Talk:Ian McKellen/GA2

GA Review

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

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)