Wikipedia:Peer review/Daniel Radcliffe/archive1

Daniel Radcliffe
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it to FA status and I need someone to review it before I send it to the FAC.

Thanks, MG70 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(If you like my review, could you return the favor at Peer review/Philip A. Payton, Jr./archive1?) --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Whew. Enough? :-) --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * General:
 * Very nice! Should be ready for FA soon.
 * Lead:
 * In 2007 Radcliffe began to branch out from the series, - not really, since he had done other films besides Potter before 2007
 * Done.
 * What we could write instead was that he branched out from film acting into stage roles, which is what you mention.
 * Done.
 * Demelza House Children's Hospice - if it's really his "favorite", how about at least stubbing out an article on it? Or at least make it a red link. If it's important enough to appear in the lead to an FA, it's probably deserving of an article.
 * Done.
 * Early life:
 * Link "literary agent" and "casting agent", these aren't professions everyone outside show business automatically understands. I had to look them up, for example.
 * Done.
 * Marcia Jeannine Gresham (née Marcia Gresham Jacobson) ... (her family's surname was anglicised from "Gershon"): "Jacobson" was anglicised from "Gershon"? If not, are you sure she was born Gresham Jacobson, not Jacobson Gresham? Seems weird.
 * I just removed the mention of the anglicised name. It's mentioned later in the article anyway.
 * ref: "Top of the form". The Jewish Chronicle: p. 26 - can you get an Internet Archive link for this ref as well?
 * I tried, but no.
 * Wikilink Jewish and Protestant.
 * Done.
 * Wikilink independent schools for boys: readers outside UK (me, for ex) don't know what that means.
 * Linked "independent school".
 * Advanced levels - our article capitalizes the L as well.
 * Done.
 * Wikilink paparazzi, readers who don't follow pop media may not know the term.
 * Done.
 * remove or explain (possibly by linking) "all of that stuff" - what does that mean, anyway?
 * Removed.
 * ref: "Faces of the week: DANIEL RADCLIFFE". BBC News (BBC) - we should link to our BBC News article, and why is (BBC) necessary, surely it's clear that BBC News is from the BBC?
 * Done.
 * Similarly, many other refs need links to our articles about the source: Parade (is it Parade (magazine) or Parade (British magazine)?), Entertainment Weekly, ...
 * Done (for the most part so far...).
 * Harry Potter:
 * Why does the career section start with 2000, if his first acting role was in 1999? Even if it was only a bit part, at least mention it, otherwise it comes as a surprise when we get to the table.
 * David Copperfield is mentioned in the "Early life" section. Unless you want me to put it in the "Other acting work" section, I don't know what else to say about it.
 * Also wikilink David Copperfield to the appropriate movie.
 * Done.
 * "assured his parents he would be protected" - protected from what? Predatory agents? Helicopters falling on him? Or merely losing childhood innocence? If we can't explain, does it mean anything, and should it be left out?
 * Removed.
 * Link Los Angeles, CA.
 * Done.
 * "Once the movie's director Chris Columbus saw a video of the young actor in David Copperfield, he recalled thinking" - rephrase, time-tense issues. Consider commas around "Chris Columbus".
 * Done, but I don't get what you mean by the last sentence.
 * Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post labelled it "big, dull and empty", - any direct quote, and any critical comment, needs a ref. This is both. The ref we have is http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/daniel_radcliffe/ which doesn't say that; at least I couldn't find it. Can't we reference the actual Washington Post article?
 * Done.
 * Link "highest-grossing 2002 films" to 2002 in film, and similarly to other places we use comparisons. It's a reasonable article for someone reading this point in the text to want to go to, especially since we compare his films to others so often.
 * Done.
 * "The 2004 release Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban marked the third in the series." - No it didn't. It was the third in the series, it didn't mark it.
 * Done.
 * "The film explored romantic elements, included more humour and saw Harry selected as a competitor in a dangerous multi-wizard school competition." Eww. We're shifting from real-world (included humour) to story-world (dangerous competition) within the same sentence. Don't. I think we can remove the story-world comments entirely, just as we didn't give them for Prisoner of Azkaban; they don't add anything. We've got a fine link on the movie itself that users can follow, this is the article about the actor.
 * Done.
 * "Goblet of Fire set records for ..." Needs citation. The next ref we have doesn't say this.
 * Done.
 * "which details Harry's return to Hogwarts after his recent encounter with Lord Voldemort." This is the first time Voldemort is mentioned in the article. Either explain who he is, or strike it, I think strike it, as in the "story-world" objection above. Same for the Half-Blood Prince sentence next para.
 * I think the story world summary is neccessary for Order of the Phoenix, but I removed the Half-Blood Prince summary.
 * "His performance earned several nominations," - what nominations? If they're all for one prize, say it. If they're in many minor prizes, be more specific - "several nominations for acting prizes" or something.
 * I think I fixed it.
 * "On 15 July 2009, the series's sixth instalment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, was released." Putting the verb between the subject and the object is there anything wrong with? :-)
 * Fixed.
 * "The film did considerably better than the previous movie, breaking the then-record for biggest midnight US showings, with US$22.2 million at 3,000 theatres[32] and with US$7 million, giving the UK its biggest Wednesday ever." - US...$, $...UK. I'd reorder the second half, to be consistent with the first, otherwise it's confusing.
 * Fixed.
 * focussing: "This word can take either double or single s, with the single option being highly preferred." - UK site - your judgment call, of course.
 * I don't see what you were talking about.
 * "Radcliffe and fellow Harry Potter cast members Rupert Grint and Emma Watson" - fine if this is the first time we mention RG and EW, but it isn't, we said who they were just 3 paragraphs ago. Given that, it should just be "Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson", we don't have to repeat their first names and roles.
 * Done.
 * We have a picture of this very imprint, which would go well here. And I'd also recommend a picture of the threesome by the conclusion, which also mentions them as a threesome.
 * Done.
 * Rex Reed needs a link.
 * Done.
 * Other acting work
 * The role generated significant pre-opening media interest and advance sales topped £1.7 million, as Radcliffe appeared in a nude scene. - Er... £1.7 million all because Radcliffe appeared in a nude scene? Media interest I'll accept, but you don't think maybe just one of the ticket buyers wanted to see the play, rather than Radcliffe's "magic wand"? :-) Please rephrase.
 * Fixed.
 * Wikilink West End and Broadway, again not universally known terms; outside show business, they're just a neighborhood and a street, found in 100 or 1000 cities respectively.
 * Done.
 * Woman in Black has 2 sentences about its plot, even though he hasn't actually acted in it yet, while How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying has 0. Reduce to 1 at most, or maybe 0 as well.
 * Reduced to one.
 * Wikilink Variety, The Daily Telegraph.
 * Done.
 * Consider at least stubbing, or red-linking The Amateur Photographer, as above.
 * Done.
 * Personal life
 * Why leading with a 2007 event, then going to 2011, then 2008, then 2010, then 2006? Pick an order that makes sense; with dates given so much prominence, chronological has a lot to be said for it.
 * Well since I removed some of it I hope it seems better now.
 * Similarly, why the same paragraph for his love life and his medical disorders and his religious views? How are these related?
 * Same as above.
 * In fact, I'd argue that we can live without his love life altogether, since his dates didn't lead to anything, and it would be more surprising if he didn't date than if he did. My view here is not universally held (see Talk:Jessica_Biel) though I would still argue for it. :-)
 * Removed.
 * Wikilink atheist and Jewish.
 * Judaism linked earlier, and I linked atheism.
 * "During the Broadway run of Equus, the actor also auctioned off a pair of jeans he wore in the show for several thousand dollars" - since this is the charity section, mention where the money went.
 * The article didn't say, so...
 * "making him the 12th richest young person in the UK... the richest teenager in England" - so, which is it? If you want to write "sources disagree" or something, at least write that and put these two directly contradictory statements next to each other, so it can be more clear they are directly contradictory. (I guess there could be 11 richer young people that aren't teenagers, or are all in Scotland or Wales, or got all their cash between May and June 2009, but's it's a stretch.)
 * I put that sources disagreed on his wealth.
 * "expected to have amassed £70m by the time the series of movies concludes... was reported in 2010 to have personal assets of £28.5 million" - so he blew 41 million pounds in 1 year?!? ON WHAT?!? Holy Spendthrifts, Batman!
 * I think I fixed it.
 * "Despite his wealth, Radcliffe has said he does not have expensive tastes. His main expense is buying books" - yeah, right. 41 million pounds worth of books... that immediately lost all their value?
 * I don't know how else to word that.
 * "He also stated that money would never be the focus of his life." - well, yeah, since at that rate, he'll be skint broke within a year! Sorry, I was just struck by this. We need to resolve these discrepancies, or at least acknowledge them.
 * Haha, I fixed it.
 * Screen and stage credits
 * Wikilink Teen Choice Awards; Scream Awards; Broadway.com Audience Award; Liplock ... basically all the awards, and movies, worthy of listing are worthy of an article.
 * Linked everything I could.
 * Should Liplock be mentioned above in the prose section? Otherwise it's not clear what it is.
 * I don't know. It's just the title of the award.
 * On-Screan: misspelt
 * Fixed.


 * It was good. This only makes it closer to FA status. I'll now need someone else to copyedit it, I'll make a few more tweaks, then I'll send it to the FAC. MG70 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't think mine was a copyedit review? :-)
 * Well it's just for a copyedit to make sure everything is right before I send it to FAC.

Anyway, a bit more:
 * I read one of your sources quote him saying:  his only extravagance works of art "because that's the only thing I'm interested in that costs a lot of money". - that seems to contradict the books bit you have.
 * Well, it depends on which books are expensive. :) Besdes, I read the quote and it quoted him exactly as saying his main expense is buying books.
 * The production later recieved 9 Tony Award nominations - i before e except after c...
 * Done.
 * the series's sixth instalment ; drawing criticism from the series' fanbase - pick one spelling, I recommend the former
 * Fixed.
 * the actor was reported in 2010 to only have a personal assets of £28.5 million, although making him richer than Princes William and Harry. - rephrase. "a personal assets" doesn't fly, and I'd replace "although ... ", with something like ". This still makes ..."
 * Changed to wealth; done.
 * Any chance of glancing over the Payton article?
 * I'll look over it tommorow when I have the chance.
 * Beaten to the punch! Anyway, thanks for the review. MG70 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)