Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Cillian Murphy

Cillian Murphy
This article just passed a GA review. As the sole major contributor, I would like to get wider constructive criticism and suggestions to ready the article for an FA nomination. Thank you! --Melty girl 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Elaboration on goal for review: I think it's a pretty strong article, and is comprehensively sourced. All comments are certainly welcomed, but reviews concerning its overall quality and tone (as opposed to comments only about small details) would be particularly helpful feedback-wise. Thanks. --Melty girl 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

 * Please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Persondata for more information.[?]
 * ✅--Melty girl 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The following contractions: wasn't, hasn't, should be expanded. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this in the Manual of Style? If so, I'll do it. Just wondering. --Melty girl 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅--Melty girl 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Enuja

 * Wow, this article contains lots and lots of inline citiations -- good job! One thing that some of the facts lack, however, is in-article context. For example, look at the last sentence of "early life," "But at this stage, performing meant dreams of being a rock star." which doesn't have any quotes.  As a reader, I don't know who is saying this, and it seems like the writer of the article is editorializing.  It's quite possible that this is a quote, but it should be clear to the reader what is being quoted, or the statement needs to be more neutral.  The last sentence of the next section, "From music to acting" also lacks context, and in this case it also lacks a source.  I think the article needs to be gone over with a fine toothed comb to pick out statements with an editorial tone, and to clearly attribute all opinions. The wealth of citations also break up the flow of the text, but I think most of that could be fixed by linking the words of the text together; by copy editing. I'm also not terribly happy with the lead section.  At first I thought it might have too much information, but on a second look I think it's simply that it needs better organization.  Maybe the lead isn't the place to put essentially his entire filmography, but if it is, the filmography paragraph needs to be separate from the rock musician paragraph.  Enuja 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving the article a read and offering feedback, Enuja. Many questions...
 * About your concern re "...dreams of being a rock star." This is a sourced fact. According to Murphy, at this stage in his life, he dreamt of performing as a rock star, not an actor. The citation provided backs up this fact. I don't see it as editorializing, because it's a fact about the subject's life according to the subject, not an opinion (i.e. "he would have been a great rock star!"); it merely relates the fact that that's what he says he wanted to be at the age when he first performed for an audience. Can you elaborate about why this seems like editorializing to you and suggest how it might be changed? I'm confused, because many FA articles I've read make statements of fact like this without constantly using quotations like you seem to be suggesting must be used, and as long as there are citations, it's considered verifiable. In fact, many people seem to complain if there are too many quotes. Do I simply need to keep writing variations of "According to Murphy..." and that's what's missing here? Sorry to be verbose about this, but I'm honestly confused, so any elaboration you can make would be helpful.
 * About the citations. I'm a bit confused here too. You first congratulate me for providing citations, then you say it breaks up the flow of the text. I strove hard to provide a citation for every fact introduced, which I thought was necessary for verifiability. So I'm not sure how to do that without inline citations. What did you mean by "most of that could be fixed by linking the words of the text together; by copy editing"?
 * I followed WP:LEAD and summarized the article, which is a bit long, and that means the lead should be proportional to that. It isn't his whole filmography -- it's only the career highlights. Also, I think it would be strange to make the one and a half sentences about his brief stint as a rock musician into a whole paragraph, and I don't think it deserves more length than that, since he's a professional actor. The lead is in three paragraphs: 1) the 1-2-3-4-5 basics as per WP:MOSBIO, 2) his performance career highlights, 3) a bit about his relationship to his industry and to celebrity. How would you suggest either strengthening that scheme or changing it?
 * Thanks so much for your feedback. --Melty girl 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was unclear. Yes, I do think you need to keep writing variations of "according to murphy" because, without reading the source, I didn't know if Cillian said more recently to a reporter that he was still dreaming about being a rock star at that time, if Cillian wrote at the time that he was still dreaming about being a rock star, if friend reported that the was still dreaming about being a rock star, or if a writer in a chatty, editorial "news" article said he was still dreaming about being a rock star.
 * What I think breaks up the flow of the text is that the format seems to follow the sources instead of the sources following the text. One format I see too much of is "Sentence with fact. (citation) Sentence with fact. (citation)"  Instead, the information needs to be broken down and re-arranged in order to make smoothly flowing text, with sources sprinkled wherever the fact happens to come, instead of usually at the end of a sentence.  And one source can even cover more than one sentence.  Look at this sentence " In 1996,[12] The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records.[14]"  I assume that any source that says who offered what record deal also says when it was, so sources 12 and 14 should both be at the end of the article.  The copy editing that I'm suggesting is to re-write most of the sentence, keeping all of the information and citations, but just moving everything around.
 * If you think that every movie in the lead needs to be there, and that the middle paragraph shouldn't be split, there needs to be a way to make that paragraph flow better.
 * Don't feel bad about not understanding me; I was afraid of getting kicked out of a computer lab, and I was working very quickly, and think my writing suffered. Again, sorry about that.  Enuja 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries about your writing! Thanks so much for getting back to me.
 * Thanks for clarifying about "according to Murphy" and clear attributions. I will need to go through the article carefully like you suggest and address these. (As I am in the process of moving, that may take a few days!) I did, however, fix the two specific problems you pointed out.
 * I try to write for the clearest prose, then put the citations after the text they support. Writing with the goal of citation placement seems counter-intuitive to me. I tried to write well, then I did exactly what you suggested above as a practice: the "sources are sprinkled wherever the fact happens to come." Let me address the example you give: "In 1996,[12] The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records.[14]" The reason for the placement of these two citations is this (your assumption is wrong): the first source states what year his band was offered a record deal, while the second is the only article ever to specify which label offered them a deal and that it was for five albums -- but it doesn't mention the year! That's why I needed two citations. If I put them both at the end, it might seem like inexplicable double-citing, while choosing one would not fully verify the sentence. But putting the first citation after 1996 signifies that it verifies the year, while the second one supports the remaining clause. I don't see a way to rewrite the sentence and still make this sourcing clear or make the prose better -- and I actually don't find it difficult to read this sentence in the first place. The more citations in an article, the more reliable it is, right? The eye has to learn to read past them no matter where they're placed. Isn't it better for the prose to be the best it can be, then have the citations "sprinkled" in where necessary?
 * I'll have to give the middle paragraph some thought. I'm not sure precisely why you feel it doesn't flow, but I'll mull it over. Thanks! --Melty girl 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly seems like the only way to handle record deal citations, as long as you know the two sources are referring to the same deal. I do disagree with "the more citations in an article, the more reliable it is," however.  To me, it's "the more reliable and complete the sources, the more reliable the article." Hopefully I'll go over the article in more detail and edit it a little for flow in the next few days.  Enuja 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the distinction you've made re my comment about sources. That is a much better way of putting it. Looking forward to your edits. --Melty girl 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)