- Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by Hornoir
Overall, this is a very strong article. The major qualm I would have with it is the biased wording; in the lead especially, there are multiple instances of "promotional-like" phrases. It is best to avoid words/phrases like "successful films", "gained recognition", "worldwide attention", "high profile", etc.; these are similar to stating "highly anticipated" or similar ambiguous phrases.
See WP:LEAD for suggestions on proper re-structuring for the lead, which I think it needs. Especially read the Introductory text section and the Biographies section.
The first sentence in the third paragraph of the lead is notably awkward:
"Following a high profile relationship with actress Gwyneth Paltrow, and marriage to Jennifer Aniston, as of 2009, Pitt lives with actress Angelina Jolie, in a relationship that has attracted worldwide media attention.[4] He and Jolie have three adopted children, Maddox, Zahara and Pax, as well as three biological children, Shiloh, Knox, and Vivienne."
While not perfect, try something like:
"As of 2009, following a relationship with Gwyneth Paltrow and marriage to Jennifer Aniston, Pitt lives with Angelina Jolie, their three adopted children (Maddox, Zahara, and Pax), and three biological children (Shiloh, Knox, and Vivienne)."
Past the lead, I have no problems with this article. All ambiguous terms later used are all in quotations and the remainder of the article flows rather well. There are a couple of sentence fragments that could be merged with the preceeding/proceeding sentence, but nothing horribly obvious. Good work. hornoir (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The source has been removed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ink Runner (talk · contribs)
"Growing up, he was raised as a conservative Southern Baptist, singing in the church choir." Might want to wikilink Southern Baptist here; also, is it really that important to note that he sang in the church choir?
- Added link and removed choir note.
"The following year he re-united with his Too Young to Die? co-star Juliette Lewis, in which they appeared in Kalifornia (1993), a road movie in which he played a serial killer and Lewis playing Pitt's ex-girlfriend." -> "The following year he re-united with his Too Young to Die? co-star Juliette Lews in Kalifornia (1993), a road movie in which he played Early Grayce, a serial killer, and Lewis played Grayce's girlfriend". Or something like that.
"In this same year" -> "In the same year" or "That year"
"in the 1994 movie adaptation of Anne Rice's novel Interview with the Vampire." Wikilink "1994 movie adaptation" to the movie and "Interview with the Vampire" to the novel (unless WP doesn't have a page on the novel).
- "between World War I through the Prohibition Era" I'm not sure if "between...through" is standard; from WP's page on the movie, it takes place from the decade before WWI to the 1930s, so maybe "during/throughout the first four decades of the twentieth century"?
"In the 1999 film Fight Club, the most successful film of his career to date, he played Tyler Durden, a straight-shooting but charismatic mastermind individual who runs an underground fight club. The film is an adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's novel of the same name. Fight Club was directed by Seven director David Fincher." -> "In the 1999 film Fight Club, his most successful film to date, he played Tyler Dureden, a straight-shooting but charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club. The film, an adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's novel of the same name, was directed by Seven director David Fincher." Also you might want to note what area Fight Club was "most successful" in, commercial or critical.
- Done. Also, the film was not successful at the box office, but was well received among critics. Well, some enjoyed the film.
"After Fight Club, Pitt was cast as Mickey, an Irish Gypsy boxer in the gangster movie Snatch (2001), alongside Jason Statham, Vinnie Jones and Benicio del Toro, directed by Guy Ritchie.[47] Pitt created a barely-intelligible accent in the movie, that was criticized by critics" -> "After Fight Club, Pitt appeared in the Guy Ritchie-directed gangster movie Snatch (2001), alongside Jason Statham, Vinnie Jones, and Benicio del Toro. Pitt's character, an Irish Gypsy boxer, spoke in a barely intelligible accent, for which Pitt drew criticism."
"veteran actor Robert Redford" Does the source call him a "veteran" actor? If not, "veteran" might be considered NPOV or OR.
"that Pitt nor Redford" Correlative conjunctions come in pairs, so -> "that neither Pitt nor Redford".
"Also in 2001, Pitt played the role of Rusty Ryan in the remake of the 1960s Rat Pack film of the same name, Ocean's Eleven." -> "Also in 2001, Pitt played Rusty Ryan in Ocean's Eleven, a remake of the 1960s Rat Pack film of the same name."
- "He also made a guest appearance in season eight of the television situation comedy Friends, playing the role of Will Colbert, a man who has a grudge against Rachel Green's character" -> "He also made a guest appearance in the eighth season of the situation comedy Friends as Will Colbert, a man who has a grudge against Rachel Green's character". Also, you might want to link "character" to whatever her character is (if she has a page on Wiki).
- Rachel Green is the character that was on Friends. Do you mean adding Jennifer Aniston? That was her character on the show.
- Ah, I see. In that case, you might want to write "Jennifer Aniston's character" and wikilink Jennifer Aniston to Jennifer Aniston and character to Rachel Green.
"The following year, Pitt appeared" I don't know how necessary this is, but since this is part of a different paragraph, you might want to just write out what year it was.
"In 2003 he lent his voice on an episode of King of the Hill, where he played Boomhauer's brother, Patch Boomhauer.[56] Pitt's next film role was in the 2003 animated DreamWorks movie Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, in which he provided the voice of the title-hero, Sinbad." Was this his first time voice acting? If so, maybe these sentences could read: "In 2003, he took his first voice-acting roles; he voiced Boomhauer's brother Patch in an episode of King of the Hill and lent his voice to the titular character of the DreamWorks animated movie..." Or something like that.
"Before filming began for Troy, Pitt spent six months sword training, for the required role.[58] During film production, he injured his Achilles tendon, delaying production for several weeks." -> "Before the filming of Troy, Pitt spent six months sword training. During shooting [or filming], he injured his Achilles tendon, delaying production for several weeks."
"Pitt's next feature film was in Alejandro González Iñárritu's critically acclaimed Babel (2006), starring alongside Cate Blanchett." -> "Pitt starred alongside Cate Blanchett in his next feature film, Alejondro...'s critcially acclaimed Babel (2006)"
"Pitt's next film role was the title character in the 2007 western drama The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Adapted from Ron Hanson's 1983 novel of the same name, it was directed by Andrew Dominik. The film was produced by Pitt's company Plan B and premiered at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival" "Title character" might mean Jesse James or Robert Ford, so it would probably best to write "Jesse James" instead of "title character". So -> "Pitt's next film role was Jesse James in the 2007 Western drama The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, adapted from Ron Hanson's 1983 novel of the same name. Directed by Andrew Dominik and produced by Pitt's company Plan B, the film premiered at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival."
"Pitt appeared in the 2008 dark comedy" Wikilink "dark comedy" unless Wikipedia's definition is different than the meaning you had in mind.
- "Pitt has appeared in television commercials designed for the Asian market, advertising such products as Edwin Jeans." Nothing structurally wrong with this sentence, but since he's an American actor, it might be assumed that Americans are his target audience, so maybe this should be moved to the end of the paragraph; you might then say "Pitt has also appeared". Unless he usually appears in Asian rather than American ads.
- "$1 million" might want to wikilink the dollar sign to U.S. dollar, or add "USD" in front of the dollar sign and wikilink both, like this: "USD$1 million" I'm not 100% sure on this, so you might want to check the MoS.
- I think I would also add this when it came to the film's commercial success' in the sections above.
"mass atrocities" Since "Darfur" is linked to "Darfur conflict", you might want to replace "mass atrocities" with "genocide" or "mass killings" since atrocities don't necessarily mean killing.
- "The houses are being designed with an emphasis on sustainability and affordability, with the hope that the project can and will be replicated throughout the city, with the assistance of Global Green USA, a national environmental organization." Is Global Green USA helping to design the houses, or is the hope that Global Green USA will help replicate the project throughout the city?
- Global Green USA is helping the Make It Right foundation in designing houses.
"as it had been described" No need for this, since the quotation marks already tell the reader that those are someone else's words.
- "the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage" Is there an article on this? As a Californian, I remember that this was a pretty big deal; everybody had signs on their lawns (well not in my neighborhood 'cuz it's mostly Asian and Asian people hate controversy :P) Anyways, if there is an article, you should probably wikilink to it, wikilink "the state Supreme Court decision" to its page, and "same-sex marriage" to "same-sex marriage in California".
- Well, I don't know if the articles, History of marriage in California and In re Marriage Cases, qualify to be linked in what you're asking.
- Yeah, In re Marriage Cases can be linked to "the state Supreme Court decision", and there's a page on same-sex marriage in California, so you could link "same-sex marriage" to that (or link it to "same-sex marriage" to be more general...either way)
- "enclosed ceremony" Do you mean private ceremony? That seems more standard, so replace "enclosed" if that's what you meant.
- "I don’t see how there cannot be [that]" What "that" is is kind of unclear to me. I see that it's in brackets, so what is the term the magazine uses? Maybe it would be best just to use that instead.
- I removed it, cause this is the actual quote ---> "We still check in with each other. She was a big part of my life, and me hers. I don’t see how there cannot be [that]. That’s life, man. That’s life".
- "Jolie later stated that she and Pitt made the decision to adopt the child together" Did she and Pitt make the decision together, or did she make the decision that together, they would adopt the child?
- They [Brad and Angelina] made the decision to adopt the child.
- "largely due to their chemistry during the filming of Mr. & Mrs. Smith" This doesn't have a source (or is the source note 123?)
Sorry for the slow pace, English homework is killing me. XP I'll work on the unstruck comments ASAP.
- Its alright, no need to apologize, everyone's busy and stuff. :)
More to come, it's almost midnight here. *Is sleepy* Ink Runner (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Alright, I'll be waiting for more. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments: I made some copy-edit changes. You can review them here. I did not add any new information, with the possible exception of his involvement in The Departed in the "Other projects" section. However, I did remove a handful of statements I felt were unneeded.
Calling his part on Dallas a "recurring role" seems a bit misleading. A recurring character normally appears more than 4 times I would think.
Why are only his character names in Ocean's 11 and Fight Club mentioned? For consistency, it would probably be better not to mention any of his characters in the lead.
- Characters have been removed.
After Ocean's 13 there probably should be a short sentence about Benjamin Button, since he received his second Oscar nod for it.
- His "biggest commercial successes" don't appear right. According to Box Office Mojo, his five highest grossing films (worldwide) are Troy, Mr & Mrs Smith, Ocean's 11, Ocean's 12 and Seven. Spy Game only made $143m internationally.
- I removed "commercial", not sure if it helps, and Spy Game.
- That creates new problems, because without establishing criteria for inclusion, this is POV. You could just mention his two biggest financial successes, because Ocean's 11, Ocean's 12 and Seven are already in the lead. I would streamline the lead a little bit like this:
- ... The following year he appeared in two contrasting, critically acclaimed starring roles, in the crime thriller Seven (1995) and the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), for which he won a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earned an Academy Award nomination. Pitt received worldwide attention with the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007). He was nominated for a second Academy Award for playing the title role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008). Pitt has had his biggest commercial successes with Troy (2004) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005).
- Done.
I think in the sentence about Plan B, you could add something like "which produced, among other films, the 2007 Best Picture winner The Departed".
- In what way did he "excel" at his high school? Being a member of sports teams doesn't really justify this wording, does it?
- The way he excelled is that he did good. No, but in the last PR, a user suggested that I add "excel" into the sentence.
- Right now it reads like he excelled by being in all these clubs listed later. You either have to say "where he excelled. He also was a member" or "where he excelled by ... (finishing first in his class or whatever)" What's the source for him doing great in school anyway?
- I hope I got it. Hello! magazine.
"frequently acted in several fraternity shows" How often did he appear in those shows? "frequently" indicates a huge number of shows, "several" just a handful.
- Is "odd jobs" really considered formal language in American English?
- I don't [think] so, how 'bout "he took a variety of different jobs"?
- Variety and different have similar meaning, how about variety of occasional jobs?
It might be a good idea to point out that he had appeared on several popular tv shows such as 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class and Growing Pains.
- According to the IMDb he appeared in 4 episodes on Dallas, "five weeks" is misleading, possible wrong
- Actually, its five episodes he appeared on. I've fixed it.
- Well, both IMDb.com and TV.com list him appearing in 4 episodes, so I'm not entirely sure they are right about this, but I guess People is the more reliable source.
Also, it could be useful to state that there were 6 episodes of Glory Days.
Why is it noteworthy that The Dark Side of the Sun was shot in Yugoslavia? It's the only shooting location mentioned.
- In most cases, the text gives the name of the movie critic who is cited in the article. However, not always: EW review for Too Young to Die?, Variety for Interview with the Vampire and Seven, for instance. Is this random, or is there any rationale behind it?
- I tried going with what you told in which not to include "notable" reviewers, but I had difficulty writing the reviews, in which I had to add their names.
- Personally, I would only include critics that have their own WP article.
- Made the consistency between notable and not notable reviewers.
Why is Tom DiCillo's name mentioned, he doesn't seem particularly notable to me.
- "I felt a bit of pressure" Without any context, that quote for A River Runs Through It doesn't tell you very much.
- I think I got it.
- My point was more that you don't know why he felt pressure. Because he worked with Redford, because he thought this could make or break his career, or why exactly? I had a look at the source and there isn't any clarification about that either, so it's ok to keep it like that I suppose. I wouldn't have removed the sentence that he thought this was his weakest performance though; that's kind of an interesting statement.
- I re-added the "weakest" statement.
His character name in A River Runs Through It should be given, since so many others are mentioned, and this is supposed to be a "career-making performance".
- Just citing Rolling Stone's Kalifornia review with "outstanding" is kind of POV, its only function is to praise him.
- Its there, because before, I had this included, but when I was reading the article, I didn't think it would be all that great to include that. If it doesn't help, I'll remove it.
- Why not just cite a little bit more of the same review "outstanding, all boyish charm and then a snort that exudes pure menace." That way, the outstanding gets a bit of explanation.
Why the summarizing first sentence in the paragraph for Legends of the Fall and Seven. There seems to be no connection between those two films, they didn't even come out in the same year.
- I wanted to avoid a paragraph of two sentences.
- You could combine Seven and Twelve Monkeys.
A bit more information about Seven would be nice (general reception and box office performance).
- Was Pitt's performance in Meet Joe Black generally considered very bad? The quoted review is very harsh. If that was the critical consensus, it should be made clear in the text, if not, it might be better to look for a different quote, per NPOV. Cited reviews ideally should not just be random thoughts, but summaries of a general consensus.
- Some reviewers did not like his performance in the film, that's from what I read in reviews.
- Ok, but if you include a panning like that, you have to justify it somehow. Maybe, "The film received mixed reviews and Pitt's performance was often criticized. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle concluded:"
Wasn't there a sentence in the article at one point that Pitt is banned from traveling to China because of Seven Years in Tibet? If this is verifiable I think it would be interesting and notable.
- It was mentioned, but I couldn't find a reliable source anywhere. Except, his Yahoo bio., but that's not considered reliable.
- By what standard is Fight Club his most successful film until then? Especially since the text then goes on with: "The film failed to meet expectations at the box office,[43] and the film received polarized reactions from film critics."
- He was interviewed by Rolling Stone in December, and they wrote in the introductory that Fight Club is one of his successful films, notably because of his role.
- You can't just say it's his most successful without giving any criteria (box office, critical reception, awards). I would certainly remove that part. You could for example say later "... and received polarized reactions from film critics, however, became a cult classic after its DVD release" [1]
- You can't break up the quote "cool, charismatic and more dynamically physical" like that, it makes no sense. More physical than what? The quote goes on to say "perhaps than he has been since his breakthrough role in "Thelma and Louise".
- I thought it "helped", guess not. I found this review, in which Paul Clinton, wrote: "Pitt has proved he's not afraid of experimentation, and this time it pays off", would that work?
- I would keep the quote, just include the whole sentence up to Thelma and Louise, plus add the CNN review of Paul Clinton. At the same time remove the Slate one in the text right now.
- Who criticized him for his accent in Snatch? And if so, why do you then include a quote that highly praises his performance in the next sentence?
- There were some reviewers who were not to pleased with his Irish accent. That's my fault, I thought the quote was bad [negative]. I've removed it.
- There was no need to remove the quote necessarily. You could say "... for which Pitt drew both criticism and praise." Then the quote would fit better, ideally of course if you then also included a short quote with the opposing view, criticizing his accent.
A bit more information about The Mexican would be nice. Also, "In this same year" makes little sense, because no year is established.
- The quoted review for Troy ("plays this part quite well") again doesn't tell you very much. Maybe a better quote could be found.
Babel premiered in Cannes, why is the film's screening in Toronto emphasized though?
- If you see the source, it says that Babel was screened at the Toronto Festival. I've fixed this.
Jesse James did not premiere in Toronto, but in Venice.
- Same thing I noted above.
- I believe his best known Asian commercials are for the mobile phone company Softbank, could be added after Edwin Jeans.
It would be useful to say when exactly Aniston and Grey left Plan B. Also, is Aniston really still attached to many projects? The source for that is one year old.
- Done and I'm pretty sure she is attached to some projects, but not entirely sure, so I've removed it.
The Jolie/Pitt Foundation should be mentioned in Other projects.
The paragraph about the Make it Right Foundation should be updated. I believe some of the houses are already completed, plus their effort to get public funding and Pitt's recent lobbying in Washington could be mentioned.
Is this Vanity Fair business really that notable to get an entire paragraph? Also "on the Robert Wilson video portraits, a production of LAB HD that includes numerous celebrities and noted personalities" sounds rather puzzling to me.
- I had thoughts of removing it, but you brought it up, and has been removed.
The first paragraph at the start of the Personal life section appears out of place, especially chronologically. I[t] should probably be mentioned later.
- I'm not a fan of the word "dating" in WP articles, because it can mean anything from a few dates to a committed relationship. Maybe "was involved in a relationship" would be better
- There is relatively little information about his marriage to Aniston (compared to his relationship with Jolie).
- I remember you brought that up in the last PR. I was going to add this interview, regarding if he and Jennifer would ever act together in a film, but I wasn't sure if it was "important".
- That's no longer too intriguing after their relationship has ended I guess.
- I think its a bit strange that all weeklies have "magazine" added to them, even though it's not their real name (People magazine, Parade magazine, etc.). Also, I don't believe it's necessary to always state where he said something. What does it add to the subject of this article? ("In an October 2007 interview with Parade magazine" could be just "In October 2007, Pitt revealed in an interview" or "in a February 2009 interview with W magazine, Pitt said" could be "Pitt has said in February 2009")
- Done.
- There is still the issue with all the magazines being called "magazine" (People magazine, Esquire magazine, etc). That's a bit strange because their actual names do not include "magazine" and I think it should rather be removed. However, if you really want to keep it, you need to be consistent and add it in the last paragraph also.
- I made the consistency and removed "magazine" from the sentences.
The children's box from Jolie's article could possible be added.
- Done. Also, I made the changes to when he adopted Maddox and Zahara. Hope that's fine.
If the Friends episode is included in the filmography, his two bigger tv roles in Dallas in Glory Days should be listed as well.
I don't believe the See also section is needed.
- A Further reading section like in the Maggie Gyllenhaal article could be useful. However, it must be limited to longer, in-depth articles which offer some unique inside or information.
- I don't particularly like succession boxes. If you ask me, they could be removed.
- Well, the boxes are in other articles, I don't want to start a war with removing them.
EnemyOfTheState|talk 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Further comments. I read through it again and made a few more minor changes. Some things that still caught my eye:
- Wasn't really A River Runs Through It this first leading role in a major film, and not Interview with the Vampire as it says in the lead?
- Yes, A River Runs Through It was hist major film. Question: Should Interview of the Vampire be in the lead?
- You could say "Pitt had his first leading roles in major productions in A River Runs Through It (1992) and Interview with the Vampire (1994)."
- Coming back to this "excelling at school" business, I can't find anything about that in the cited Hello story.
- I replaced the source, hopefully that helps. If not, can "excel" be replaced?
- I can't find anything about him being a good student in that new source either. I would just remove it ("Pitt attended Kickapoo High School, where he was a member...").
- I removed the "excel" business.
- A bit more could be said about Sleepers I suppose.
- You now distort the meaning of the San Francisco Chronicle review for Snatch. You make it sound like his accent being "so thick even Brits can't understand him", is meant in a negative way, however, the reviewer actually thinks it's great and he is ideally cast.
- Perhaps a better review for Troy would be this [2]: The Washington Post wrote: "In a role that requires larger-than-life dimensions, he's pretty terrific."
- There should be some kind of quoted review for Benjamin Button.
- It makes little sense that his 2005 Superbowl commercial comes before the (2002 founded) Plan B. Better switch the first two paragraphs in Other projects. Also, is it "Plan B" or "Plan B Entertainment" (the WP article says Plan B Entertainment). If the later is the company's actual name, it should be called that.
- Check and its actually "Plan B Entertainment", but people just refer to it as "Plan B".
- You could add a short sentence about the Jolie-Pitt Foundation: "According to federal filings, in 2006, Pitt and Jolie put over $8 million into the foundation; it gave away $2.4 million in 2006 [3] and $3.4 million in 2007.[4]
EnemyOfTheState|talk 09:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Hopefully, I got all your queries. If not, I'll continue to work on them. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think the article should pass FAC now. I believe it could still use some of copy-editing (the text is heavy on repetitive words and phrases for instance). I might give it another look. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If you do give it another look, I'll ask someone to copy-edit the article. Thank you, Enemy, for taking some time to comment on the article, I appreciate it. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]