Jump to content

User:Rossrs/Sandbox3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an attempt to keep this list at a manageable size, male performers only are included, with female performers listed here. Articles to be assessed include:

Possible articles to be created

[edit]

Quick assess

[edit]

These have been assessed and just plonked here pending the more laborious sorting into the longer sections, which is pretty tedious. This is for speed with the intention of fixing later.

no lead

name, rank & serial number

acclaim or POV focus

basic summary

minor fixing needed

  • James Stewart - one of those rare examples where the praise is probably justified. Still needs a POV check, but it seems to cover his story in sufficient depth, and gives something of his character and identity. (I'd really like to see the military aspect of his life covered better in the lead. He was a prominent member of the air force, flew combat missions in Europe, received the Distinguished Flying Cross for actions in combat twice and was awarded the Croix de Guerre. Plus, there's an error in the lead. He did not rise to the rank of Brigadier General of the Air Force, he was a Colonel at the end of the war, but stayed in the reserves and rose to Brigadier General of the Air Reserves. He also went along as a observer on a bombing mission in Vietnam as a part of still being a reserve office - he was 60 years old. He's getting short-changed as a waro hero. I guess it isn't good actor biography notability, but hey. I loved Jimmy Stewart, can you tell?)

Kinda, yeah.  ;-) I don't know much about his military career, but I agree it should be given the respect it deserves.

  • Ben Stiller - pretty good. needs to be POV checked, and checked against article. (It's okay.)
  • Fred Thompson - minor acting career given about as much due as it merits methinks, and the lead looks OK to me (without having any interest in fact checking his political career). He looks like Kelsey Grammer. Oh, geez, that's a terrible photo of Kelsey Grammer. Thompson's main claim to national fame was using the Law & Order to jump a failed presidential bid. The main district attorney role on L&O was never a huge part.

infobox problems

  • Martin Short - quite a busy photo, and unfortunately Short is in the middle of it all, and although it's not a bad photo of him, he's surrounded by detail that distracts the viewer. Cropping may help.
  • Christian Slater - nice pic, minor cropping
  • Kevin Smith - I think this would have far more impact if cropped to below his hands, as the full image creates an unnecessarily large infobox and makes him look like Hagrid. (That's the world-renowned "jazz hands pose".)
  • Kevin Sorbo - nice picture except for the blurry hand, which must go. (Oh, Hercules, how far you've fallen.)
  • James Spader - crop - (I like James Spader but he's not the same lean, sexy troubled guy in sex, lies & videotape. He's kind of puffed.)
  • Terence Stamp - simply a really, really, really REALLY bad photo of some bloke who is apparently the actor, Terence Stamp. (So they say.)
  • Dean Stockwell - I uploaded this image of Stockwell aged 14, and as a picture of him at this age, I doubt there's a better one but he's now aged 72, still acts, is still notable, but is frozen in time as a smiling 14. Someone made a comment about this on the talk page, with a degree of sarcasm that even I wouldn't stoop to. A year later the picture remains, proving that bitching is an easy thing to do, far easier than anything constructive or proactive. BTW I agree with the sentiment expressed - the image is not appropriate. We should look for something better. (He was a cute little dude, wasn't he? I never missed Quantum Leap.)
  • Peter Strauss - good picture, but teeny-weeny. Will try to find original image on Flickr and see if anything can be done to improve it (Perhaps we could find something that was taken after disco died.)
  • Danny Trejo - crop (Whenever I see this man, it reminds of the "Titty Twister" scenes in From Dusk Till Dawn.)
  • Verne Troyer - what's with Verne Troyer and pointing at things? Minor cropping needed. (He's encouraging the photography to direct the camera elsewhere. Meanwhile, the lead says he's first notable for being a dwarf, then for being Mini-Me. The first is self-evident from the second.)

no infobox

Not yet assessed

[edit]

No lead section

[edit]

Very short articles without lead, or longer articles where a lead exists without a specific break

Name, rank and serial number only

[edit]

Articles which contain only the barest information: name, date of birth/death and profession

Award, acclaim or notable role bias

[edit]

Articles with no lead, or a short lead, with most emphasis on awards. Leads that contain only the basic biographical detail, preceded by "XXX Award-winning", or contain a lengthier discusses that focusses exclusively or almost exclusively on awards or honors. May also be a listing of notable roles and/or awards, or a combination of both, unsupported statements of praise or acclaim, but little else of substance. May use words such as "famous", "iconic", "legendary" etc which may be commonly accepted, but which present this as a fact rather than an opinion. Terms such as "best known", "best remembered", "most popular" etc, also convey POV but if they are placed within context to support this, could be acceptable.

Basic leads in need of expansion

[edit]

Leads with some basic relevant information, but which need expansion to adequately summarize the article, may focus too strongly on awards without giving context, may contain POV, undue emphasis or unsupported statements.

Leads with specific issues to address

[edit]

Lead sections are more detailed, or are for the most part on the right track, but which have specific issues to be dealt with before they can be considered as complete.

  • Nick Adams - a very basic summary but flawed by emphasizing his death and his "personal excesses"
  • Ben Affleck - clearly an "Academy Award Winner" (we're told twice in one paragraph). As a summary it's not balanced, equal emphasis is on private life, should be more related to career.
  • Eddie Albert - too many occupations, should be just the notable ones, a bit of POV, needs minor expansion
  • Will Arnett - good basic structure, some POV, and some irrelevance (it's not important to know the name of his Arrested Development character, let alone who to pronounce it - in the lead)
  • David Bowie - lead is written exclusively about his career in music, his acting career has been minor by comparison, but is still noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. (Briefly, of course)
  • Marlon Brando - centred around acclaim, awards and notable roles, nothing to describe him, his cultural contributions etc. "Widely regarded as one of the greatest actors of his time" is empty, despite a sourced cited, because it is given no context - just a couple of words to say why, would make a huge difference.
  • James Cagney - focusses on the Cagney's acclaim rather in summarizing the article
  • Bing Crosby - totally biased towards his (considerable) career in music, BUT the opening sentence says he was not only an actor but an Academy Award winning "popular singer (do they give Oscars for singing?) and actor". His acting career is not mentioned again.
  • Michael Crawford - needs some expansion, basically OK, but POV such as "household name" and "famous to millions" needs to be reconsidered.
  • Tom Cruise - this is quite a good lead but it doesn't actually summarize the article very well, which is supposedly the lead's main purpose.
  • Jon Cryer - not sure if being mistaken for Matthew Broderick is so intrinsic to Cryer's bio that it should be mentioned in the lead. I removed it, and it was back before the day had ended. Oh well, save it for another day. Also has the optimistic comment that "so far" he's been nominated for 3 Emmys. Fair enough, he's still quite young.
  • Matt Damon - a bit heavy on the praise, not bad though.
  • Clint Eastwood - slanted towards POV and unqualified praise. described as "iconic" (and "laconic", what an unfortunate though poetic combination) and in his case, I would personally agree that he is iconic, but in the lead it's out of place. Although it's sourced, this source reflects the opinion of one person, and this one person's opinion does not make it so. Reads like a roll call of notable roles as both an actor and as a director, but it gives very little depth to Eastwood - it's just a list of titles with some praise attached to them.
  • Harrison Ford - sychophantic blathering. A breathless run down of his monumental achievements and nothing else.
  • John Gavin - this is not a summary.
  • John Gilbert - this is lengthy but hollow. It's all POV about Greta Garbo and Louis Mayer. At the very least it's a case of WP:UNDUE
  • William Gillette - a lot of depth. needs to be reviewed to see how suitable it is as a summary
  • Hugh Grant - current GA, failed FA. in some ways this is exceptional, and I think an absolutely sincere and thoughtful effort has been made to make the entire article excellent, but the lead fails on three points. 1. the first emphasis is on awards 2. It's not a true summary of the article. 3. It gives a too-detailed run-down on Grant personality and characteristics, that tries to say far more than is necessary, and which relies on the opinions of others, who are not guaranteed to be unbiased. In the article where it is sourced and attributed is fine, but in the lead where it needs to stand on its own merits, it doesn't work. Some similar comments were made at its unsuccessful FA nomination in October 2007. The author deserves congratulations though, as it is a great effort, and it's nice to see someone attempting to convey more than a list of awards. A lot of leads end at the first paragraph - this one is far more ambitious.
  • Jake Gyllenhaal - this is a current FA, but I'd like a second opinion. To me there is something lacking, and I can't quite see what it is. Maybe it's just an padded out filmography. I'm not sure.
  • Kamal Haasan - this I think represents the tendency to use the lead, not as a summary, but as a rundown of the major acclaim heaped upon an artist. This may all be true, but it gives me the impression that unless people are somersaulting to praise him, it's not worth mentioning. Well intentioned, but sychophantic, and I think many leads are similar in this regard.
  • Johnny Hallyday - dreadfully POVish. Does his minor film career justify tackling what is essentially a very inappropriate lead for a singer? I think probably not, and would be happy to leave Johnny Hallyday alone.
  • Sessue Hayakawa - focuses on his successes rather than offering a summary. Where was here from the 1920s until 1957? If the lead is to be believed, he ceased to exist for this 30 year period. This creates unbalance. It is well written and well sourced, so that's a plus.
  • Terrence Howard - disjointed. clearly the work of two highly different writers with distinct agendas. POV
  • Dwayne Douglas Johnson (The Rock) - some rewording to soften the POV tone, but pretty good. films rate a minor mention which is probably a bit less than they deserve, but obviously his WWE career is his most notable. On the other hand, his football career which is less notable than his acting career, is discussed in more depth. The overall balance needs to be fixed.
  • Samuel L. Jackson - POV "major film star and cultural icon". Non encyclopedic : "He is a huge sports fan" This is cruel. He's just big-boned. Not a summary. Nice pic though.
  • Buster Keaton - he's a major figure in cinema but the acclaim needs to be balanced against an article summary, which is currently not the case. excellent image
  • Aamir Khan - I think there are several Indian actor articles that contain the line "one of the leading actors of Hindi cinema, delivering a number of highly acclaimed performances". I'll note any more I find, but I'm sure I've seen a few without commenting. Otherwise a reasonable career rundown. A bit focussed on his awards etc, like so many articles.
  • Salman Khan - full of praise. Surely he made film in which he wasn't acclaimed?
  • Shahrukh Khan - "numerous commercial successes", "critically acclaimed", "most successful".... get the picture
  • Michael Landon - interesting reverse-POV. instead of talking about the awards he WON which is the usual trick, this talks about the awards he didn't win, which of course directly implies that he should have won, which is even worse POV than if he won and we'd trumpeted it throughout the lead. Reasonable summary of notable roles, but not much else. Nice infobox image !!
  • Heath Ledger - OK, his death is still very fresh to a lot of people, and no doubt to his fans who have worked very hard on this article, but the lead starts and finishes with references to his death. It's tragic enough and underlining this attitude isn't needed. There are far too many cites here. 3 cites to say he was Academy Award nominated. Is that likely to be disputed? 3 cites for The Dark Knight. Same question. 4 cites for the title of his last film role. Same question. 4 cites to say he was one of the most promising talents of his generation. Maybe .... if it's in the article, it doesn't need the 4 cites used here. It is essentially a run down of film credits leaning heavily towards glowing praise throughout. It needs to be toned down. Whether it's too soon for a more objective lead to survive for long, is another question, and the answer is probably 'no'.
  • Bruce Lee - not bad. Some POV, especially in the reference to "cultural icon". It needs more than the opinion of one person to be represented, even if that one person was writing for TIME but perhaps the article has enough to support it. I don't exactly dispute it, but it bothers me that such an empty phrase is used so widely and so without context. Needs expansion as it doesn't summarize article.
  • Bill Mumy - kind of heading in the right direction, awkward and seemingly gratuitous references to Guy Williams, June Lockhart and The Carpenters serve only to shift the focus away from Mumy, which is exactly what we should not be doing. They should be left for the article itself, not the lead.
  • Eddie Murphy - article is using "comedian" infobox. I think a good case could be made for using the actor infobox, especially as the lead is about 95% actor, and about 5% comedian (and then only through SN:, no mention of his stand-up work. Even in the article his stand-up comedy is reduced to a single paragraph). Heavy on POV, but looks like a sincere effort to summarize article.
  • Bill Murray - similar comments to Eddie Murphy. Comedian infobox used. No discussion of stand up comedy in the lead, and only briefly discussed in the article.
  • Mike Myers - and yet another to follow Eddie Murphy and Bill Murray. Comedian infobox used. Comedy origins discussed in more detail than for either Murphy or Murray although not in the lead. Film career is his main notability now isn't it?
  • Gary Oldman - generally OK. It's a bit of a padded out filmography but maybe that's OK as it's discussed rather than just presented as a roll-call of achievement. I have a major concern with "Perhaps as a result, he has never been nominated for such an award [Oscar] despite a critically acclaimed career spanning three decades." It has 4 citations, but even if it had 4000 citations as soon as its framed in that kind of language - "perhaps this is the reason for such-and-such" - it becomes Wikipedia's opinion. I don't think the article would be diminished by its removal, and it certainly has no place in the lead.
  • Sidney Poitier - the first sentence is particularly overbloated, but this, like many, seems to only mention his outstanding achievements rather than summarize the article.
  • Rajinikanth - a lot of POV, and some of it seems like POV for its own sake. recipient of "India's third highest honour" - reminds me of Borat's sister.
  • Michael Redgrave - it looks like a lead but it's not. The first paragraphs relate to his early life only and are an introduction. We then discover he won some awards in the 1950s and 60s. Nothing in between.
  • Christopher Reeve - the majority of the lead relates to his accident, spinal cord injuries and death, which are definitely notable and deserving of discussion but his notability was as an actor and this is barely discussed.
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger - I think it's a reasonable lead in some regards, however I think the second paragraph dismisses and mocks one of the most commercially viable film careers ever. (My POV) Of course he's been given nicknames, and of course he's not been taken seriously, but this is the entire focus of the only mention of his film career. The nicknames are not as notable as the career, but the career isn't mentioned. Describing his as an "action film icon" is possibly justified, but it's given no context.
  • Steven Seagal - encompasses the development of his career, including his origins and interests outside of acting. Good in this regard. Unnecessary linking to other "action" actors. Who cares? Discuss them in the article, not the first paragraph of the lead. Same with the Richard Gere reference in final paragraph. Who cares? Unless it's a major link to the other person, it's not needed.

Leads with minor issues

[edit]
  • Christian Bale - very minor POV, otherwise very good and comprehensive
  • Drew Carey - on the right track, just needs to be expanded maybe
  • Peter Coyote - looks good, needs a closer check to see if it reflects the article, unfree image should be removed as Coyote is still living, free image is possible.
  • Robert Downey Jr. - on the right track but a little awkward. some instances of POV. the whole thing needs polishing but it's better than many
  • Henry Fonda - former FA. pretty darn good, needs a check to see if everything important is covered. Gratuitous use of the name "Lucille Ball", possibly the work of a "Lucille Ball" fan who has peppered actor articles with minorly relevant references to her.
  • James Franco - for someone with a fairly short career, this is a satisfactory summary. Needs checking, and there is a degree of POV which could be toned down.
  • George Grossmith - excessive POV. needs a quick check against the rest of the article
  • Anthony Michael Hall - current FA, so it seems pretty good. Not sure that he ever "achieved stardom", which is a POV word in itself, "achieved notability" would be better. Other than that, looks good.
  • Dilip Kumar - I think this is pretty good. A bit on the POVish side, but not as much as some others. Needs some rewording
  • Harold Lloyd - needs to be checked but it looks good to me. The praise is muted but more deserving than many that make a far greater fanfare. Needs to be checked against article.
  • David Morse - almost right, I think. It's a list of credits, but at least they're placed (albeit not strongly) into some context. This is a good example of what can be achieved for this type of article. ie the article is not long, but seems to be complete, and the actor is not an "A" list type personality that accrues a lot of media coverage. This is nice.
  • Audie Murphy - I think this one is very good. It looks like a lot of acclaim but in Murphy's case it is specific and relevant. ie his movie career was completely a result of his World War II valor and his film career eventually became independently notable, although he was always war hero first, movie actor second. I think this covers it all well.
  • Seth Rogen - more right than wrong. some POV, some awkward writing.


Infobox problems

[edit]
  • Jason Alexander - new photo, old problem
  • Sean Astin - crop
  • Scott Bakula - needs cropping for balance
  • Corbin Bernsen - recent photo is unrecognisable, look for the older photo and include in body of article.
  • Zach Braff - cropping
  • Drew Carey - like a lot of images - this has obviously been cropped but the result is that Carey is squeezed into the left side of the image, it needs to be cropped further to centre him
  • Keith Carradine - a face in the crowd, everyone else needs to be cropped out and red-eye removed from Carradine
  • Chevy Chase - his wife Jayni is probably very nice, but the purpose of the infobox is to offer primary identification for the subject of the article. Jayni is not independently notable. Nothing against her, but she's only in the picture because she happens to be married to Chevy Chase.
  • Michael Chiklis - needs cropping to centre him and make the image less "tall and narrow".
  • Chow Yun-Fat - search for something better.
  • Hayden Christensen - yet another image with interested bystanders grinning in the background
  • George Clooney - interested bystanders must go....
  • Robbie Coltrane - this is quite a good photo of Robbie's overcoat and you get a fair idea of the shape of his chest, but cropping this will allow his face to be the focal point
  • Sean Connery - minor cropping to remove people from background
  • Tim Conway - minor cropping to centre Conway
  • Jackie Cooper - background is cluttered, and could be trimmed away to make his face more a focal point that it currently is
  • John Corbett - already cropped, but still contains body parts of other people, more cropping needed
  • Barry Corbin image shows Corbin with Peg Phillips, why not crop so that just Peg appears in the Peg Phillips article, and just Barry appears in the Barry Corbin article. They were co-stars only, so both are not needed for identification in each other's infoboxes
  • Kevin Costner - crop to bring him forward
  • Jerome Cowan - trim black edge
  • Daniel Craig - crop to centre him
  • Hume Cronyn - one of very few examples where I think a couple could be depicted, (and here mainly because they'd be difficult to separate), but this could be a much more effective image if cropped to focus on their faces
  • Russell Crowe - minor cropping needed to centre his face
  • Tom Cruise- I feel compelled to say what a nice, relaxed picture this is, but all those people need to go... we only want to know what Tom looks like
  • Macaulay Culkin - minor cropping
  • Tony Curtis - sad that someone who was so prized for his looks, has such an unflattering image. Concerted effort to find a good image is required.
  • Willem Dafoe - crop to removed the blurred shoulder in front of him
  • Geraint Wyn Davies - minor cropping, too much background
  • Daniel Day-Lewis - kind of a "busy" photo, could crop to his head/shoulders
  • Benicio del Toro - not a good image
  • Patrick Dempsey - not Patrick at his best, Fonzie look doesn't suit, some minor cropping would help
  • Bob Denver - now I've seen everything
  • Gérard Depardieu - my guess is "rushing to catch a plane, passing by the duty free counter, being snapped by a tourist".
  • Leonardo DiCaprio - minor cropping
  • Vin Diesel - crop to centre Vin
  • Matt Dillon - crop to just Matt
  • James Doohan - I guess Star Trek conventions aren't too much fun
  • Brad Dourif - I guess Lord of the Rings conventions aren't too much fun. Crop.
  • Robert Downey Jr. - he's not in the centre, and yet it's such a good image, I'm unsure whether it warrants any action
  • Sam Elliott - awful image, very little could be done to improve it
  • Rupert Everett - he's tall enough without this photo making him look 9 feet tall
  • Aldo Fabrizi - oh my gawd
  • Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. - outstanding photo. even as a group shot it needs cropping, and Fairbanks is lost in the crowd. (especially next to Nancy in her RED dress!)
  • Peter Falk - cropped already, but not enough
  • Mike Farrell - minor cropping PLUS change infobox to "actor infobox"
  • Will Ferrell - I guess if anyone's going to have a goofy picture, it'll be Will Ferrell but this is weird. Great big hat, and a face in the background kind of blurring into him.
  • William Fichtner - crop
  • Joseph Fiennes - there's a sliver of fan, a nice window and a ventilation grate that aren't needed. And all that leather. uurggh! I hate this picture, I really, really hate it. He looks a bit like a couch in a gentleman's lounge and a bit like a failed Village People auditionee. I hate this picture so much. I hate that a cow had to die so that Joseph Fiennes could look like this. I just hate it.
  • Peter Finch - not good
  • Laurence Fishburne - the story behind the photo is nicer than the photo.
  • Glenn Ford - needs cropping
  • Harrison Ford - needs centering
  • Brendan Fraser not a good photo, but oh well. needs cropping
  • Morgan Freeman - removal of David Sifry's intrusive lapel will help. head and shoulders is all that's needed
  • Gert Fröbe - I can understand bad free images. I can not understand bad unfree images. Surely this is not the only picture of him in existence.
  • Andy García -crop
  • James Garner - crop
  • Richard Gere - crop
  • Mel Gibson - anything would be preferable to a mugshot, jeez Louise
  • Brendan Gleeson - whoever that is with their hand on his shoulder has a very loooooong arm
  • Crispin Glover - adding to the list of random body parts appearing in the background of images, here we have "buttock". Not adding anything significant to the photo, should be removed
  • Danny Glover - he looks like he's wearing a drop pendant earring, but he's standing in front of a frame, and the frame should be removed.
  • John Goodman - he looks like a heart attack waiting to happen. this image disturbs me, but ok, that's my problem. The hand on his shoulder should go
  • Elliott Gould - not a good image, and we don't need Eddie Izzard in Elliott Gould's infobox, and vice versa. Cropping can't fix this. Both men are badly photographed.
  • Kelsey Grammer - cropping. the Marine looking over his shoulder is just a little too delighted to be in the picture, but it's not about him ;-)
  • Richard E. Grant - bad
  • Seth Green - crop
  • Bryan Greenberg - crop
  • Hugh Griffith - terrible image uploaded by me
  • Rupert Grint -crop
  • Ioan Gruffudd -crop
  • Christopher Guest - when a small microphone just won't do
  • Robert Guillaume - crop
  • Lukas Haas - crop
  • Gene Hackman - he looks like Gramps settled in front of the fire. Not quite Popeye Doyle.
  • Jack Haley - I like this image. It's kind of quirky and eccentric, needs to be cropped
  • Mark Hamill - crop. preferably Mark Hamill. This is a bad photo.
  • Ed Harris - Ed should look worried. The woman behind him is about to bite him.
  • David Hasselhoff - colourful
  • Ethan Hawke -crop
  • George 'Gabby' Hayes - infobox image should only depict the subject
  • Dennis Haysbert - crop
  • Jonah Hill - crop
  • Earl Holliman - Just have to say that Earl has much nicer legs than I would have expected.
  • Ian Holm - taking the photo from above does perpetuate his image as a hobbit
  • Djimon Hounsou - seriously??? no, this is the most desperate use of an image... no wonder there are elements that ridicule Wikipedia. This is crying out for ridicule. Ridiculous image.

Terrence Howard - and another one. Jeez. It's insane.

  • Ernie Hudson - crop
  • John Hurt - crop
  • William Hurt - crop
  • Thomas Jane - conventions must make actors thirsty, there's always a water jug. Cropping noisy background, and the water jug, will help.
  • David Jason - no no no no no no no no no!
  • Michael Jeter - crop
  • James Earl Jones -crop to remove what is essentially a "stripe" down the left side. Not needed.
  • Danny Kaye - image is not good and not appropriate
  • Michael Keaton - this image needs a more imaginative caption. What is Michael saying? (on a serious note, cropping, red eye etc)
  • David Keith - if we crop the image, we won't need the daft image caption.
  • Val Kilmer - among the nominees for "worst infobox image"
  • Ben Kingsley - crop just a teeny bit off.
  • Kevin Kline - crop
  • David Krumholtz - crop
  • Dilip Kumar - I wonder if Mr Kumar, aged 83 when the picture was taken, dyes his hair. I think yes. Needs cropping.
  • Michael Landon - minor crop for balance.
  • Hugh Laurie - probably not the best photo taken of Hugh. He does look like, well, to be a honest, a dork.
  • Denis Leary - too small and he is standing next to what seems to be a blur.
  • Heath Ledger - a superb image of the poor boy. maybe could be cropped a little to centre him, but maybe off-centre isn't too much of a problem. it makes the photo interesting. don't know
  • John Leguizamo - unfortunate
  • Jack Lemmon - overexposed. he looks like he's been embalmed and that he's borrowing someone else teeth.
  • Jared Leto - overexposed. that's 2 in a row.
  • Larry Linville - not sure what the policy is, but I suspect that free use claim that should cover this image, would not also cover the Hallmark logo.
  • Rob Lowe
  • Josh Lucas - crop
  • Michael Madsen - crop
  • Rocky Marquette - wrong infobox
  • Marcello Mastroianni - crop
  • Doug McClure - this is very wrong. if the only image we have is a grave stone, I think we need to resist the urge to add it to the infobox, tempting though it may be. this is awful
  • Mehmood - using celebrity infobox rather than actor infobox
  • Jonathan Rhys Meyers- crop
  • Jonny Lee Miller - bad
  • Alfred Molina - crop
  • Richard Moll - crop
  • Dudley Moore -crop
  • Roger Moore - posing is right!!!!! This man has a great sense of humour, or absolutely no shame. Undecided on this point! My new favourite infobox image.
  • Tobias Moretti - minor cropping
  • Cillian Murphy - cropping to bring his face forward, and to remove the clutter that surrounds him.
  • Eddie Murphy - not a good image
  • Bill Murray - crop away the blurry images that surround him.
  • Chad Michael Murray - not a bad photo. maybe should crop to his face
  • Mike Myers - crop
  • Philippe Noiret - photo taken on a very cold day, I suggest. It could be trimmed down to just his face. His face is more interesting that his overcoat which currently dominates the picture.
  • Ivor Novello - firstly there is no infobox. I'm only putting this here as a reminder, as a free image must exist given that he first achieved notability before 1920. I used to walk past his house almost every day when I lived in Cardiff for a while. This was just around the corner from me, and the picture of the house makes me nostalgic. :-(
  • Gary Oldman - crop
  • Joe Pantoliano - crop
  • Jason Patric - crop
  • Will Patton - crop
  • Sean Penn - crop
  • Ron Perlman - crop
  • Harold Perrineau Jr. - nice, intense image. needs to have the bottle of water and the "Damon Lindelo... " sign cropped out
  • Matthew Perry - crop
  • William Petersen -crop
  • Alex Pettyfer - crop
  • Michel Piccoli - crop
  • David Hyde Pierce - crop
  • Brad Pitt - crop
  • Michele Placido -crop
  • Oliver Platt -crop
  • Sidney Poitier - this is a beautiful, historical image and should be essential in the article, where it can be enhanced by discussion, but the infobox image should serve the purpose (mainly) of providing identification. Harry Belafonte and Charlton Heston are not so much a part of Poitier's story that they should share the infobox with him. We need to search for another free image of him.
  • Bill Pullman - crop?
  • Dennis Quaid - good image. crop, make him bigger
  • Daniel Radcliffe - crop
  • Ted Raimi - crop
  • Keanu Reeves - I would very much like to crop out the guy that looks like Mark Chapman, he makes me feel a bit nervous for Keanu. In any case more than half the photo is of background and clothing.
  • Rob Reiner - crop
  • Paul Reiser - time seems to have caught up with Paul Reiser. Crop
  • Jean Reno - crop. if we're gonna crop out Juliette Binoche we should crop her entirely. Nothing is gained by keeping her ear and part of her neck.
  • John Rhys-Davies - finally someone enjoying themselves at a convention! needs cropping, and the caption is daft and pointless
  • Kurt Russell - crop
  • Ben Savage -crop
  • Tom Savini - another one of those awkward, unbalanced cropped images, with the compulsory disembodied fingers appearing creepily from over the shoulder.
  • David Schwimmer - crop. his hands are blurred. this spoils an otherwise suitable image
  • Steven Seagal - he always seems to dress like a geisha. Damn it, I've actually been face to face with this man, but I'm not a fan, and saw no reason to take a photo. Kicking myself now. He was wearing standard formal wear. Still, this may be how is most often seen.....
  • Tom Selleck - crop
  • Patrick Swayze

No infobox

[edit]

FYI: Category:Actors and filmmakers work group articles needing infoboxes

Deceased people with no infobox image

[edit]

Reviewed as satisfactory (or better)

[edit]

These articles have all been assessed as satisfactorily meeting each of the criteria below, although that is not to say that the article is perfect, very good or even good. Just that these points have been addressed.

# Article section Description Reference
1 Opening sentence Shows bolded name, date of birth/death delinked, @ndash; between dates with a space either side, and common words such as "actor", "actress", "singer", "American" delinked WP:MOSNUM
WP:OVERLINK
WP:NAMES
Briefly explains the person's notability without excessive detail or POV. "Excessive detail or POV" includes, but is not restricted to "Award-winning" ... WP:NAMES
2 Lead section Provides a brief summary of article, if necessary, depending on length and depth of article. May discuss notable achievements/awards, but with context and without undue emphasis. "Award-winning" ... is useless. "Won X award for X reason" is more useful. WP:LEAD
WP:NPOV
WP:UNDUE
3 Infobox Free image preferred, only free image allowed for living person. Free image cropped to most useful size for aesthetics and usefulness. Unfree images supported by fair use rationale. Generic image placeholder no longer in use. Template:Infobox actor
WP:NONFREE
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders
Does not contain flag icon, is formatted with birth date/death date age, or age at death, birth place and death place. Any other fields from template as required. Dates and common words to be delinked.
Check that some common U.S. cities do not lead to a redirect. Examples Los Angeles, California rather than Los Angeles, California. Other examples : Chicago, New York City, Miami 		Template:Infobox actor
WP:FLAG
WP:MOSNUM
WP:OVERLINK
4 Entire article Contains no potentially contentious information especially in relation to living people, remembering that the living person may not necessarily be the subject of the article. Must be relevant and must be cited or must be removed. WP:BLP
Headers are appropriate, not too many, not too few, depending on length of article. Upper case for first letter of first word only, except for proper nouns.
"Biography" header removed or renamed as to use such a header in a biographical article, is quite frankly, insane.
Has been subjected to at least a basic copyedit for spelling, grammar, NPOV, sources and any other edits that may be determined necessary. Tagged as necessary WP:NPOV
WP:RS
WP:RECENTISM
{{nofootnotes|date=Month Year}}
{{norefs|date=Month Year}}
{{refimprove|date=Month Year}}
5 Supplementary fields and links link to IMDb, IBDB, Find a Grave as necessary, can abbreviate template to {{imdb|123456}}, ||ibdb|123456}}, {{findagrave|123456}} etc WP:EL
Add persondata WP:PERSON
Categories are defaulted to display as "surname/given name". eg {{DEFAULTSORT:Tate, Sharon}} WP:DEFAULTSORT
Stub tag to be added or removed as required {{US-film-actor-1900s-stub}}
{{Canada-film-actor-stub}}
{{UK-film-actor-stub}}


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rossrs/Sandbox3&oldid=1191823849"