Talk:Gene Hackman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 09:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to completing this review. I'm trying to branch out beyond my typical spaceflight/science genre for GA reviews, and have long been a fan of Hackman since Crimson Tide (my dad would argue it was since seeing Enemy of the State, during which I learned the f-word from Hackman's character). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
Make the tense consistent in the awards sentence in the first paragraph.

Add a comma after the SAG Award

Personal preference, but I would remove the colons from the sentences that list Hackman's roles, and reformat it to flow as a sentence without a list.

I don't think it's necessary to include the Ray Romano co-star, as no other roles list other stars, and Welcome to Mooseport isn't a particularly iconic role.

Early life and education
Add more information about Richard, such as when Richard was born.

Is it necessary to mention where his mother was from? If he also has Canadian ancestors, yes, but if not, it should either be removed entirely or moved to a separate sentence.

Make the tense consistent in the sentence about moving.

Rewrite the sentence about the divorce, as it is not clear what it means. My interpretation is that the parents divorced and Eugene Hackman was no longer involved in his children's lives, but it isn't clear in the sentence. If he just moved out of the family home, I think stating that the parents were divorced explains it.

Offer more information about why he left home at 16; that seems to be glossed over.

Is there more information about Hackman's time in the Marine Corps? Possible where he attended training, what bases in Asia that he was stationed in, other pertinent service information.

State what jobs that Hackman worked in NYC.

When did he move to California? The section ends with him in New York and the next section begins with him in California

Career
My overall feedback for this section would be to consolidate the sections, as some of them, particularly the 1970s and 1980s, are very short. Additionally, there is quite a lot of WP:EDITORIALIZING in the word choice, which I will highlight below. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1960s
State Hackman's name in the first sentence vs. using a pronoun.

Who voted Hackman and Hoffman least likely to succeed? Was it some formal voting or an anecdote that his fellow acting students didn't believe in him.

It seems cliched to state that Hackman moved to NYC to prove his classmates wrong, as he was already aspiring to be an actor.

Rewrite the sentence about how Hackman, Hoffman, and Duvall lived together; cite the Vanity Fair article as a source and then state the facts vs. in-line reference the interview.

Make the tense about the doorman consistent.

I would remove the sentence about running in to an old classmate, and inspiring Hackman, that that is cliched. If you would like to include it, remove editorialized parts such as "bad luck would have it" and "despised."

Explain what a bit role is, or at least link it.

Remove "opened the door," per WP:CLICHE

Remove the information about the role in I Spy, as you don't include many other roles, and he had a part in a single episode.

Just state his role in Gypsy Moths and make sure to cite it appropriately. Remove the information about its cult like status and inspiration, as that is editorialized and uncited.

What does "nearly accepted" entail? I would just state that he was offered the role of Mike Brady.

If possible, state which role he accepted in favor of Mike Brady

1970s
Rephrase his role in I Never Sang for my Father, and then state afterwards about his Academy Award Nomination

Remove the "marking his graduation to leading man status" as that is WP:EDITORIALIZE and is implied by him winning the Academy Award for Best Actor.

Hackman's role in Young Frankenstein was very minor. I would maybe mention it is a list of roles, but it's a stretch to say that it's one of his most famous comedic roles. Additionally, ywo years are mentioned in the previous sentence.

Refrain from using "that year's" when the only mention of a year was in a parenthetical comment.

Make the tense consistent in the Night Moves sentence.

Rewrite the sentence about Lex Luthor per WP:EDITORIALIZE.

1980s
This entire section should be expanded or combined with another section, as it is short and goes into very little detail.

It's confusing that the section about the entire decade starts out by describing the end of the decade.

It is editorializing to describe his role as SecDef as memorable, and there shouldn't be any plot summarizing in the sentence.

Why are most of his 1980s role mentioned in a single sentence, when that isn't the case elsewhere?

Remove the review for Hoosiers as it ranks among sports movies, as that is a single pole and not relevant to Hackman.

1990s
Combine many of the paragraphs, as most are one or two sentences long and describe the movies in a single year.

State how long Hackman was not working because of his angioplasty, not just "a while"

Remove "found time" per WP:CLICHE

Remove the part about the movie that Narrow Margin remakes, as that is extraneous and can be found on the 1990s movie's page.

Remove the director and writer for Unforgiven, as that is not pertinent to Hackman.

Continue to refer to Academy Awards as Academy Awards (not Oscars) to keep it from being confusing with someone not familiar with the award's nickname

Break up the sentence about 1995 roles, as it is very long and contains a large volume of information.

Remove the phrase about his Enemy of the State character being reminiscent of another character.

Just state that he played the president in Absolute Power, and don't retell the movie plot.

2000s
Break up the sentences, and don't retell the plot of the movies.

The sentence about Runaway Jury should be broken up, and the editorialized text of "yet another" and "at long last"

Shorten the description about Welcome to Mooseport, per the reasons above about it not being a major role.

The sentence about the Cecil B. DeMille award reads awkwardly. Remove the editorialized text (honored) and don't include the generic description of the award. My take is "In 2003, Hackman was awarded the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award." This should also be moved to the Accolades section

Retirement from acting
No concern.

Career as a novelist
I would shorten this to "writing career"

Start off by stating that Hackman became a novelist, and then explain his work with Daniel Lenihan.

Use more concise descriptions of the books, such as a "Despression-era muder mystery." Shorten the description as well for "Payback at Morning Peak"

Make Hackman the subject of the sentence about Pursuit.

Remove the Fox Sports Radio interview, as it doesn't seem to be some significant interview.

Personal life
Explain Hackman's friendship with Jack Del Rio. Were they friends when Del Rio was a college student and Hackman was in his 50s? Additionally, does Hackman still go regularly to games if he lives in New Mexico?

Remove Hackman's age when describing the bike accident, as it is redundant when the date is stated as well.

Remove the phrase about early reports of head trauma, as that wasn't the case.

Accolades
Provide a short summary of the awards that Hackman has received

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
See above section for comments for comments
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Standardize the date formats in the citations. Most citations use ""dd Name of month yyyy" while several use "yyyy-mm-dd" I personally prefer the former, but just make sure that it is consistent for all of your citations.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Is there a better source than DailyMail to describe Hackman's bike accident?

C. It contains no original research:
Add citations to the filmography and theatre credits sections.

The sentence about Hackman's determination to show his old classmate is uncited.

There are numerous uncited sentences about Hackman's roles; make sure they are appropriately cited.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No concer. Earwig shows little similarity with source material

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No concern.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No, but I think the filmography section is approaching the length of requiring its own page.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No concern.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No concern.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I have completed my initial review, and will place the review on hold. This article needs quite a bit of work before getting to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions/comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As no improvements have been made to the article, I am rejecting its GAN nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]