Wikipedia:Peer review/Christian Bale/archive1
Christian Bale edit
I did an overhaul of the Christian Bale article, and it apparently meets Good Article standards. There's always room for improvement, so I'd like any advice in getting it to qualify as a Featured Article. Thanks to anyone who'll chime in. --Antrophica 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Skipping through the article, I have following suggestions:
- Lead needs to be expanded a bit more. Personally 1 or 2 sentence to second paragraphs would do it for me, but other might be more picky.
- I was thinking maybe "Personal life" can go after "Career" not before...
- Some things which dont look too good are the small paragraphs: introductory parapraph in Career and "Shaft" sub-sub-section.
- Im not too fond of over sub-sectioning the Career section even though it works. See next point also.
- I'm not sure about how whole sub-section to notable films will go over in FAC. I like the format of the FA Diane Keaton article. The career section is a bit similar to that article and with some modifications I would recommend transfering it to that format.
- To add to previous point, my concern is that the Career section might have more information about the specific films than Christians career.
Thank you, I hope to see this article featured since I enjoyed his role in Batman Begins. - Tutmosis 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I placed the "Personal life" section at the top because it contains information about his birth, family and the public perception of him. Instead of moving it to the bottom, I suggest thinking up a different name for the section. I plan to expand the "Shaft" sub-section in time, as I haven't watched the film yet. The same applies to "The New World". The most important point in the "Shaft" sub-section is how it further affected his decision to take on more diverse roles. As for the possibility of the "Career" section containing more information about specific films than Bale's career, I kept that in mind while rewriting the article and did my best to avoid emphasis on the films over the actor. Harsh Times is an exception at the moment because almost nothing has been divulged about the film aside from its plot and one or two professional reviews. Bale has given no interviews that I could find elaborating on the film, so I guess we'll have to wait until he does or until its release.
- Anyhow, good of you to take the time to point all that out. Thanks a bunch. --Antrophica 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's very well written, but I'm concerned about the use of film titles as subheaders. The chopping and changing between film title headers and date headers looks awkward. It's also mildy POV. It looks a bit like "these are the films I've decided are worth discussing" and "these are the ones that are not so I'm lumping them in with a bunch of other films". Of course some films are more worthy of discussion than others, but there is no need to underline the point. There is also considerable discussion that has nothing to do with Bale himself. Example is in the American Psycho section. Some of the info is about the film, but has nothing to do with Bale himself and does not need to be in the Bale article. Harsh Times gives a plot/character summary and says absolutely nothing about Bale. If there is nothing to say about Bale, that's fine, but don't go into irrelevant detail just so there is something to say, because it looks like padding. I'll read through the article again when I have a bit of free time. Rossrs 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the "Harsh Times" section, I had to write something to fill up space until more information was made available. It is padding. As for the overemphasis on discussing certain films, there was just more information available on these films than all the rest; although I do agree that some of these sentences are irrelevant and will probably be taken out by me or whoever revises the article before me. Additionally, depending on the responses garnered, the film headers may be removed altogether. Thanks for the review. --Antrophica 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I assume you're working towards putting this up for FAC and I wish you all the best with it, as the article is strong and he's quite an interesting actor. I very much disagree with your comment "I had to write something to fill up space", because you really didn't. :-) Rossrs 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is it your advice that I remove the "Harsh Times" section altogether for the time being? Feel free, also, to edit the article to the best possible standard; alas, sometimes I'm not that perceptive to flaws that aren't singled right out. --Antrophica 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- My advice is to remove anything that does not relate directly to Bale, or to reword it so that it does. I would mention Harsh Times as an upcoming release and leave it at that because it can be updated later. I'd love to edit this article, thank you - I think it has genuine potential - but I'm pressed for time right now. I will try to make some time to work on this. Rossrs 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pressed for time until the end of week. I'll get to making the edits then. --02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've made the edits. Now I need to know if they were for better or worse. --Antrophica 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- For the better! No doubt about it. There are probably little bits here and there that could be edited but for the most part I think it's a very good job. My only concerns now are : the lead paragraph is somewhat awkward in the sentence about his best known roles. I also think someone is going to describe the "cult figure" description as POV. I would find another word to use, but still link to the cult figure article. Maybe something like "his .... (adjective) roles have led to him attracting a cult following." Perhaps. I'm glad you got rid of the film title headers, but the dates look a bit arbitrary. Perhaps it could be 1980s, 1990s, 2000s like Diane Keaton. It wouldn't matter if some of these sections are long. Finally, in discussing Equilibrium it wanders off into a bit of a plot summary which is unnecessary, and is not about Bale. Lovely work on this article - congratulations. You've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it's very, very good. Rossrs 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the feedback. The Equilibrium cruft slipped past me; I'll get to it. About describing Bale as a cult figure, I think he's been cited as one enough to not violate NPOV, but I'll probably reword it just to be safe. The dates are also something I'll have to ponder on, since I headed the sections with the purpose of being specific. I'll get to nominating this as a FA once these last few things are taken care of. Can't hurt to try. --Antrophica 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- There. I think it's about ready now. What do you reckon? --Antrophica 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's very good. I notice there is a mention of American Psycho in the 1990s sections, and then discussion in the 2000s. I'd remove the mention in the 1990s section to keep it in one place. Well done. Rossrs 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave that in, rather than remove what I believe to be a good sentence. Once I'm done proofreading the article, I'll get about nominating it. Pat yourself on a back for me; you were a big help. --Antrophica 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, there's no problem with the sentence as such. Suggest you have a look at the image description pages before nominating. The lead photo is showing 2 different tags (screenshot & promo photo - and it can't be both). The ones you've uploaded are fine, but the ones uploaded by other people are lacking fair use rationales etc such as the Empire of the Sun shot. Having gone through the FAC process a few times, I'm sure people will object on these grounds. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier but I didn't really look at the images until now. Rossrs 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the Empire of the Sun shot is a doctored-up screenshot of a scene in the film, so I guess it would be just a promo image. Same for the infobox image. I actually didn't upload anything other than the Equilibrium and Newsies images; I just tagged and provided fair use rationale for images I thought required them. The Empire image was the last image uploaded and I overlooked it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Antrophica 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, there's no problem with the sentence as such. Suggest you have a look at the image description pages before nominating. The lead photo is showing 2 different tags (screenshot & promo photo - and it can't be both). The ones you've uploaded are fine, but the ones uploaded by other people are lacking fair use rationales etc such as the Empire of the Sun shot. Having gone through the FAC process a few times, I'm sure people will object on these grounds. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier but I didn't really look at the images until now. Rossrs 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave that in, rather than remove what I believe to be a good sentence. Once I'm done proofreading the article, I'll get about nominating it. Pat yourself on a back for me; you were a big help. --Antrophica 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's very good. I notice there is a mention of American Psycho in the 1990s sections, and then discussion in the 2000s. I'd remove the mention in the 1990s section to keep it in one place. Well done. Rossrs 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- There. I think it's about ready now. What do you reckon? --Antrophica 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the feedback. The Equilibrium cruft slipped past me; I'll get to it. About describing Bale as a cult figure, I think he's been cited as one enough to not violate NPOV, but I'll probably reword it just to be safe. The dates are also something I'll have to ponder on, since I headed the sections with the purpose of being specific. I'll get to nominating this as a FA once these last few things are taken care of. Can't hurt to try. --Antrophica 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- For the better! No doubt about it. There are probably little bits here and there that could be edited but for the most part I think it's a very good job. My only concerns now are : the lead paragraph is somewhat awkward in the sentence about his best known roles. I also think someone is going to describe the "cult figure" description as POV. I would find another word to use, but still link to the cult figure article. Maybe something like "his .... (adjective) roles have led to him attracting a cult following." Perhaps. I'm glad you got rid of the film title headers, but the dates look a bit arbitrary. Perhaps it could be 1980s, 1990s, 2000s like Diane Keaton. It wouldn't matter if some of these sections are long. Finally, in discussing Equilibrium it wanders off into a bit of a plot summary which is unnecessary, and is not about Bale. Lovely work on this article - congratulations. You've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it's very, very good. Rossrs 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've made the edits. Now I need to know if they were for better or worse. --Antrophica 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pressed for time until the end of week. I'll get to making the edits then. --02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- My advice is to remove anything that does not relate directly to Bale, or to reword it so that it does. I would mention Harsh Times as an upcoming release and leave it at that because it can be updated later. I'd love to edit this article, thank you - I think it has genuine potential - but I'm pressed for time right now. I will try to make some time to work on this. Rossrs 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is it your advice that I remove the "Harsh Times" section altogether for the time being? Feel free, also, to edit the article to the best possible standard; alas, sometimes I'm not that perceptive to flaws that aren't singled right out. --Antrophica 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I assume you're working towards putting this up for FAC and I wish you all the best with it, as the article is strong and he's quite an interesting actor. I very much disagree with your comment "I had to write something to fill up space", because you really didn't. :-) Rossrs 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm on the brink of nominating this article for FA status. If anyone has any cents left to spare, now's the time. --Antrophica 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)