Talk:Paul Thomas Anderson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

One initial issue I see at a glance is that the lead does not appear to properly summarize the article; it skims over the films very quickly, doesn't touch on the sections Influences/Style, Other Work, and Personal Life, and contains a paragraph of critical evaluation that doesn't appear in the body at greater length. (Full guideline at WP:LEAD). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in regards to the films, it could read something like "His career began in 1996 with Hard Eight" or something like that and then flesh out the explanations of his other five features. Possibly move his critical evaluation to a "Recognition" section below. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Even as a fan, sentences such as "Anderson is often considered the greatest filmmaker of his generation." should be re-written or taken away, no? SammyJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.197.78 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to be an exaggeration. Out of the sources given in the "Recognition" section, only the Guardian appears to name him the greatest director, right? This should be rephrased more moderately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more points:

"so he could "garner ammunition" on what he called a "bad situation,"" -- I have no idea what this means.
"sundance filmmakers' lab"--Googling this suggests that it's not punctuated or capitalized correctly in the article
"even though Rysher did nothing to promote it," -- this appears to be only Anderson's side of the story, and should be identified as such in-text.
"in the summer 1995" -- this isn't grammatical (should be "summer of"), but in any case should be rewritten per WP:REALTIME (GA criterion 1b)
"The result was Anderson's breakout film[21][22][23] Boogie Nights (1997), a full-length major motion picture based on his short The Dirk Diggler Story." -- are six citations really necessary in this sentence? This seems awfully basic and noncontroversial.
" Roger Ebert wrote that "Sandler, liberated from the constraints of formula, reveals unexpected depths as an actor. Watching this film, you can imagine him in Dennis Hopper roles. He has darkness, obsession and power."[39]" -- it seems very off-topic to quote Ebert about Sandler here instead of Anderson. Did no reviewer discuss Anderson's script or direction? I'd suggest that this quotation simply be cut in interests of conciseness (or maybe moved to the Adam Sandler article, or the PDL article).
The section on The Master needs to be updated; I think we can agree Hoffman's involvement is not just a report any more. Also, the given source does not mention anything about critical acclaim.
"Anderson is currently in pre-production for " -- rewrite per WP:REALTIME
"Other Work" -- Why is this separate from "career"?
As a broad note about the article, one-paragraph sections should be avoided per WP:LAYOUT (criterion 1b again). Can some of these very brief sections and subsections be merged? I think all the subheaders in "Influences and style" could simply be deleted, for example. The accolades and recognition section could clearly be combined--I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the two. You could also consider making the awards table collapsible, given its enormous length.
"The couple currently resides in the San Fernando Valley" -- rewrite per WP:REALTIME
"A Negative Assessment of Anderson's Work By Prof. Ray Carney" -- this doesn't seem like a uniquely valuable resource, and I'd suggest deleting it per WP:EL. I've had the impression from film articles before that someone has mass-added links to Carney's web essays, and this seems to me another example. Actually, I'm going to go ahead and delete this, but you can revert me if you want. It's not an issue for the GA criteria either way.

Overall, this seems to me like it was a bit of a premature nomination, and next time I'd recommend that you take some time to go over the article yourself for proofreading and the general GA criteria before nominating--it saves a lot of time in the reviewing process. (It's honestly a bit of a red flag when a nominator hasn't worked on the article yet.) I'm glad you're interested in bringing this one up to GA standard, though, and will be glad to work with you to get it there. Thanks already for your work on improving the lead, I think it's much better. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some of the above has been addressed, but more unsourced content has been added to the lead: "Anderson is often considered to be the greatest and the most dynamic filmmaker of his generation, initially being praised as a wunderkind after the release of Boogie Nights and Magnolia. He has been described as the "Stanley Kubrick of the 21st Century". The lead should be rewritten in a neutral tone and not present information not in the body; quotations also need sourcing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Looks like much of the above has been addressed, so I'll proceed to the checklist to finish this off. Thanks to everybody who's contributed so far; it's a nice change of pace to have several editors giving input and corrections for the review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few last action points:

"while the American Film Institute regards him as "one of American film's modern masters." -- What would you think about adding date/context to this statement? It seems to be from a 2007 statement rather than a current one, though I agree they're unlikely to have changed their minds.
It seems like the extremely long table of accolades could be made collapsible; not many readers will need this level of detail. I don't think this is a relevant point for the GA criteria, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~It remains unclear to me why the sections "Recognition" and "Accolades" are separate sections-- couldn't these be combined? Also see point above about "AFI regards him..."~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Combined Recognition and Accolades. I think the wording of the AFI sentence sugguested it was from 2007 but it was just worded wrong. Now says "In 2007, Total Film named him the twentieth greatest director of all time and the American Film Institute regarded him as "one of American film's modern masters."Allwham (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]