Wikipedia:Peer review/James Nesbitt/archive1

James Nesbitt

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
James Nesbitt is an actor who frequently appears in films and TV series playing a character called "James Nesbitt". This article passed GAN last July. The reviewer said that the prose was the strongest part of the article but I'm wondering whether it's good enough for FA. I'm also wondering whether it's structured well enough. Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: As a first instalment, here are my comments on the first few sections. At the moment I am concentrating on prose, which I have to say is not yet at FA standard. I have made a few minor copyedits in the text.

• Lead
  • You need to clarify that Colin Bateman is a writer
  • The parenthetical note is not grammatical, and in any event "latter" can't be used when the list has more than two items. I suggest you lose the parentheses and rephrase: "...Stephen Moffat's Jekyll, the last of which gained him a Golden Globe award nomination."
  • "Comedic roles are still offered him" - when is "still"? You then refer to a 2003 BBC series, which is hardly "still". I suggest you reword along the lines: "He has continued to accept offers of comedic roles, appearing with..." etc
• Early life
  • Having given his full birth date in the lead, is it necessary to include "in 1985" in the section opening?
  • Suggest simplify to "attended his father's local primary school"
  • "...the audition for which his parents 'dragged' him to" is very clumsy prose. Prepositional endings should always be avoided. Try "...his parents having dragged him to the audition".
  • "He continued to appear in Christmas productions, and received his Equity card..." First, we have no prior information of his appearing in "Christmas productions", and haven't been told what they are. Secondly, the and combines unrelated clauses in a single sentence. I suggest you rephrase the first clause, then divide the sentence.
  • Despite enjoying..." would sound better as "Although he enjoyed..."
• Early career
  • "His part was critically praised..." - his performance, rather than his part?
  • Which performance did the NYT find "jaunty and bemused"?
  • He is suddenly in America. When did he go there?
  • You need to say what "Central" is, rather than suddenly introduce this short form of the name.
  • He seems to be back in the UK. Again, some date informatio would help us follow this satge of his career.

Perhaps you would consider these points. I will be back with more later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Further points:-

• Breakthrough: Last line - you should insert [Claudia] before "Harrison", so we know who's being talked about without having to use the link.
• Post-Bloody Sunday
  • "The events of Bloody Sunday passd him by..." etc. Did he say this? It requires some verification
  • "Aside, the film and Nesbitt..." etc. "Aside" is not a word to use in isolation like this. The sense is "nevertheless", and I suggest you use this word instead.
  • Unnecessary quote marks around "household name" and "celebrity status"
  • Can you reword, to avoid "...ITV. ITV..."?
  • "The accent was discarded after a chat between Nesbitt and the director, and when Nesbitt tried it out on co-star Daniela Nardini." Discarded twice?
• 2006-present
  • "...putting a distance between his previous work" doesn't make grammatical sense. "Distancing himself from his previous work" is the meaning required.
  • BBC One is normally written "BBC 1"
  • Try to avoid phrases that will rapidly become out of date, like "In 2009 he will appear..." Something like "His 2009 plans included..." will save you having to repeatedly revisit the article to update it.

I'll try and finish the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Finishing off

• In the "Other projects" section, "...three consecutive occasions between 2002 and 2005" - which three consecutive years?
• Same section: "He will present the 2nd National Movie Awards in September 2008". That has to be past tense now, but his sort of thing illustrates one of the main problems in an article describing an on-going career.

I don't have any more points. The prose looks in reasonable shape. Some indication that you have seen this review would be nice. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course I've seen the review! :) Thanks a lot for your hard work. I plan on combing through the page today and tomorrow to sort out your points and rewrite most of the article. I felt quite iffy about the quality of the article because I wrote it in two halves a couple of months apart, so it doesn't have any nice flow about it. Thanks again. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this is taking so long -- I had hoped to have the rewrite done this week so that other reviewers could weigh-in during the PR. I do appreciate the time you've taken to do this review, and the altered article should be ready tomorrow. Bradley0110 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• A LARGE number of your web sources don't have last access dates. They need them.

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.) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)