Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Brad Pitt/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Brad Pitt

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:What!?Why?Who?

  • Very Detailed
  • Good grammar
  • Informative
  • Great article overall, but...
  • Could be a bit more neutral

--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this really doesn't help the article at all. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall looks pretty good. Very briefly, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement. Needs a copyedit to meet 1A of WP:WIAFA

  • Why no year for Twelve Monkeys in He starred in the well-received crime and science fiction films Se7en (1995) and Twelve Monkeys, and won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in Twelve Monkeys. Also the language could be a bit tighter here, perhaps something like He starred in the well-received crime and science fiction films Se7en (1995), and Twelve Monkeys (year), for which he won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor.
  • Avoid words like now, so Following a high profile relationship with actress Gwyneth Paltrow, and marriage to Jennifer Aniston, Pitt now lives with actress Angelina Jolie,... could be something like Pitt has lived with actress Angelina Jolie since date... or perhaps the old "as of 2008" could be added
  • I am a bit confused - was Etta his mother's middle name? Why not add "Pitt"the son of Jane Etta (née Hillhouse) [Pitt], a high school counselor, and William Alvin Pitt, a
  • If two or more sentences in a row use the same refs, then I think it is OK to just have one set of refs at the end (if there are no direct quotes or extraordinary claims in there). So fix for example Along with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal, he grew up in Springfield, Missouri, where the family moved soon after his birth.[7][8] Growing up, he was raised as a conservative Southern Baptist, singing in the church choir.[7][8]
  • Problem sentence - we already were told he moved to MO soon after his birth, so does high school need to start with the move there too? Fix to something like After moving to Missouri, where Pitt attended Kickapoo High School [in Springfield,] excelling at school[;] he was a member of the golf, tennis and swimming teams, as well as the Key and Forensics clubs.[8]
  • There are lots of places where the order of phrases is different than what I'd expect. Two examples: He took a number of odd jobs, once he moved to Los Angeles, ... would flow better as Once he moved to Los Angeles, he took a number of odd jobs ... or even After moving to Los Angeles he took a number of odd jobs... OR Along with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal, he grew up in Springfield, Missouri, where the family moved soon after his birth. could be something like The family moved to Springfield, Missouri soon after his birth, and he grew up there with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal.
  • Captions could be more informative, for example Pitt, who has been named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine could be something like Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine in 1995 and 2000.
  • This is just to point out some example rough spots - there are many more. Images and basic information looks good.
  • Refs generally OK, but watch that they meet WP:RS - is Yahoo really the best ref possible, is it reliable? Ref 126 Angelina Jolie - Yahoo! Profile". Yahoo! Search. Retrieved on 2008-05-16.
  • The lists of awards and roles at the end of the article have no refs at all - they will need refs for FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I'm a little late to the party, but I just stumbled upon this PR. Some thoughts on this article:

  • "was cast in supporting roles in such standard teen-oriented films, slasher flicks, comedies and family-oriented sports dramas" What are "such standard teen-oriented films" exactly, slasher flicks is too informal, the whole sentence sound more like Entertainment Weekly than an Encyclopedia.
  • In the lead, his roles in Thelma & Louise and Fight Club are the only ones that have a description of his film character. Are those supposed to be the pivotal roles for his career? If so, it should be made clearer, otherwise the reader wonders why you don't elaborate on his other roles that are mentioned in the lead.
  • The text is pretty heavy on lists. Biggest commercial successes, odd jobs in LA, ex-girlfriends. Sentences that list more than three items should be uses sparely imho.
  • Critical commentary is often included with a very lengthy introduction ("In the Entertainment Weekly review of the television movie, critic Ken Tucker, wrote" could be just "Entertainment Weekly wrote" unless Ken Tucker is a particularly notable author).
  • Since Legends of the Fall earned him a GG nomination, it should be mentioned a bit more prominently. Overall, emphasis is not always ideal (Snitch has a whole paragraph in comparison).
  • "Rita Kempley of The Washington Post in her review of the film praised Pitt's performance as "impressive"" This offers no inside whatsoever, it's only function seems to be to praise Pitt, which is very POV.
  • "Pitt won his first Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor,[22] and received his first nomination for an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor." Since first=only here, this somewhat implies future GGs and Oscar nominations.
  • Oceans 12 is only mentioned very briefly. It should at least be made clear, that it's a sequel.
  • His involvement in producing The Departed must be explained more. It reads like he was the sole producer and he won an Oscar for it, but in fact he did not win an Oscar.
  • I'm not sure if the story of how he received this award from Venice should be mentioned at such length; I'm not certain it should be mentioned at all to be honest.
  • Overall, the acting career section does not include one negative review, which seems odd. I don't think you need to include negative commentary just to satisfy NPOV, but I think the included reviews should ideally reflect the critical consensus. Now I don't know all of Pitt's movies too well, but I would guess there were a few films that critics generally were not very impressed with him or the film he did.
  • "he was credited, along with his best friend Tiago Miranda Paulo, with " Who is Tiago Miranda Paulo exactly, and what's the source for the claim that he is his best friend, because the Time link doesn't even mention him.
  • The sources for him supporting Obama seem pretty weak; in both stories his name appears to be thrown in there rather randomly. To my knowledge, he did not publicly support any candidate, so I'm not sure this should really be mentioned.
  • Is there any other source to support the notion that he ever was a fundamentalist Christian. To me, this sounds more like an interpretation from the author of this article than anything he actually said.
  • My only big concern with this article: The length of the sections on Aniston and Jolie are very disproportional; his entire marriage of seven years only gets one paragraph (even the last paragraph on Aniston is basically about Jolie). Granted, a lot in the Jolie section is about his children, but this still makes it appear very unbalanced to me. It might also be seen as WP:recentism. I think either the children need their own section, or some more information about his marriage to Aniston has to be added to balance it out (my guess would be there are quite a few more notable things to say about the marriage than the ceremony itself, but I don't know too much about it really).
  • The awards section is pretty long. I'm not sure what the consensus on this is, but personally, I would radically cut it down to just GG, Oscars, Emmys, Venice and BFCA. I'm pretty sure he didn't show up to collect most of the other ones anyway.

I think the article is pretty strong as it is, don't take my long list the wrong way. I hope I can help out. EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Brad_Pitt/archive1&oldid=1142590400"