyes of my own to put to use. I'm not sure if it's what you were looking for, but hopefully it's a start. Gloss 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Eric Corbett has completed his copyedit of the article. Many thanks to him. Gloss 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do so very much really, but if there are any outstanding prose issues I'll be happy to help with those as well. Eric Corbett 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• "A breakthrough in his career as a child actor came in 2007 when he portrayed Jesse Aarons in the fantasy drama Bridge to Terabithia." — Can be rephrased as "Hutcherson's breakthrough role in his career as a child actor came in 2007 when he portrayed Jesse Aarons in the fantasy drama Bridge to Terabithia."
• With regards to his film's reviews, can you explain the critics' impressions of Hutcherson's roles, especially in the Mockingjay section of "2011–present: The Hunger Games and breakthrough"

Sure, took care of the first one. But could you help me understand what you mean with the second point? Gloss 16:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding a ping @Ssven2: incase you didn't watchlist this page. Gloss 20:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a shot at fixing it, but if what I've changed is not what you meant, please do let me know. Gloss 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks better, Gloss, that's all from me. This article has my Support. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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