Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Warner/archive1

Jack Warner


This peer review discussion has been closed. While I am not responsible for initiating this article, I played a role in expanding it. I have listed Jack Warner for peer review because I want to ensure that the article provides a comprehensive, balanced, and engaging treatment of the subject. Any recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks, twelsht (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Jayron32
I'm not normally into biographies, but seeing as I was personally asked to help review, I will see what I can do. I will just add my thoughts, stream of consiousness, as I have them while reading the article.
 * The lead seems rather odd. For a general overview of the man, it seems to present a rather unusual set of facts for an introduction.  Too much seems to be given to the tabloidish aspects of his biography (scandalous divorce and remarriage, familial infighting) and not enough to his business acumen in actually running Warner Brothers, which, of course, is what he is primarily known for.  I see no problem with a short paragraph on his personal life, where some of this is mentioned, but it is entirely out of balance, proportionally speaking, in the current organization of the lead.
 * ✅ Comment: Your point is well taken. I removed most of the material on Warner's personal life from the lead. What remains is a brief reference to his fallout with his brothers in the 1950s. I also created a new paragraph that emphasizes Warner's contributions to the studio's success.


 * Formative years seems a tad unencyclopedic of a title. A less flowery and more formal "Early life" may be more appropriate.


 * Other section titles need some better ideas, perhaps retitling "Screening and film distribution" something like "early business ventures" or "Early film-industry ventures" or something. Also, consider collecting all of his professional life under a == heading titled "Professional career" and then giving each section a === heading, for organization purposes.  Consider moving the "later years" section under this, as it deals mainly with professional life after Warner Brothers.  Perhaps, retitling this section something like "After Warner Bros." or "Post-Warner Bros. Career" or something would be good.
 * ✅ Comment: There may be more work to do in this department.


 * The "see also" section is redundant, as it lists people already linked in the article. Consider removing it entirely.


 * Overall, the article seems comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. It may be a good idea to try to scare up a few more references, as this one depends almost entirely on the Thomas bio... Providing additional perspective in an article is always a good idea.


 * ✅ Comment: Thanks! I've added a half-dozen new references and plan to use more to offset the article's reliance on Thomas' bio. -- twelsht (talk)

I think if you can fix the lead, and the organization issues I note above, you would be might close to featured article status on this one. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)