Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Hanks on screen and stage/archive1

Tom Hanks on screen and stage

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to submit this for FLC soon. The main things I want feedback on is how well the lead reads, whether it is comprehensive and that it avoids peacock words and unsourced claims. I would also appreciate a reference check to make sure everything is sourced according to WP:RS.

Thanks, Cowlibob (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Hi Cowlibob, Just a couple of quickies from me:

1. The lead is quite long and full—probably slightly overly so, with just a bit too much indo in there. It could possibly do with some of the film plots being taken out: the film articles hold the info for people interested, and it's not important enough to include on a filmog page;

@SchroCat: Trimmed lead it's now less than 650 words. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. If Splash was big hit, how come Big was a "breakthrough" role?

Clarified. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. There is a little peacockery present, and you should lose words and phrases like cult and surprise hit;

Removed all of these I think. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. There are no citations in the lead, which will need to be addressed

@SchroCat: Firstly, thanks for the helpful suggestions. For this point, the lead was previously fully cited but another user cited WP:LEAD and said that we should aim for little or no citations as long as the content was cited in the main article which it is and that the text would be easier to read that way. You would feel there should be citations in the lead. This would entail about 30 references, is that ok for a lead? Cowlibob (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Its about sticking a balance between the two and WP:CITELEAD is clear that they are allowed when needed and point out that "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Where the information cannot be directly found in the body of the page you need a cite, so saying he was in Bosom Buddies doesn't need a cite (because we have that in the table), going on to say that "His role ... led to guest appearances on a variety of long running television shows" does need a citation, as we don't know it was his appearance led to those appearances (it could have been a good agent, a friend on the production team etc). Saying a film is low-budget needs a cite: mentioning Hanks's appearance in the film isn't a problem, but the budget is. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see, will work on that principle. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Tables. You need to do something with the sort so that the films do not sort on A or The. Roles should sort on surname, not first name.

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed sorting issues and added citations. One issue came up after adding sort template the n/a listings are sorted as n when it would be preferable that those listings be moved to the bottom, do you have suggestions on how to do this? Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't use n/a as I don't like the differently coloured cells (just not needed), or the fact it centres the text when everything else in the column is left aligned. I also find it slightly misleading because n/a isn't defined. Does it mean "Not available"?. If you look at the Greek Wedding entry, the data isn't "not available": Hanks didn't appear in the film, so there is no data to be available. I tend to go for a dash for any empty cell. Your call whichever choice you go for: in FL terms, both are acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The only other thought I have is to include Hanks's activities from other media - theatre work or radio etc. the title can be tweaked to cover the new additions (and technically it's not actually a filmography already, as it includes television work, so the addition of other media isn't an issue). - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: It could potentially be renamed as "on screen and stage" but so far he's had one Broadway appearance (Tony nominated but still one). Another thing, to avoid peacockery which words would you advice to use if a film is a box office hit or flop or somewhere in between which are encyclopaedic. The same for if the performance was critically acclaimed or panned. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't refer to the success (or otherwise) of a film: that's what the film's own page is for. Ditto for performances, although yes, you should include the awards info, which is straight reportage of an event, rather than the print opinions of critics, if you get my drift on the difference... - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Yes that would be my preference as well but had seen it in other Filmog FLs. Is it ok to rename article as "on screen and stage" despite only one Broadway appearance. He did appear in city-based theatre productions before films if that counts for anything.Cowlibob (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd add as many as possible, regardless of where the performances took place: it's a bit Broadway-centric to ignore all the others, which is often where an actor learns his or her trade. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Still working on finding reliable sources for his theatre appearances. For his first theatre appearances, it seems he worked at a theatre company for three seasons playing various roles which I'm trying to find out. The last theatre appearances before films seems to be similar in that he played various roles as part of a company with a couple being cited and others seemingly unknown. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The table doesn't have to be complete to pass FL requirements, as long as you've completed it to the best of the available sources. You can always use the {{expand list}} template to highlight the point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus

Just a few questions really.

• Can the credits where he was only a producer have their own table? I feel like that would be better for navigation for users wanting to see things he did as the producer and not have to search through his filmography. That way the whole "credited as" column can be removed, as I don't see the necessity of it now when that's what the "notes" column is for.

@Lady Lotus: It was originally separated but I didn't want to repeat films and the current sort I think works as it shows the reader films he acted in first, then additional roles in films he acted in and then producer roles. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would remove "Premieres in Winter 2014", that's not necessary and not normally stated in a filmography

Removed. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not saying that Box Office Mojo and AllMovie aren't reliable sources, but with how big his career is, I'm sure there are more reliable sources out there.

I could probably find New York Times sources for most of the films, do you think that would be better? Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I bet you could find more after that, like Variety, Collider or LA Times. I like a variety of reliable sources, but that's not a necessity to have. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would adjust the width of the tables to add in more images LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Will work on adding more images. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat and Lady Lotus: I've made a new version of the article on my sandbox which hopefully takes on board the improvements that you've both highlighted. Tom Hanks draft Would it be possible for another look through? This article would also hopefully be renamed as "Tom Hanks on screen and stage" when in mainspace. Thanks. Cowlibob (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)