Wikipedia:Peer review/Jared Leto/archive1

Jared Leto

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 would like to bring this article to Featured status. In about two months, I've greatly expanded the article, which had seven references. It's been totally restructured, a great deal of information added and now has 170 references.

Thanks, Earthh (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they break up the narrative flow of the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is much sourced material (critical reception, current projects, awards and other accolades, relationships) deleted without a reason. The material is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. Every source used meet WP:SOURCES. I can't understand what is wrong with this version. An user have emptied some sections (as In the media or Relationships) and now some content makes no sense because parts of it was pruned.--Earthh (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize that this review has taken so long. I have now compared the versions before the recent major changes and what is currently there diff. I think that some of the changes are improvements, while others did remove material I would think should be kept in the article. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that Jackie Chan is an FA and has separate sections on his movie, tv, and music careers. The FA Preity Zinta also separates her acting career from other things she has done.
I think that the edits improved the article where they made the text more neutral / encyclopedic in tone. For example in the lead the sentence He rose to prominence for playing brooding heartthrob Jordan Catalano in the cult hit teenage drama My So-Called Life (1994), becoming a teen idol. has been changed to He rose to prominence for playing Jordan Catalano in the teenage drama My So-Called Life (1994). Since the lead is a summary of the article, nothing should be in the lead that is not repeated in the body of the article. Let's look at the three changes in this sentence
- I searched the first version, and although "heartthrob" is used once in the body of the article, it is used in general about him in 2010, not about his character on My So-Called Life. I think cutting it from the lead is good.
- Similarly "cult hit" appears only in the lead, although the word "cult" is used twice in the My So-Called Life section. While there is more reason to keep cult hit in the lead than heartthrob, I am OK with cutting it - how does keeping it help the reader's understanding? The focus of the article should be on Leto, not this show.
Teen idol is in the body of the article, and is cited to an article in People magazine called Teen Idols of the 90s. If I were going to keep one of the three things cut from this sentence, it would be this. Still it might be better to attribute this (People magazine called him one of the "Teen Idols of the 90s") in the body of the article - not sure if needs to be in the lead.
The lawsuit with his record label was also cut from the lead - I think this should be kept in in some way, as my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
I can't go through the article and look at every change like this, but I think where multiple reliable sources back something up, it should be in, and where the language has been improved those changes should stay for the most part.
I think the personal relationship stuff that was cut should be in the article for the most part (again assuming it is backed up by refs). Here a model article is useful for comparisons - there are many FAs on actors and musicians, and they almost always have a personal life section.
I especially think that if he was involved romantically with some who is notable, that that is more notable and worthy of inclusion here than if he were photographed on a date with someone no one has ever heard of. So longer / deeper relationships stay (even if it is with an unknown person) and those with notable people probably should stay too (if more than a date or two).
I see Leto as an actor and musician. I see almost nothing in the Television work section that is inconsistent with his being an actor (except perhaps filming some footage for the Bush Pilots show). Is there any reason why the material here can't be included in the Acting career section somehow?
Similarly I see most of the Philanthropy material as stuff that could go into Personal life - could the section be its own subsection of Personal life? Personal life could then have sections on Relationships (restoring much of the material that was cut), politics, and philanthropy. To be honest there is some overlap between philanthropy and political convictions - attending benefits for causes is both political and philanthropic.
There are also things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). Having been told he supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, what does it add to the reader's understanding that he and his bandmates wore Obama T-shirts at one concert?
Nobody ever know where to stick the kind of things that are now in the "In the media" section, but they are usually in Personal life. Again the sexiest vegetarian award seems like it would fit better in the section where his veg. lifestyle is discussed.
The most difficult criteria at FAC for most articles to meet is 1a, professional level of English. I think many of the edits you do not like improved the prose by making it more encyclopedic. There are still rough spots though, like the repeated word in He supports the The Art of Elysium, which encourages working actors, artists and musicians to voluntarily dedicate their time and talent to children who are battling serious medical conditions.
A stable article is another FA criterion, so the editing dispute needs to be resolved.
MOS Says to give metric units too - so add km after 200 miles - the {{convert}} template does this well.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If anything, the article needs to be improved, and removing sourced material improves nothing.--Earthh (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]