Wikipedia:Peer review/Al Pacino/archive1

Al Pacino
This peer review discussion has been closed. I would like to get this article in shape to reach GA or FA status and would like any constructive criticism, comments, suggestions, etc. to assist me in improving it. Thanks and Many Regards

Thanks, Monkeymanman (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I enjoyed reading this, and he's an important actor within Hollywood, so it would be good to see this article improved. There's a lot of good content here but I think it needs a little work before a GA nomination yet. I notice from the article history that you only recently started making significant changes to this. Prior to going for GA or FA, it can be worth contacting any major contributors for their input, although I see that in this case that editor, User:Wildhartlivie, may not be editing frequently at the moment. One thing I would definitely recommend is getting someone unconnected with the article to give it a thorough copyedit. The prose isn't bad, but it's a little awkward in some places. That's not my forte, but I'll try to give a few examples as I go along. I will go through by section and make some suggestions.
 * Comments from Belovedfreak

Lead Early life and education Career Filmography Missing section? Images References General
 * One very basic point is that per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be no more than 4 paragraphs. That can easily be remedied here though by combining some paragraphs. done
 * Somewhere right at the beginning, you could say exactly why he is notable. Yes, he's an actor, but what are the things that immediately spring to mind? We don't tend to mention awards or anything in the first sentence, but you could say that he's an actor known for his roles in certain types of films. (However you want to put that - as mobsters, in crime films or whatever) done
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise all the main points in the article. Check that it does.
 * At the same time, the lead shouldn't introduce information that isn't covered (and ideally expanded on) later on. One thing I noticed was "his most critically acclaimed work being the 1992 drama Scent of a Woman" - which unless I'm missing it, doesn't seem to be mentioned later on. I would either remove that from the lead, or add a bit about it later on, with a citation supporting it. Another point not mentioned later is that he is a method actor. This too would need a reference.
 * "As well as a distinguished career in film, he has also enjoyed a prestigious career on stage...", "A highly respected actor..." - try to be careful of using overly positive language like this. Yes, I would say that he has had a distinguished and prestigious career, but try to keep the descriptions as neutral as possible, and let his achievements speak for themselves. done
 * "Native to the State of New York, he is a method actor.." - this is a slightly odd sentence. Is being from New York directly relevant to method acting? changed
 * "In his personal life he has had three children..." - I don't think you need to say "in his personal life"; he wouldn't have had them anywhere else, would he? changed
 * "He has tended to shy away from the limelight..." - this is something that should definitely be expanded on later on in the article (and sourced) - is he particularly known for being private? If not, it shouldn't be in the lead, but if so, it's an interesting detail, but needs citing.
 * As well as getting someone to copyedit, make sure you give it a good proofread before a GA nomination. I found at the beginning of this section, "Pacino was born in the Bronx, [1]New York City," - citations should go directly after punctuation, followed by a space.
 * Is there any reason for having four citations at the end of the sentence about his grandparents? If the information is in one reliable source, just cite that one. Having too many citations can make it a bit laborious to read. removed redundant refs, he did say it on inside the actors studio
 * "His father moved to Covina, California, working as an insurance salesman and owner of a restaurant ..." - the prose isn't quite right here. You wouldn't normally say he "worked as an owner of a restaurant" changed to restaurateur
 * The name of a restaurant doesn't need to be in italics changed to restaurateur
 * "he was also nicknamed 'The Actor' by his friends due to his obvious talents" - this is a little vague. WHat obvious talents? Was he taking part in plays etc? (I presume so as he was at that kind of school, but could you expand on this at all?) left nickname only can expand later
 * "hard drugs" is a little vague (and I'm really none the wiser from our article about it). Does this mean that he used cannabis for example?
 * Per WP:ORDINAL, try to keep numbers consistent. In general, write them as words if they're less than 10, as digits if they're 10 and above, but try to keep them the same within the same sentence. done
 * Do we know what his mother died of? Normally, I wouldn't say that was hugely relevant, but since she died at 43, it piqued my interest a little.
 * The AFI titbit seems a little trivial. I'm not sure that I'd include it. It's also unsourced. Agree removed
 * I's the Actors Studio, not The Actors Studio changed
 * I'm not sure that Lee Strasberg was a co-star of Godfather II. "Appeared" perhaps? agree
 * You have two quotes here, one after the other, but one uses the bquote template, and the other doesn't. Try to be consistent. (I personally would not use the template for quotes of that size.) moved into new section and changed format
 * This section contains some very short paragraphs, including one of just one sentence. Try to either expand these or combine.
 * "As of 2009..." - could do with updating moved into new section
 * "However, it did put him in financial straits[7] until the end of the decade." - this citation can easily go at the end of the sentence agree
 * "It was the 1971 film The Panic in Needle Park, in which he played a heroin addict, that would bring Pacino..." - As we're writing from 2010, you don't need to use that conditional tense. Works as It was the 1971 film The Panic in Needle Park, in which he played a heroin addict, that brought Pacino... done
 * Again, be careful of WP:NPOV in describing his films: "the popular Serpico", "the successful sequel The Godfather Part II" removed
 * "However he was to lose out that year to Dustin Hoffman in Kramer vs. Kramer—ironically a role that Pacino had declined." - Again, this tense is awkward. What about simply, However he lost out that year...? Also, "ironically" is not necessary - readers can decide that for themselves. done
 * "...despite poor notices from critics." - needs a source removed, unlikely to find a source
 * "...his appearances ... were critically panned." - this needs a source. Also, why was Cruising controversial? ref for both with expansion
 * "Cuban drug dealer/lord" is a little awkward. Would "drug lord" not suffice? done
 * "In 1985, Pacino worked on his most personal project..." - it's not clear why or in what way this was particularly personal
 * "...Pacino was nominated for a Drama Desk Award." - needs a source added
 * "He would finally win the Academy Award for Best Actor, for his portrayal of retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade..." - tense again changed
 * "...starring in Oliver Stone's critically acclaimed Any Given Sunday in 1999." - needs a sourced, not for the fact he starred but for the fact that it was critically acclaimed. changed
 * "during the last decade" - try to be specific about time, say which decade you mean changed, moved section
 * Some more sources are needed for the awards won (end of the "1990s" section) sources added and ones not found removed
 * It might be worth stating what The Godfather: The Game is; it may seem obvious, but that could conceivably be the title of a film. This bit about his voice changing etc needs a source changed, removed bit about voice, prob wont find source
 * As labelled, this needs some sources. Presumably most of this is easily verifiable to IMDb or something, but it should have citations for the "notes" column. trivial info and awards removed, all others referenced
 * I wonder if perhaps there should be a section on his work more generally. The sections on his career are chronological and a straightforward, "he was in this film, and it did well." kind of thing, which is fine, but surely for an actor like Pacino there must be some critical analysis of his work and style. It could include the type of work he's known for, his method acting, his influences and perhaps if he's had a major influence on anyone. Also, has he been known for anything outside his acting career? Any charitable work or anything?
 * You might get away with that non-free image at GA, but I think the fair use rationale on it could use a little work. It's important to say why the image is needed in the article.
 * There are some dead links marked, which should be taken care of done, either removed or replaced
 * All citations should have enough useful information to ensure verifiability. Where possible, web sources need titles, authors, dates, publishers (eg. website) and retrieval dates. None of them should be bare URLs. Book sources need ISBNs and page numbers (this is a problem here, you'll need to go through the book sources used to add page numbers to the citations)
 * Non-print sources like websites should not be in italics (eg. BoxofficeMojo); print sources should (eg. Peaople) done, i think
 * Please check that all sources used are reliable. For example, what makes these reliable?:
 * brainyquote.com not used now
 * wippit.com not used now
 * Buzzine.com not used now
 * There are some links to disambiguation pages. removed incorrect links

I hope these comments help. Although I've mentioned a lot of things, I think this could easily become a GA. It just needs a bit of tightening up all round. If you have any comments/questions please let me know as I probably won't notice any changes to this page. Good luck, -- Beloved Freak  18:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made the edits to the article that you brought up, minus only a few.


 * Lead; I think the lead summarises the article well as a whole but would probably need someone who has not read the article to double check this. I do not think that it introduces any info that is not included elsewhere in the article but again would need this checked.  The part about him ‘shying away from the limelight’, I have heard before, but would need to find a source to confirm its inclusion and expand on later in the article.


 * Main article; I am unsure about the ‘hard drugs’ inclusion, I think I remember him talking about it in the interview with james lipton but cannot be sure. His mother died in maybe slightly odd circumstances and it was speculated by someone on ‘the biography channel’ that it was due to complications with sleeping pills, but it was hardly a conclusive ‘fact’ so I would be wary about its inclusion.  His ‘most personal project’ could maybe be reworded, because my understanding is that they were very personal projects for him (the local stigmatic, looking for Richard).  Without his backing they would never have been made.  The local stigmatic was initially only released to some of his closest friends according to the same biography channel.


 * Filmography; I have removed all trivial information (including salaries and minor awards) and have found refs from the awards websites for the rest.


 * References; I have tried to correct all refs so that there are no redirects and they are all accounted for. The only problem is with the books.  I have Al Pacino: The Authorized Biography and will try to work through getting page numbers from that book in the next few weeks.  The other [Yule, A. Al Pacino: Life on the Wire, Time Warner Paperbacks (1992), only has five refs from it, so if this is a problem in getting GA then they could be probably found elsewhere.


 * I gave the 2000 section a bit of a rewrite and expanded on the 1990’s. There will still be areas that need improving but I would like to think that the majority have been covered.  I would be greatful if you were willing in the next few days to check it, and hopefully you like what you read : ) Monkeymanman (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say, it's looking much better, you've really worked hard. No glaring problems jump out. A few minor things:
 * Second look
 * You still have some short paragraphs which could be improved. As an example, I see no reason why the last two paragraphs of "1960s" couldn't be together as one paragraph. In the "acting background" section, the sentence beginning "Pacino is currently co-president..." is on its own. Since the previous paragraph is also about the Actors Studio, why not make it part of that paragraph?
 * You're absolutely right to hold back on the info on his mother, and drugs, without proper referencing. No more info in the biography you have?
 * You need a source for the Ebert quote at the beginning of "1990s" found source but changed quote
 * Watch out for overlinking. it's sometimes hard to tell when you're so involved with an article, but make sure all wikilinks are really adding to the reader's understanding, or that they will want to click on them to read more. This is especially true of articles that contain a large number of links already, which pop culture articles tend to. The theory is that having too many blue links makes the reader ignore them, reducing the value of the links. I'll leave it up to you to decide, but I would question some of the following:
 * crime dramas Carlito's Way - if you were reading this, would you stop and want to click on the drama article? Here, I would only link the film name. When you go to Carlito's Way, that links to crime film anyway, if the reader's still wants more changed
 * At the beginning of the "Acting Background" (which, by the way should not have a capital B!), you have several links, one of which is very quickly repeated. Try to think whether all of them add value to the reader's experience. (organization? New York City? - bear in mind that Manhattan has just been linked) changed
 * Is it "Actors' Studio" or "Actors Studio"? You have both. changed them to, Actors' Studio
 * Try to watch little mistakes in punctuation and WP:MOS (for example ellipses should be three unspaced periods (...), with spaces either side. (WP:ELLIPSIS). I fixed a few little things that you would probably have noticed with a thorough read over. (a missing quotation mark for example) That's not a criticism, just make sure you keep proofreading, especially when you add bits, and when you copy-paste quotations.

Just a few things to work on. Well done though, it's looking much better. Feel free to ping me again after you've added more material or if you want a final proof read or something if you're going to nominate it at GAN.-- Beloved Freak  21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)