Talk:Gary Oldman/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Belovedfreak (talk · contribs) 16:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is reasonable for the most part but would benefit from the whole article being copyedited by a single editor.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Big problems with verifiability, many citations missing, dead links, dubious sources used. Some sources do not support the statements they appear to.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
not assessed although I suspect there will be many more sources available - have film journals been looked at?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Fairly neutral, although some parts stray into hyperbole, or are slightly unbalanced
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
not assessed
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
images look ok.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This article should be able to reach GA standard in the future, but unfortunately it needs a bit more preparation to meet the GA criteria. On reading through, a big red flag is the amount of valid maintenance tags (eg. {{Citation needed}} which should be addressed before a further nomination. The biggest problems I see witht he article at the moment are verifiability issues. There are many more inline citations needed, some dead links and several sources of dubious reliability. The prose is reasonable but, as with all articles that have had many different editors over time, it would benefit from a copyedit. I'll point out some specific issues I noticed by section.

lead

"Oldman went on to star in many popular motion pictures of the 1990s to the present day, often as weirdos and villains." - example of an awkward sentence
The lead doesn't do too bad a job of summarising the article (WP:LEAD), but would benefit from being a bit less listy (1st paragraph)

early life

From what I've read elsewhere, Oldman has (had?) more than one sister, so this should be mentioned
The birth dates of his parents don't appear to be supported by the sources at the end of that sentence (and are arguably irrelevant to this article anyway)
"Oldman has said that his father was an abusive alcoholic who left his family when Oldman was seven" - this is not exactly supported by the cited source. It's an interview, and that relevant bit of information is included in the introduction, it's not a direct quote from Oldman. Although it probably did come from him, he is not quoted as saying that in the source, so we shouldn't say that "he has said" it. (I know from experience that the introductory blurbs at the beginning of interviews can be completely false, even from seemingly reliable sources.)
"Oldman was an accomplished singer ..." - I don't see this in the cited source
The final sentence about the school he attended, and when he left, is an example of a statement that needs an inline citation

Early work...

"...would have starred in Don Boyd's Gossip (1982) if that film had not collapsed" - source?
The quotes from John Lydon's autobiograhpy should have a citation to that source
Despite the "despite questioning the authenticity of some parts of the film", this part seems to gloss over Lydon's opinion of the film, which was actually very negative. I get from the whole quote that he didn't like Oldman's performance at all, but just didn't hold him responsible for that and thought he was a good actor.

Villain roles...

"Oldman starred in what was at that point the most significant role of his career..." - most significant according to whom?
"Oldman's performance is regarded by many as a staple of the horror genre..." - this is unsourced and seems like original research. Phrases like "regarded as many" (also found elsewhere) are a bit weaselly
"Oldman also displayed a skill for world accents..." - according to whom? Also, "world accents" as opposed to what other kind of accents?
"Oldman also appeared as the Devil in the 1993 promo video to the Guns N' Roses single "Since I Don't Have You", and served as a member of Jury at the 1993 Cannes Film Festival." - these two facts seem random in relation to each other, as well as in the context of the motion pictures being discussed immediately prior
"Oldman's visbility as one of the foremost portrayers of villains in Hollywood became apparent when MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch aired a match between Oldman and Christopher Walken to determine the greatest cinematic villain." - this strikes me as hyperbole. Is Celebrity Deathmatch considered some kind of authority?
"...appeared opposite Hopkins, a personal friend..." - source?
A few too many "reportedly"s - if we're not sure facts are true, we shouldn't be repeating them here. We shouldn't use rumours or speculation unless they are themselves notable and widely discussed in reliable sources.
"...leading to the famous spitting scene between Joey Tribbiani (Matt LeBlanc) and himself" - dubious grammar (Spitting scene between Joey and Joey?). Also, famous spitting scene? Really? That needs a source.

Career slump...

"...Oldman did not appear in any significant roles until 2004" - according to whom?
"...a man afflicted with dwarfism..." - afflicted is not really an appropriate word here
"Oldman and star Daniel Radcliffe reportedly became very close during the filming of the series." - again, "reportedly". Also, this is not exactly supported by the cited source. "get on very well"≠"very close". It's entirely possible to get on very well with acquaintances or colleagues.

Filmmaking

Is filmmaking not considered part of one's film career? I don't see a problem with separating the acting from the other work, but perhaps section headings could use some attention
"The company also produced The Contender, which also starred Oldman. He was also credited as a producer."
The part about The Contender and Dreamworks could be a little clearer. I had to read the cited source to really understand what it was about.
"...Oldman, who is not a U.S. citizen..." - maybe it's just me but this seems to be a non sequitur. Are non-Americans not political?

theatre

Information here is repeated from the "early life" section.

music

Info here is repeated

personal life

I can't access the hollywood.com article, but would like to confirm that it supports the fact that "His problems with alcohol were well known during the early 1990s."
"...a string of alcohol-fuelled debacles..." - this language sounds like it comes from a tabloid newspaper or gossip magazine
It seems strange to mention his ex-wife's accusations against him without menioning that Oldman refuted those accusations

Awards

This section needs references

References

Some dead links that need fixing
Questionable sources - all sources used need to be checked using the identifying reliable sources guidelines, and potentially contentious information needs to be scrupulously referenced to good quality sources
Some examples of possibly dubious sources:
- IMDb trivia pages
- Tiscali (who has written this?)
- Halle's Gary Oldman biography (who?)
- scifipedia
- slashback.multiply.com

I recommend perhaps requesting a peer review before a further GA nomination.--Beloved Freak 22:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]