Talk:Forest Whitaker/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

This is a typical example of an article that was good once, but has fallen into neglect and been filled up with cruft. This is particularly the case with current issue articles, like biographies of artists who are still active in their field. Although most of the article is good, there are so many issues with it that I currently don't think it qualifies for GA status.
 * Early life - ok
 * Film work - ok up until Last King (which was about the time the article was made GA), but it gets listy after this.
 * Television work - not so good, there's little coherence or context, apart from a little bit on his Shield and ER roles. The rest is just a listing of different roles. Retelling SNL jokes is not very funny, and of course there's the invariable reference to Family Guy or one of its spin-offs. Family Guy reference removed
 * Producing and directing - this is much better.
 * Recent honours - words like "Recent" should be avoided. Some of this is relevant, some of it is not. All of it needs to be cited. Fixed.
 * Personal life - ok
 * Filmography - too extensive, it doesn't need to be complete since Wikipedia is not a directory. Lampman (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd argue to compare this to myriad other filmographies on featured articles like Reese Witherspoon and Angelina Jolie or good articles like Scarlett Johannson, Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. The requirement is that articles be comprehensive in scope and covering his appearances falls under that heading.
 * Hi Lampman. I am going to take on working on this article but wanted to note that due to a vision disability, I am sometimes a bit slow in working. I've got a WP:GA review pending on Kate Winslet and a WP:GAR on the table for Daniel Day-Lewis, so my editing is a bit scattered at the moment. I plan to start working on this one tomorrow. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, there you have something in common with the subject, and he turned it into a strength. Let me know how you get along, and if you need an extension on the deadline. Lampman (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll also go through this as time permits. I'm reluctant to touch the filmography.   On the one hand it's exhaustive and that's something to be avoided, but on the other hand, a selective list is bound to be tinged with the POV of whoever creates it or trims it.  I think it also introduces an element of instability - a lot of editors make additions to filmographies when they see that something is absent and I don't think it would take long before someone reinstated the complete filmography.  Complete filmographies seem to be becoming more and more common-place, particularly for current high profile and/or notable actors as per the few examples Wildhartlivie gives above.  Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't fail it on the filmography alone, though I think it's a bad practice. With very prolific actors in particular, the article gets unneccessarily bloated. How are we doing with the rest, should I give the hold another week? Lampman (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do. I got caught up in issues at the GAN I've got up and at another article, which has taken my focus. I appreciate the hold! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the work of Nehrams, Wildhartlivie and others, the article is now in a much better state, and I have no problem passing it. Lampman (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)