Talk:Ian McKellen

Picture?

You've gotta be kidding me that's the only Gandalf picture we can get!

Wrong order

In the 'Mainstream Success' section, it says this:

In April and May 2005, he played the role of Mel Hutchwright in Granada Television's long running soap opera, Coronation Street. He is also known for his voicework, having narrated Richard Bell's Eighteen, as a grandfather who leaves his WWII memoirs on audiocassette for his teenage grandson. Later on, he fulfilled a life long dream with a role on the long running British television series Coronation Street.

His role in Coronation Street is mentioned twice. Shouldn't this be cleared up?

Wring Brian Taylor

The link to Brian Taylor, who is listed as Ian McKellans first relationship in 1964, leads to a Brian Taylor who is an Austrialian Footballer, born in 1962. The link has been deleted.

The lead needs to be expanded

Hello there. I'm AmericanLemming, and although I don't have the time to review this article for GA status, one suggestion that I would make is that you expand the lead. For the article to meet criterion 1b of the GA criteria, the article needs to have a lead that adequately summarizes the contents of the article. For instance, the lead says nothing about McKellen's personal life; it would be a good idea to have a paragraph in the lead on that topic. And considering the fact that he is gay and is notable for his activism in that area, that would also be worth mentioning. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ian McKellen/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs) 12:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 991joseph and thank you for your nomination! It gives me great pleasure to review this article. Bear with me, and I shall have a review within the next 48 hours. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Article is accompanied by good number of footnotes.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   There are a few referencing issues, and a dead link. These are detailed below.

   C. No original research:

   No original research can be found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I have some concerns about the lack of coverage of the subject's childhood, especially given the number of sources available for it, but it is of reasonable length in comparison to other sections.

   B. Focused:

   There is little extraneous information, and that which is there merely requires working into the article. 'Personal life' is perhaps of most concern for this, as it is somewhat disjointed at present.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article maintains encyclopaedic tone throughout.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No significant edit warring can be found in a quick scan of the article's recent history.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   In the process of checking through these.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Article is well-illustrated, with images indeed appropriate to section placement.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

There were a few bare URLs that needed tidying up, but running Reflinks has sorted these out now. I've also added a little more about his early life from articles on his official site, though I believe that there is scope for further expansion. Mostly, it would benefit for re-arranging for chronology, and 'Personal Life' could do with tidying up. I've also swapped the 2006 placement of 5th on the Pink List for 1st place the year before, as it seemed more fitting for the main mention to be first than fifth place. 'Pink List' is also wikilinked; although it is currently a redirect to the Independent, I will soon be writing an article for it.

Citations needed:

• Two needed in 'music' section
  •  Done--Joseph 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Needed for audiobooks section
  •  Done--Joseph 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• The quote regarding his response to the 11 September attacks has a dead link; although it appears to be a printed work (if it is, potentially the link could just be removed), it is ideal if a new link can be found (per Wikipedia:Link rot).
  • Can you please give the correct reference no. for my ease? Is it No.68?--Joseph 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's reference number 10, in the biography section: 'In response to an interview question, when an interviewer remarked that he seemed quite calm in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, he said: "Well, darling, you forget—I slept under a steel plate until I was four years old."' — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    •  Done--Joseph 13:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the concerns raised in previous GAR, it seems as if most issues have been resolved, but I am continuing to check through and confirm this, along with checking the copyright tagging of the article images. I may be adding further issues after this, but for now, the arrangement of 'Early Life' and 'Personal Issues' are my main concerns, as are the citation issues mentioned above.

I am watching these pages, but feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or {{u}} me. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hi! I noticed this at GAN and took a look. I'm afraid I'm seeing some problems here that the reviewer hasn't picked up on: firstly, I don't think the lead is currently meeting GA requirements (re WP:LEAD) - it doesn't appear to be a summary of the entire article, and it should not have citations. There is a major problem with balance as well (WP:BALASPS), with as much information - if not more - on his personal life and activism than his acting career. Why is the career section split into "Theater" and "Popular success"? These don't seem like logical divisions to me. The information here is pretty brief (e.g. his highly acclaimed role in Gods and Monsters gets only one sentence) and I'm sure not all of his roles are touched on. I'm also seeing some very stubby (even one line),paragraphs throughout the article that I think should be improved before promotion. Just my 2c, cheers --Loeba (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I agree this is a strong candidate for a Good Article.

• I support the split between "Theater" and "Popular success"; theater and cinema, as separate spheres of activity, is a welcome distinction and will help people navigate to specific information easier.
• The balance between "Career" and "Activism" is reasonable considering this is an article about Ian McKellen. In fact, McKellen's activism, an important (and notable) part of his public life (as evidenced by the number of activities mentioned) is likely missing from the lead.
• I agree that the "Personal life" section could use a little attention. I suggest that parts of it could be moved elsewhere which will tighten up the focus for this section. For example:
  • The chapter McKellen contributed to For Ian Charleson: A Tribute might fit better under "Selected Credits > Other Work"
  • His interest in cricket might fit better in "Early life"
  • Acting as an umpire for the charity match in New Zealand could be moved to "Activisim > Charity."
  • We might also consider adding a link to Pescetarianism along-side the mention of his diet.
• Otherwise, this article is in great shape: neutral, clear, broad, and well organized.

--Morphovariant (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily opposed to splitting his career by stage and screen work, but why is the latter oddly worded as "Popular success"? I'd expect it to be "Theatre" and "Screen", with subsections within each (or at least within the latter). The amount of information on McKellan's activism can stay if necessary, but it is not right that it is given practically the same amount of attention as his acting career. The balance is definitely not right, but that's because the information on his acting career is scarce. --Loeba (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel the balance is a major issue. It could be trimmed down a bit but it's not a deal-breaker, and since everything else has been addressed I'll pass the article. Wizardman 02:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Having 3 separate articles for his bio, filmography and awards

— Moved original text to Talk:Ian McKellen, roles and awards

Self-identified w/ atheism

He claims that he is reluctant to speak out on issues he cares most about, and lists atheism as one of them. While Wiki consensus is to classify atheism as not a religion, "none" also has subsets, in this case, atheism. Listing it in parenthesis conforms to consensus. It is sourced, self-identified, and properly categorized. The problem appears to be some POV editors that are systematically scrubbing this.

It doesn't really matter to me what his views on religion are, but I do object to the form of censorship being practiced. Unless religion sections are going to be removed from infoboxes throughout, it seems a reasonable effort should be made to incorporate non-religious views as well. Or perhaps replace "Religion" with "Non-religion: Atheist." Then consider the flip-side: every infobox for every person that now has a recognized religion would change to "Non-religion: Religious" without any subsets for type of religion. Both restrictions are equally absurd/POV. Red Harvest (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no censorship. Atheism is not now nor has it ever been a religion. You are completely free to mention it in the body of the article. As to changing the field that is being discussed here Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what.3F and you are free to post there as well. MarnetteD|Talk 01:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect on several levels:

• Some atheists disagree. You and I are free to believe otherwise, but they self-identify with it and list it as religion. Note that the person in this article did that in the quote.
• Even if it is not religion per some operating wiki definition/consensus, it would fit under "None (atheist)". In this case atheist is a subset of none. I covered this in the George Will talk section earlier today.
• Excluding it from the infobox altogether is a form of censorship. Period. That is how it is presently being handled.Red Harvest (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox atheism

• Moved from my talk page

The current censorship with respect to atheism defies basic logic. In reading comments and the non-consensus, "consensus" discussion I came away with the impression that views of atheists on atheism are mixed. Some would list it as religion, some not. With regards to the infobox, I can respect actual consensus, but that clearly hasn't happened. I discussed in the article talk. If you care to make a cogent comment, rather than a simple revert, fire away. The solution offered is simple. Actually, looking at what Ian McKellen said he classifies it as religion...so in respecting that the "None" and parenthesis should be left out. However, certain Wikipedia editors are employing a Catch 22 strategy on this to exclude it altogether. I don't profess to understand their motivation in doing so.

What's funny is that I don't really care about the subject of others' religion or lack thereof. I do however believe in consistent treatment of such matters--which is why I'm commenting. Why can relevant, self-identified, sourced information related to religion be in one individual's infobox, but not in another's all else being equal other than their view of religion? There is no doubt that identifying as atheist is relevant to religion, the difficulty is in defining how to classify it.

It comes down to either censorship or intentionally hiding information due to discomfort in developing a classification scheme. I propose developing a way to handle it, rather than try to bury it.Red Harvest (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to read. I told you that you are perfectly free to mention his atheism in the body of the article so there is no censorship. What IM classifies it as has nothing to do with what Wikipedia's guidelines for the infobox are. It is WP:BRD not WP:BRRD. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to read? Not allowing it in the infobox is indeed a form of censorship directed at a specific recognized group, which you and Guy Macon are zealously pursuing despite the protests of various editors. You might not see it that way, but that is what it amounts to. The logic being employed in your reverts is terminally flawed. And that is what has gotten me fired up on a subject that I otherwise have zero interest in. There isn't even actual consensus on whether or not it is religion--contrary to your insistence. We're not talking about "fringe" here. Red Harvest (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)