Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ben Affleck/1

Ben Affleck

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is long overdue. This article has been in shambles for quite some time now and, I'd say, is not deserving of the GA anymore. It is frequently vandalized. Edits wars are common. It is full to the brim with superfluous information which is either supported by bare urls, dead links and unreliable and unstable sources or completely unfounded at all. The article itself is, as is, rather poorly constructed, overwhelming to an average reader and more of an assortment of facts rather than a coherent written piece. GA worthy content is still there and kicking, but is too few and far between. Plus, seeing as Affleck is set to play Batman in the new Batman v Superman film, the article is surely going to receive a lot more traffic. EDIT: so many bare urls. ProKro (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of work on this article in the past six months and agree that it needs to be better, given the Batman interest. It's obviously still a work in progress - there are definitely a lot of bare urls and some sections need to be trimmed back. However, there actually isn't much vandalism and there are no edit wars. I actually think the Early Life and Political Activism sections have improved since the GA-reviewed article!

I'm not aware of any unfounded statements in the article - please outline them and I will quickly remove them. If you tell me some specific areas to work on, I can get to work on improving it. For example, what sort of information is superfluous? How should the article be constructed? Popeye191 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is apparent and commendable and excuse my original upheaval, as the article is in more or less good standing, in line with other good articles but plagued by small nuisances. After giving it a read I realized it is not as bad as it first seemed, but is not the article that was reviewed as it has expanded immensely. What really needs cleaning the most are the bare urls and bad sourcing, dead links, especially YouTube and Twitter links which, although not completely unreliable, ought to be replaced with a better source if there is one to avoid link rot. I'd categorize most statements supported by person's Twitter tweets unfounded as it can be considered a primary source. The text structure is sound but certain sentences could be improved. The structure such as "Also in 2002, he appeared in The Third Wheel. Also in 2002, he was named Sexiest Man Alive by People Magazine" and all other similar sentences that follow the pattern "In (year) this and that and then in the (year) he also..." followed by more identical sentences should be avoided and made more coherent with the rest of the text, if possible. It is not alarming by all means, but it would make for a much more enjoyable read and feel less like just one factoid after another. Edit wars claim are my bad, I was looking at the much older dates while writing, all of which have since been resolved. As far as quantity goes, the article is large compared to other biographies, which is fine so I'd suggest maybe cutting down on including new information as it comes and filter the most prominent if there are several to pick from. To give an example, it reads the Affleck supported and donated to President Obama's campaign with a fixed amount, which is and should be included, but "In 2003, he made donations to the presidential campaigns of both Dennis Kucinich ($1,000) and Wesley Clark ($2,000), and, in 2005, he donated $500 to Deval Patrick, a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. In 2008, he donated $2,300 to the Congressional campaign of Pennsylvania's Patrick Murphy while, in 2010, he donated $1,500 to the Senate campaign of Kirsten Gillibrand." seems a bit too much and could be shortened to include only names without the amounts. Again, just a minor observation, can be easily fixed. I haven't noticed any major grammatical mistakes or deviation from established writing style, it is all in unison as if written by a single person. That's pretty much it for now, I'll be sure to give it a more thorough read in the future and point out any problems if I happen to stumble upon any. To be clear, I wasn't calling for delisting and never will, but rather minor tweaks and routine quality control. All the best, ProKro (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist while the bare URL's have been filled, many are malformatted. This article is beyond bloated with trivia; for example, "sports" and "professional poker" sections are entirely unneeded. The lead also needs reorganization, probably best to have first paragraph be introductory and career beginnings, second paragraph to extended primary career, third paragraph for achievements and other endeavors. I was going to put it up for reassessment myself, ProKro, if you hadn't already done so. It is beyond repair. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ProKro, Popeye191, SNUGGUMS and DragonZero, with this edit, I noticed a few minutes ago that the article no longer has its WP:Good article status. Looking at the article, it is far from a bad article, it is significantly above B-class, and it could have easily kept its WP:Good article status. I don't see where the WP:Consensus was to delist the article, since ProKro stated, "To be clear, I wasn't calling for delisting and never will, but rather minor tweaks and routine quality control." Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of WP:Citation overkill with the article in its current state, though. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked anything since October, but as far as I can see the cleanup banners might be the sole reason, as per the criteria (so no census needed, maybe). Aside from the bare urls which have since been dealt with, the formatting and unnecessary trivia were the main problems I encountered. There is a citation overkill, yes, but that can be easily solved. ProKro (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just acting on consensus and have no opinion on the subject. It was a GAR open for two months. It'll have to go through the nomination process again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProKro and DragonZero, thanks for replying. Regarding WP:Consensus, DragonZero, I'm stating that I see none for a delisting. But, yes, the article can go through the nomination process again. Flyer22 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]