The article could be vastly improved by adding relevant subtitles and categorizing the information. Wikipedia is essentially an encyclopedia and currently your article read more like a personal essay, or as something that is trying to sell the character. There are a lot of points that repeated throughout the entire article. The first few sections have no refrences at all - are they personal descriptions? (Personal research is not allowed on Wiki). I would also be careful with what kinds of terms you use, such as 'specifically', especially when that area is not referenced as it makes it seem like you are trying to make a personal point. Overall though, there is a lot of information in there. Trieka Ayer (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the information could have been divided up into smaller sections to make for a more approachable article. While it is evident that the research has been done there could be more direct quotations included to make it clear that the information is not personal research or opinion. I like the inclusion of the sidebar of information to provide a quick overview. As a whole i think the article is very informative and accurate based on my viewing of the movies, however it could be cleaned up a bit in terms of subtitles.
This article summarizes Benjamin Gates well. I noticed varying spellings of Nicolas Cage's name. I also think that it might have been a nice addition to discuss the Benjamin Gates character in the newer films as well, adding more article links. Overall I think this is a good wikipedia article.
We dab hndis pages by personal names, i.e. given name + surname, not given name + middle name +surname. The sub-dab Benjamin Franklin Gates is an incomplete disambiguation page and could easily cause confusion. Because of low no. of entries, merge would not cause entries to get lost within the main. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The intro would be worded Benjamin Gates or Benjamin Franklin Gates may refer to: in order to reflect this, and reflect the merge. Otherwise, you're right, it would be a see also entry. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)