Talk:Peter Sarsgaard/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Lead section
- "...off-Broadway production of Uncle Vanya, in which production will begin in January 2009.", Is that right? "in which production will begin" sounds (reads actually, if anybody wants to be nitpicky) really weird.
- Removed the other detail and left "January 2009".
- Removed the other detail and left "January 2009".
Family and personal life
- The whole third paragraph (about the football player thingy) doesn't make alot of sense, since there is no indication of the year when this occured. Also it is mentioned earlier that he got interested in movies while he was at Farfield Prep, but in paragraph three it's stated that the main reason he became interested in writing and theatre etc. only because he couldn't become football player.
- Well, its worth mentioning, since he did have interest in becoming a soccer player, before he discovered acting. Also, I added a bit of detail.
- Well, its worth mentioning, since he did have interest in becoming a soccer player, before he discovered acting. Also, I added a bit of detail.
- The section contains almost no information about Sarsgaard's family, therefore it should be renamed. My advice would be renaming it to "Early Life" and splittling it into two sections, with the final paragraph (and perhaps some additional information) being moved to a new section entitled "Personal Life" (which could be placed after the "Stage Career" section).
- I've re-named the section. Also, there's no point in creating a section for just one paragraph, regarding about his Personal life. An example, see Anthony Michael Hall's article.
I've read the Anthony Michael Hall article, point taken.
- I've re-named the section. Also, there's no point in creating a section for just one paragraph, regarding about his Personal life. An example, see Anthony Michael Hall's article.
Early Work
- Is the mention of the plot of the movies in which he appeared really necessary, I mean most of the plot describtions don't even mention the role that Sarsgaard played. Neither does the section makes no mention of the kind of role he had (supporting, lead, minor, extra). It tells to much about the film, and not enough about Sarsgaard himself.
- See below.
Critical success
- What's the name of the critic that wrote the Seattle Post-Intelenger review of Boy's Don't Cry
- There's no need, unless the reviewer is particularly a notable author. (Ex: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, A.O. Scott of New York Times, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, etc.)
- There's no need, unless the reviewer is particularly a notable author. (Ex: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, A.O. Scott of New York Times, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, etc.)
- The word "also" in the sentence "Scott also concluded with..." is redundant.
- Removed.
- The section is nice, but I'm not quite happy with the describtions of the plot summaries. Perhaps I should request a second opinion. If you have thoughts or explanations on this I would be glad to hear them.
- I've cut down some of the film descriptions. In every section.
- Well... Alright.
- I've cut down some of the film descriptions. In every section.
Worldwide recognition
- In which year did Sarsgaard star in Jarhead.
- Has been added.
- Has been added.
Stage career
- No problems here.
Filmography
- No problems either.
Awards
- Nope, looks fine.
References
- Ref 15 (CBS news) and ref 67 (NY observer) miss author info.
- The reason they don't have authors, is because there are no authors; if you don't believe me, see for yourself.
- I've added them myself, both names are displayed a little under the header.
- The reason they don't have authors, is because there are no authors; if you don't believe me, see for yourself.
Other Notes
- Could you provide a screenshot of Sarsgaard in Boy's don't cry, because that's the movie he gained critical success with. The image of him attending the premiere of The Dark Night, doesn't really have anything to do with his critical success. Yep, I know, it's handy because it's free, but if you can provide a screenshot, that would be marvelous.
- Um, I removed the image from the Critical success section. But, I will not add a FUR image to the article. There's no point in adding one.
- Um, I removed the image from the Critical success section. But, I will not add a FUR image to the article. There's no point in adding one.
Overall
- If you can provide information (or perhaps change) for the detailed plot describtions and fix the above concerns, I will pass the article. If you fail to explain as to why the describtions are detailed in the article, but disagree with me (I think they should be either shortened, or removed), I will ask second opinion from another GA reviewer. Till then, I will place the article On Hold. Success.--Music26/11 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)