Talk:Ben Affleck/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 12:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess it'll be me reviewing this after all. I'll go through the review section-wise, will put up the first batch of comments soon. NumerounovedantTalk 12:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very thorough, and well substantiated, as it stands now, I have been through every section other than the Film Career, which might take take some time, and some concerns:

The Lead doesn't really establish much of a narrative, and feels more like cluttered list of his credits. You might want to restructure it in accordance woth the manual of style. It's missing any mention of his early life, some of his prominent roles might need more attention and the first paragraph should be split into two/ the latter half can be merged into the second paragraph. Try to cut down on some roles to avoid cluttering.

I've had a go at rewording the lead - added an introductory sentence, where he grew up, removed some films. Let me know if it's what you meant. The Atlantic summed up his career with this line: "Like many Hollywood actors, Ben Affleck’s career has been defined by epic highs and sweeping lows—over more than 20 years, he’s been an indie darling, a marquee idol, a comic-book superhero two times over, an Academy Award-winning director, and the star of critical and financial flops like Daredevil, Jersey Girl, and Gigli." Popeye191 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the article, you use the phrase In X year, (at times in quick succession). You might want to rephrase the sentences in parts, here is a quick example. When an article reads in a repetitive fashion, it tends to sound monotonous as the reader progresses. While with an article this huge repetiton is unavoidable, we can still keep it to the minimum.

Edited some of the 'in X' dates Popeye191 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep offering some minor copy-edits as we progress. Cheers. NumerounovedantTalk 11:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work on the article, here are some comments:

"Chasing Amy was a landmark moment for the actor." - You might want to rephrase using "The film" and maybe by replacing "landmark" by "breakthrough"?

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Todd McCarthy of Variety found him "excellent" while Janet Maslin of The New York Times noted" - missing comma

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Upon release, Janet Maslin of The New York Times praised the "smart and touching screenplay" while Emanuel Levy" - same.

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to rephrase The New York Times review for Phantoms. try and paraphrasing larger quotes so as to not clutter the article with direct quotations.

Reworded first sentence of quote Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Emanuel Levy of Variety praised his "bravura turn" while" - comma.

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce (2002) - no need for "(2002)".

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Also in 2000, he provided the voice of Joseph in the animated Joseph: King of Dreams." - ref?

Added ref from Variety Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few instances of long-ish direct quotes, mostly in reviews. You might go trya nd rephrase them to both avoid QUOTEFARM and make the article read more smoothly.

Thanks, will go through the article with this in mind later today Popeye191 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now trimmed some direct quotes. Do you think there are still too many? Popeye191 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 06:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the article I believe that it's quite thorough and fairly well complied However, there are a little too many direct quotes even as if stands currently, also worrisome are the poorly punctuated sentences. These are not the biggest concerns to stop the article for being listed, but the References section most definitely is. You'll have to work on it, fill in the missing authors, dates, accessdates, bare URLs, and the publishers, which further need to be checked. Once that is done I'll go through the article one last time. But looking at the reference section it might take you a while. Let me know if you have any questions. NumerounovedantTalk 09:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the References section over the next few days and post again when I've finished. Can you please give me some examples of poorly punctuated sentences in the article? Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through the References section. Before I go any further, do the first 15 look okay now? I want to submit the article as a FAC in time so want to get it right now. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, every publisher should be linked to it's respective page at the time of it's first occurrence in the refs section (e.g. - The Boston Globe in ref 4). Next, all newspapers and journals and the likes should be in italics; use the work/website tag for them (preferably "work"). For the rest use the publisher field (e.g. - ViewAskew in ref. 3). Be sure to check the notability of the refs. Use the exact name of the publisher in the refs (e.g. - "www.breakthroughgreaterboston.org" should be Breakthrough Greater Boston). Avoid using capital letters throughout (e.g. - PEOPLE.com). I'll try and help wherever I can, and try and cut the punctuations myself. It'll be easier than listing them here. NumerounovedantTalk 09:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidelines. I've fixed the formatting in the References section and have replaced a few sources too. I'm still working on trimming down direct quotes/reviews. Popeye191 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider's comments The fact that he was called the Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine should be noted in the article. You should also add about how he is deemed a sex symbol within society and how he is seen in the media (shouldn't be more than a few paras). I haven't gone through the whole article but after reading a portion of it revealed quite a few quotes (e.g. you don't need to list three-four reviews for one role). Having said that, it is a very nice effort and I would be more than willing to help the nominator with pushing it to FAC if they want. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and support. The article now refers to his Sexiest Man Alive title. I'm not sure that being a sex symbol is a big part of his image, outside of Sexiest Man Alive and the Bennifer years. A couple of reviews do make reference to him being handsome.Popeye191 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'd include in a separate 'In the media' section? He's known for being an activist and politically outspoken (separate sections), he has a 'bad boy' reputation (alcohol, gambling sections), his friendship with Matt Damon (career section), tabloid drama (relationships section). Popeye191 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a few lines on his acting style and analysis of his career and acting somewhere in the article, although Affleck isn't someone known for having superior acting method. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to weave analysis of his career decisions through the article and his acting general style is discussed in reviews of individual performances. Popeye191 (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would suggest to cut back on the quotes (either paraphrase or remove them if they are not much necessary) if FAC is planned for. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comments

Great work on expanding the article a great deal. Despite the few punctuation issues, the prose quality is fine, the direct quotes will need attention if you plan to take this further, and the most important thing to keep in mind will be the references section which, in its current state is not in the best condition. That said this looks fairly worthy of GA, but might need a lot of work to get to Fa-worthy level. I'll wait till you're done with the quotes, as you said earlier, and give the final verdict after proofreading once. Ping me once you're done. NumerounovedantTalk 08:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Thanks. I've trimmed some more direct quotes - there isn't more than two reviews for any performance, one for many, and none for less notable work. Can you point me towards what still needs to be fixed with the References section and punctuation? What other areas would concern you for FA? Popeye191 (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Popeye191: I'll probably leave some comments at the talk page soon, but IMO the work here is done. Again, really great work here. Pass. NumerounovedantTalk 12:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review! Looking forward to addressing comments at talk page Popeye191 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]