Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters/Peer review/Aaron Sorkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Aaron Sorkin[edit]

I started making edits to the Aaron Sorkin article in late 2006 and have recently finished what I believe to be a complete biography of his life. The goal was to chronicle his rise as a Screenwriter and to figure out how to write the life of a Screenwriter at Wikipedia. I believe if Aaron Sorkin's article reaches featured article status (which is the goal) it will be the first featured article about a Screenwriter. A definite plus for Wikipedia. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.

Anyways, please help by vetting what I've done. Experimental sections such as 'Writing style and habits' could be debated. I think the section is important but how it's done could use a discussion. It will set a precedent for other articles about Screenwriters (such as the David Mamet article).-BiancaOfHell 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have a good look over the article at a later time, but with the quick glance I've had I'll mention a few things.
Okay, thanks for the review. I think the lead section is expanded enough now, but is it informative enough? Does it perhaps need more details? Should I maybe talk about his drug addiction problems, or is that inappropriate? seems kinda inappropriate.
Split the Lead up like the whole article, so if the article is 1/2 career, 1/2 controversies, then split the lead up the same way. You should mention some of the controversies, maybe two sentences. You should also mention "Writing style and habits", because thats a major section of the article. - Shudda talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I got all of that in the new lead section. What do you think of the Infobox? Should it maybe have more information in it, or is it satisfactory?-BiancaOfHell 09:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a section on his awards or plays, movies etc. This could get to big though. You are probably the best judge of what is most important in the infobox. - Shudda talk 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave the Infobox alone, unless I come up with something. I think I tackled the awards section. Thanks alot for all the help. If you see anything else, let me know. Preferably let me know over at the Featured Article candidates page where I'm trying (probably futiley) to get this article escalated to an FA. Tak!-BiancaOfHell 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Merge some of the smaller sections (eg the Call girl and Drugs sections could maybe be combined).
If I combined the two controversy sections it would link them together and the one has nothing to do with the other (at least as far as has been proven). I don't think there are any other small sections hanging around.
Well, both of those things seems like personal life issues, rather then professional ones like the others. So maybe, "personal life" or something. - Shudda talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Done.-BiancaOfHell 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The honours and awards could be delisted, you could create a new article such as List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin (or a better title), and then summarise the section (much more fun to read a couple of paragraphs then a list).
I will delist the honours and awards section... and do as you have recommended. In it's place should be a wikilink, and a paragraph of prose, I guess. Will let you know when this is done.-BiancaOfHell 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Still wondering though if a paragraph of prose is needed.-BiancaOfHell 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a paragraph of prose is definitely needed! Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I would mention major awards in the paragraph etc. Maybe two paragraphs? - Shudda talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Prose done. Exhausting writing about someone else's awards. 2 paragraphs should be good enough. -BiancaOfHell 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but that is all I have for now. Good luck! - Shudda talk 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


It looks in pretty good shape. Two things that stand out though:

  • The intro needs citations
Done.-BiancaOfHell 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of the image boxes and quotes are placed quite randomly and fragment the text. You may wish to tidy that up a bit--The Spith 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the one, or I should say moved it to the right, down in the Writing style and habits section. Are the image boxes in The West Wing section problematic? Are there any that specifically jump out at you as being a problem? Thanks for taking the time to review. -BiancaOfHell 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the image boxes are all perfect now. I find some rules in the Manual of style and followed them. Looks better.-BiancaOfHell 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FA candidate?[edit]

So a few of the criticisms are sticking with me:

  • Should the lead be devoid of citations, are the 2 citations I have in the lead atm acceptable, or should I put the 7 citations I started off with back in?
  • How untidy are the image boxes still? Is it a matter of too many image boxes, or really badly placed?
Done. Fixed.-BiancaOfHell 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How factually accurate is the article?
  • Should I move on to the FA candidates page?-BiancaOfHell 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I should. And I have. Thanks for peer reviewing my article!-BiancaOfHell 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)