Wikipedia:Peer review/Ben Affleck/archive1

Ben Affleck

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA and eventually FA status. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Comment

As much as I would have liked to help review this I don't seem to have the time currently. As it stands at present, it is way too detailed and trivial in places. I'll see if I can help with certain sections, but you could try inviting editors who are familiar with editing related articles to help in PR. NumerounovedantTalk 07:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from DAP

The skeleton is certainly there. Balanced POV, references are correctly formatted, and the prose is tight and polished. Certainly very near GA quality if not at it, and not too far off from satisfying the FA criteria. Well done on that note!

With that being said, I echo Numerounovedant's sentiments. The most glaring issue facing this article is its size. At over 193 KB, it is much too big. There's too much trivia and it looks more like an attempt at completeness, which Wikipedia articles should not aim to do. The article needs a good trim, and especially so if you intend on prepping it for an FA review. Unfortunately I do not have the time to complete a comprehensive review, but hopefully these general comments will get you somewhere to start. At first glance:

By far most of the trivia I've observed in the article is the "Personal life" section. Individual subsections about Ben's rehab stints, ancestry, and so forth are completely unnecessary. The only things of note in that section should be about his family, relationships, and religion, and perhaps gambling since he played professionally. You could perhaps mention his ancestry in the "Early life" section, in no more than a sentence or two.
Much of the article's immense size is due to its 527 references. Not even the longest featured article has that many references. Not every possible referenced fact needs to be in the parent article.
Likewise, there is a lot of irrelevant information in the "Early life" section that detracts from the subject matter. There's no reason to go in depth about Affleck's grandfather or dedicate an entire paragraph to his father.

@Popeye191: I hope I was able to help. Feel free to ask me any questions. Good luck! DAP 💅 23:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed peer review due to inactivity. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]