Talk:Michael Sheen/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lobo512 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to review this article. I've skim-read it and it definitely looks to me like it fulfills all the criteria, with broad coverage, lots of citations to reliable sources, and a neutral point of view. I'll start properly going through it tonight but won't get through it all. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are just suggestions, so I won't make the changes myself and let you decide.

Lead

I know there are no set rules on how to organise the lead, but I think it would be clearer if it were done chronologically rather than talking about his theatre career then film career.

I've left this for now but can change it if it really bothers you. His career is also split into two sections in the main article. I think it makes sense to discuss all Olivier nominations together, and then all public figure roles and all film plaudits together.

Reply: Well I won't fail the GAN over it, but I recommend it as a strong improvement to the article. You start reading it thinking it will be giving you either a summary of Sheen's notability or it will be his background, and then you realise "Oh, it's only talking about his theatre career.." And seeing as most people know him as a movie actor, this is particularly confusing. It doesn't help that the rest of the article is structured that way because you don't know that until you see the contents table, you know? I've tried reorganizing the content in my sandbox (and simplified the detail on his daughter) - what do you think? Personally I think it's a lot clearer. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - people haven't yet seen the contents table so it's confusing. I've reworded it using the example in your sandbox. Popeye191 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye191 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is perhaps best known for his portrayals of public figures > Change to just, "He is well known for...", or "Has achieved recognition for..."?

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit unnecessary to mention his relationship with Rachel McAdams here.

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Change a couple of the "he"s to "Sheen"s? Particularly at the start of paragraphs (this applies to the whole article).

Changed the start of each paragraph Popeye191 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early performances

"Sheen worked primarily as a stage actor in the nineties" > This is very similar to the sentence in the lead, I'm not sure it is needed at all.

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His most significant role of 1997 was Henry V, staged by the RSC, which earned him a second Ian Charleson Award nomination." > I'm assuming from this that he played the title role, but you might want to clarify it.

Clarified Popeye191 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In early 1998, he produced A Little World of Our Own at the Donmar, in which Colin Farrell made his West End debut.[38] The play was staged by The Foundry, a production company Sheen had formed with Helen McCrory and Robert Delamere to promote new writing.[37]" > I think it is worth putting that he set up a production company before you mention the play. The phrase "to promote new writing" is a bit vague.

Both points addressed Popeye191 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier-nominated roles

He won rave reviews for his performance as Mozart in a revival of Amadeus in 1998 and 1999. I think a broad statement like this should be referenced really. Can you find an article about him that mentions this, to avoid it being wp:synthesis?

Added a reference for this statement Popeye191 (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The reference says the play received rave reviews, so you need to change the phrase in the article to accurately reflect that.

Have removed the "rave reviews" phrase Popeye191 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, he was unimpressed by the play as a whole: > Don't really need to know that on this article.

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Stopping for now after first paragraph. This is a very good article, it's so nice to see practically every sentence being referenced! Back tomorrow. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay gonna pick up where I left off now, give me an hour or two. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1999, Sheen revisited the role of Jimmy Porter (which he first played in 1994) in the National Theatre's production of Look Back in Anger. > A tad confusing seeing as this wasn't mentioned earlier, maybe rephrase for clarity.

Removed mention of 1994 production, there wasn't much press coverage - it's still in the Michael Sheen performances article Popeye191 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Passion and Hamlet

In addition to a professional cast, over one thousand local amateurs took part in the performance and as many more volunteers from local charity and community groups were involved in preparations in the months leading up to the play. > Would be nice to have a ref.

Added a couple of refs Popeye191 (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..he eventually asked Ian Rickson after they worked together on Betrayal in 2009, as part of a Harold Pinter tribute evening at the National Theatre. > This isn't very clear. The working together was part of a HP tribute evening? I think that extra detail could be removed, it just confused me.

Moved the Betrayal info to the previous section - now reads chronologically Popeye191 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is a bit heavy on the review quotes, I don't think it would hurt to lose one or two from each play. Have his reviews for Hamlet been uniformly positive?

Removed one review of each play. His reviews were uniformly positive but the play itself got mixed reviews. I've included reviews from all British broadsheets, I think, and he also received good reviews from the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Popeye191 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early roles

Heartlands, a little-seen 2002 film > Would be nice to ref "little seen" (I know I'm being nitpicky here, but I see you want to take the page to FA so that's why ;). If you could just find a ref that says it didn't take much money or something).

Can't find anything about the box office figures, most likely because it was a British film. Found an article which refers to it as "under-distributed" Popeye191 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheen's breakthrough role in the United Kingdom was as Tony Blair > I understand why you've pointed out "in the UK" here, but I actually don't think you need to . It was still his breakout role, even if only in the UK.

RemovedPopeye191 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dirty Filthy Love: His performance received favourable reviews > Hmm, you seem to be basing that on those two reviews you've linked. And you also do this quite a lot later in the article. Like I said about Amadeus, it would be better to reference this from previous writing about him that has summarised his career successes. I feel like there must be some sort of big article about him that does this that you could reference? If there isn't then fair enough, but if there is it would be much better.

There isn't really a long article that provides an overview of his whole career and critical reaction to it. TalkTalk have provided a long biography but it was described as an unreliable resource a while ago, and doesn't get into critics' reviews. Popeye191 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen and Fantabulosa!

Would be interesting to have some more quotes from Sheen about playing Blair, how he found it etc. And I swear he received rave reviews for this, there must be something out there that says this?

Added another quote about playing Blair and two reviews Popeye191 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about Williams's diary could be removed as unneeded in this article.

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frost/Nixon and The Damned United

The Guardian declared it the "best performance of his big-screen career" > Clarify when they said that.

Done Popeye191 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe don't need so many Underworld reviews.

Removed one review, shortened two others Popeye191 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should mention (with a ref, should be easy to find) how massively popular the Twilight series is.

Mentioned Popeye191 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 onwards

I looked at ref 155 to check it compared the Tron role to David Bowie, and found this quote: “I’m fascinated by finding the private side of the public face.” That's a nice quote to explain why he so often plays real figures, maybe incorporate it into the article?

Added the quote to the Kenneth Williams paragraph Popeye191 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a phrase first used in 1946 by Sir Winston Churchill to describe the close political relations between the two nations. > Dunno if we need to know that here, or maybe I'm just saying that because the phrase is obvious to me...other readers may appreciate the explanation. I'll leave that to you, It's your call.

Removed that and mentioned Blair and Clinton instead Popeye191 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify that Fey is the creator of 30 Rock to give her comments significance.

Clarified Popeye191 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and an appearance in The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2. > Ref?

Added Popeye191 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

Hmm, I think this may effectively just be trivia. It isn't really that notable. I don't think the article would lose anything by not including it.

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public life

Right, I think the first paragraph should go into a new section called "Awards and recognition" (I was going to suggest you add this anyway, a list of his awards and nominations, most actor biographies have one), and then the second para moved to Personal Life.

Personal life

In 1997, they appeared in a radio production of Romeo and Juliet. > Already mentioned in Radio section.

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done with reading throught the article! I need to take a break now, will closely check the sources/pics and make some broader comments along with a review checklist either later tonight or tomorrow. Most of my comments above are suggestions for improvement, particularly if you want to go for FA, but are not necessary to pass GA (the article is definitely there, I just need to take a break haha). --Lobo512 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References review

Refs 221 and 227 are dead links. I've never done it myself but I think it's quite easy to find archived versions. Either way, they need to be fixed somehow.

I've fixed ref 227 but ref 221 still opens for me? Popeye191 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe the number is wrong, but look here: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Michael_Sheen Right at the bottom, that link. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are reliable.
I did spotchecks on a number of sources to check they were representing what was being referenced, and found no problems at all. No worries about copyvio either.

Images review

I removed one that I suspect is not really owned by the uploader. The other two seem perfectly fine.

GA criteria review

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

Overall an excellent article.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is clear and easy to read, and remains interesting throughout.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Very well referenced, but I'm afraid we do currently have some instances of WP:Synthesis, which constitutes OR. Just remove any sentences when the play/film is described as having strong reviews if you don't have a reference which flatly says this. I know this is a shame but it's okay - quoting the positive reviews achieves the same effect anyway. Fix the two dead links mentioned above.
Update: I have asked at the WP:OR noticeboard to check if this definitely constitutes OR, it might actually be acceptable and I really should check since I'm no expert. Hopefully someone will respond soon.--Lobo512 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Tells you pretty much everything you could want to know about the man.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There is certainly a lot of praise given throughout, but it is an accurate representation of Sheen's standing. He genuinely does get overwhelmingly positive reviews, so it doesn't constitute bias. The prose is always written in a neutral POV and appropriate manner, without any direct attempts to influence the reader's opinion. Some negative comments are given.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Fine.
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):
Fine.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just fix those dead links and occurences of synthesis and I will pass the article.

I have now removed the occurences of synthesis and fixed the dead links Popeye191 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments To my mind, this article is damn close to FA. Don't rely on me for that because I'm not a reviewer there (although I do read the reviews) and it's extremely strict, but it has to be close. Continue copy-editing the prose just to get it as crisp as possible, and then I'd recommend taking it to peer review and requesting comments from an FAC regular to check that it meets the criteria. The one thing they may be unhappy about it the abundance of positive reviews. I also see that at the previous PR, they suggested merging the Stage and Screen sections into one chronological summary of his career. I also think this would be a good idea. It just gives a better idea of his career trajectory, you know? And allows you to know exactly what he was doing at any given time. It's ultimately up to you because I know it would be a fairly big undertaking (it would probably be easier than you think though, since he did do mostly stage then mostly screen). I also think you should add a list of his awards and nominations to the relevant section, and maybe a quick summary of his performances under the "List of performances" section, just so that it isn't completely blank. Again, you can feel free to ignore these suggestions if you wish but they would be improvements in my opinion.

Well done on an excellent article, I can tell you've put a lot of work in. You should be proud, and I hope you'll continue putting in the same effort on other pages. And I hope you do go for FA again, it would be great to have him featured on the main page. Hope this review has been helpful (it was my first proper one!) --Lobo512 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review it. Your input is really helpful and much appreciated. I've already combined the stage and screen sections and will work on providing a list of his awards and performances. Popeye191 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm more than happy to pass the article now (and loving the new layout). WELL DONE! If you want any further advice or ever want me to look through it again, just contact me on my talk page. --Lobo512 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]