Wikipedia:Peer review/Jake Gyllenhaal/archive1

Jake Gyllenhaal

Article has been worked over over several months and has been put forward for GA status. It would be good to know what else could be done to make it any better than we have already done, possibly for an FA nom in the future. Dev920 22:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following comments on Peer Review BIO:

I have sourced a Fair Use photo from Jake's website and have emailed the largest Jake fansite to ask if they will release one of theirs into the public domain.
I have expanded the lead section to include his career and sex symbolism; I will also add a section on his political activism and add that to the lead section as well.

-Dev920 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image has consequently been changed to a better one that iheartjake.com kindly released into the public domain.

After additional feedback, again at Peer Review BIO:

I have moved all citations to after the nearest full stop.
I have created a section entitled "Politics and Society" and moved all details of his activism there.
I have merged or expanded every one-sentence paragraph I could find, with the exception of the one in the lead section which I feel it perfectly succinct.
I have added references to support the new information.

Anything else to push towards GA, or if it's got there now, towards FA would be great, thanks.

-Dev920 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I started this article on March 6, 2004 as a very sad little stub, and look at it now! It's very good. Well done on getting the free use image! I've just put your free use image back - I think you're gonna have a problem with that. "Fans" are always going to want to replace it with something overly flattering regardless of any copyright concerns. As long as there are photos of Jake with his shirt half-off, people are gonna want to swap your image for their own. Anyway onto the article.

Please change all of the occasions where he is referred to as "Jake". That gives it a fanzine tone and as per Wikipedia:Manual of style we should always use the surname, the only difference might be if discussing other Gyllenhaals such as Maggie in which case, obviously, you have to make it clear who you're talking about.
Be careful with slang or "common use" words or words that convey an opinion without attributing the opinion to anyone. Some examples (from the lead section) - "edgy" (this is mildly POV - who says they are edgy?), "indie" (independent), "stumping" (I have no idea what stumping is), and later in the article - "coveted" (as in Golden Lion award, well any award is coveted - except perhaps a Razzie - why not also says his BAFTA award was coveted too. It's an unnecessary word) There are possibly other examples.
Decide whether movie titles should be followed by their year, and then be consistent throughout the article. Personally, I prefer the year to be included as it gives a better sense of chronology. There are several film titles with their year of release and several without.
Movie titles should always be in italics
Provide sources for anything resembling a quote, an opinion or anything other than common knowledge. Example : an entire paragraph about Gyllenhaal's opinion of Ang Lee. Where did that come from? The article is well sourced on the whole, BTW.
Try to avoid fancruft. The bit about him sharing custody of some dogs with Kirsten Dunst? OK, it's true and it's sourced but it's also extreeeeeeeeemely irrelevant. This tells us nothing more than Gyllenhaal, like millions of people the world over, like dogs. He also probably likes wearing jeans, and that's just as unworthy of mention.
What has Maggie Gyllenhaal's being engaged to Peter Sarsgaard got to do with Jake Gyllenhaal?
Bio info box - the image caption "Award winning actor" is kind of stating the obvious. Should be more along the lines of "Gyllenhaal photographed in 2004" (or whatever) If he's not doing anything especially worth mentioning at least having a date would be good. Perhaps people will be looking at this in 5 years, for example. Notable films should be in chronological order with a line break between each one. Dates of release would be great too.
Biggest "problem" is the lead. It really tells very little about him. Merely listing movie titles is no good - suppose I've never seen or heard of them? I now know the titles of 4 Jake Gyllenhaal films - I'm none the wiser. Plus it's very POV to pick 4 from the list of however many he's done, unless those 4 are particularly iconic, without giving some supporting information about those films to demonstrate their significance. Diane Keaton is an example where this has been done well. You could easily do something similar here, build a nice little paragraph that contrasts his "edgy" Donnie Darko, his blockbuster Day After Tomorrow, his action Jarhead and his controversial Brokeback Mountain. That would be far more illuminating. Also... Gyllenhaal is primarily an actor, and his acting is the only thing that has made him famous, therefore I think it's inappropriate for his political endorsements to be part of the lead paragraph in the way that they are. It looks like Wikipedia is helping him publicise a preferred candidate or cause - I'm not comfortable with it in the lead, but further down in the article it's fine. A general summary of his work or causes would also be fine in the lead paragraph as part of a summary, but actually naming John Kerry is wrong.

Best of luck with this. Rossrs 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per my userpage, I'm on a break at the moment. I will return and get on with your recommendations in about four or five days time. Dev920 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok:

1.Already done by someone else. 2. I personally can't do anything about this, because as far as I was aware, everything I wrote WAS NPOV. However, taking your examples, I have changed "stumping" to "campaigning", coveted has already gone, and I can't do anything about edgy because the synonyms I found are "artsy" which sounds worse, and "cutting edge" which sounds clinical, and isn't really accurate anyway. If anyone could find a better word, please, put it it, but I simply can't find a better, alternative word. Maybe I can think of a phrase or something...

I think it's mostly fine. You know, rather than worry too much about finding an alternative for "edgy", would you consider that you don't really need any adjective there? You could just say "known for often choosing indie films over blockbusters" because it's the contrast between indie and blockbuster that you're discussing rather than the edgy aspect of the roles. Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. I've removed all the dates. 4. Already been done. 5. I have referenced the bit you mean. 6. Well, Jake's dogs are seen around with him, and he has given television interviews about both of them. I felt it emphasises not just his canine preference (although he bought Dunst a cat which he presumably had to live with that isn't mentioned in the article), but his social consciousness in getting a dog from a home. But if you mention one dog you ahve to mention the other. And most people have their animals mentioned in their articles. Would you prefer some quotes from Jake on his dogs?

On second thoughts, I think it's ok. It comes under the heading of personal life. I don't think it's particularly relevant, but that's only my opinion. The way it reads is fine. Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. A quick bit of info on his family seems to be derigeur on Wikipedia. He has links with Peter as well, and additionally, Jake will almost certainly be the child's godfather.

Yes, you are right. I was wrong about that. Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Already been done.

9. I've rearranged it a bit, what do you think?

I still think it doesn't work. I'm finding it the most difficult part of the article to review. I've been sitting here thinking about it and have discovered that while I've been doing so Stevenscollege has been working on it, (and has been making some very good improvements to the article lately). So maybe, we should wait and see..... I keep going back to Diane Keaton and thinking how well that one works. I think it's partly because Keaton flows really nicely. It's got a short but pertinent quote that kind of ties the first paragraph together. Then the second paragraph comments on Keaton's intention that validates her choices. I think with Jake it doesn't flow, and rather than a flow of related ideas it reads like several different ideas that are not connected. There's not really a clear idea of what Jake is "about". How to fix it, I don't know, but I'll give it more thought . Rossrs 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the stuff below when I get back from work. Dev920 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've done some minor copy editing. Here are a few content points:

The statement above about too many colloquialisms is dead-on; unnecessary adjectives are subtle POV and can undermine the encyclopedic nature.
Why is it important the Jake wasn't in Mighty Dcks? So what?
Some of the paragraphs could use topic sentences that explain the content. Case-in-point: the paragraph about Jake working with family members Would be better if it started with something like "The members of the Gyllenhaal family have worked together on many Hollywood projects." Without a sentence to tie it together, it's just a list of roles that have involved relatives.
The references could use more specific information than just "Yahoo!" or "GLAAD"--add relevant authors and dates. Don't forget to put publication names, such as NY Daily News in italics.

I'll have more comments in the near future... -- Scientizzle 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confess, I simply do not know when I am subtly undermining Jake's encyclopaedic nature. Nothing I personally can do about that, though I think the other editors keep a good eye on each other there. The reason it is important that Jake was not in Mighty Ducks is because his parents wouldn't let him; were it not for his parent's concern about his education, Jake would have been a child star, and would probably have become much better known before October Sky and Donnie Darko. It is noteworthy that for most of his school years, Jake's only roles were in films directed by his father. Where the references don't have authors, that's because ones aren't given; stevenscollege went through them all and added them. I have italicised publication names. Anything else? Jake's looking really good now... Dev920 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing on to FA

Jake has now been awarded GA, and we've now added everything he's done in his career and all other relevant bits. As we are now pushing towards FA, can anyone give any more "higher" criticism, if you will, so we don't get shot down immediately? Dev920 07:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]