Talk:Clark Gable/GA1

GA Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I came to this review, excited at the chance to pass Clark Gable as a Good Article. Unfortunately, at the current time, there are too many problems with the article for it to be passed as a Good Article at this time. Here are just some of the most pressing concerns:

1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize all the major points/headings made in the article. Currently, it does not even come close to doing this.
2. All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
3. There is far too much uncited material in this article to allow it to pass. Examples include:

   Various bits and pieces in the "Early life" (as a general, although not strict, rule of thumb, each paragraph at least should end with a citation)

   Ditto for the "Hollywood" section

   Statements that purport to get into Gable's head: "She thought he was a wooden actor while he considered her a snob." (Hollywood) for example

   Potentially controversial claims, such as "Throughout most of the 1930s and 1940s, he was arguably the world's biggest movie star."

   Much of the unfortunately titled (see below) "Most famous roles," especially those parts that deal with the problems mentioned above

   Much of "Marriage to Carole Lombard"

   Much of "After World War II"

   The ENTIRE children section, especially since it's not exactly standard material.

   Addressing the "citation needed" tags under "Death" would be very crucial as well.

4. In addition, I think that there is a significant problem with tone in this article that contributes to my questioning of how neutral this article is. For one thing, it focus very heavily on information obtained from a single biography and at times reads more like a casual biography of the subject than an encyclopedic article. For example, the following is lovely for a book about Gable, but is not very encyclopedic in tone:

   ""His ears are too big and he looks like an ape." So said Warner Bros. executive Darryl F. Zanuck about Clark Gable after testing him for the lead in Warner's gangster drama Little Caesar (1931).[10] After several failed screen tests for Barrymore and Zanuck, Gable was signed in 1930 by MGM's Irving Thalberg. He became a client of agent Minna Wallis, well-connected sister of producer Hal Wallis and very close friend of Norma Shearer."

   Even worse, it is insufficiently cited. A statement such as "After moving to California, they were married again in 1931, possibly due to differences in state legal requirements" is purely speculative without a citation.

5. A heading such as "Most famous roles" is completely subjective and non-neutral. Articles and headings are to avoid direct references to notability and instead establish it through the prose itself. Maybe you can call it "high profile roles" or something, but "Most famous" is completely unacceptable.

Overall, the article does not read like a well-written encyclopedic listing of Clark Gable and, furthermore, is only sparsely cited. Normally, when a review encounters a small number of problems, the article is put on hold to allow for changes to be made. In this case, however, the need for better citations and improved tone is too critical to merit a hold. I suggest that, before renomination, that biographies of FA actors and actresses are reviewed to get a sense of an appropriate tone for Wikipedia. It's difficult for me to describe exactly what's wrong with the tone, but it should become clear by looking at Featured Biographies. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take to good article reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)