Wikipedia:Polymaths

The first sentence of a Wikipedia biography often gives the impression that its subject is a polymath, giving a long list of fields and occupations:


 * John Smith is an American film director, producer, screenwriter and actor.

This is bad style, making it harder for readers to quickly find out who the subject is. It also risks unduly promoting the subject by giving the impression of a string of accomplishments. Most people aren't polymaths, even if they've done a lot of different things in their lives. A better lead sentence describes what its subject is most notable for as succinctly as possible:


 * John Smith is an American filmmaker.

Trying to exhaustively list a subject's occupations is bad style even where correct and verifiable. John Smith may have been a film director, producer, screenwriter and actor, but it does not help our readers to cram all that into the first sentence of the article. Instead, use the whole lead section to summarise the significant parts of a biography in a logical sequence.

What is the subject most notable for?
Lead sentences of biographies become bloated when editors try to describe everything that the subject has done instead of who the subject is. Although most people do a variety of things in their lives, most biographies exist because their subject is notable for their activity in one field. Generally speaking, this is the only thing that should go in the first sentence. Some people are notable for their activity in two or three independent fields, which can be accommodated in the first sentence if they are described concisely. If you find yourself listing more than three occupations, consider whether these are really independent fields of activity (see below), otherwise try to assess which are the most significant. Very occasionally, you might just resort to the word polymath (e.g. Leonardo da Vinci).

Lead sentence bloat
The lead sentence of a biography should concisely describe who the subject is. Avoid the following sources of bloat:


 * Professional hair-splitting: those within a profession often make fine distinction between the different roles and types of work that comprise it. We don't need to do this in the lead sentence, because Wikipedia is written for a general readership. Thus instead of "film director, producer, screenwriter" write "filmmaker", which encompasses all of these; instead of "executive, investor, director" write "businessperson"; instead of "author, playwright, poet" write "writer"; and so on. The finer distinctions can always be introduced later in the lead or article body.
 * Redundancies: it isn't necessary to specify an activity in the lead if most people would understand it to be part of the subject's main profession. For example, "sociologist, author and teacher" is redundant because writing and teaching are part and parcel of the work of a sociologist (or any academic/scientist).
 * Non-professions: can be found tacked on to real professions, often serving to make the subject sound better, but actually conveying no additional information to the reader. Examples included "philanthropist" or "entrepreneur".