Talk:Peter Ostrum

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Ostrum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Listing by 2nd reviewer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is short. It should be expanded. RRD13 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm particularly rubbish at writing ledes, so please let me know if this expansion makes the grade. If not, can you let me know more specifically where to tweak it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate yourself, you have written well ! RRD13 (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• "sixth grade" - which school, which year... information missing.
• "declined the offer of a three-film contract" from whom?
• Why did they took Polaroid photos??
• In his senior year of high school" - to be precise, which year?
• "Lowville Academy" located where?
• Its hapazard. Information about 2010 given first and then information has been given about 2009.
• "Soon after Ostrum returned home from filming Willy Wonka" - in which year?
• There should be a different section for personal life. Include all these about his wife and children there rather than highlighting them in the lead.

RRD13 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of your requests for more information simply isn't available in the sources. I don't know about which school he was attending, why they took Polaroid photos (I can guess), which year was his senior of high school, and which specific year he returned from filming Willy Wonka.

I assume Lowville Academy is in Lowville, New York, but that isn't explicitly stated in the source; should I go ahead and put it in otherwise?

I moved the paragraphs around a bit in the "Lasting effect" section. What do you think?

As for a "personal life" section, it would just be a one-sentence section stating his wife and children's names and I'd rather avoid that IAW MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Would it be preferable to remove the information from the article altogether and let the infobox stand stead as the only bastion of the information? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead "Ostrum now practices" - What does he practises?

RRD13 (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

He practices veterinary medicine. It's in the first lede paragraph; should I repeat it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Royroydeb any updates? It seems like Fourthhords took care of all your concerns and this GAN been running a month. Thanks Secret ^account 14:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd reviewer

• Following this request, I'll finish off the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• There is no edit warring, but I note that there has been some reverting of IP and newly registered editors. It is not uncommon for some BLP articles to get attention from casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No MoS issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No OR - facts in article are found in sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Well cited, and sources check out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No bias noted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No section is overly long or over detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Query

• Main concerns in first GAN were in providing enough information. I have slightly copy-edited and added some additional information, but will check a little more before passing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's OK now. There's not a lot to say about this topic, and the article covers the essentials. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• Listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

recent edits

• 2600:1000:b02d:5ea5:85fa:5a7a:24c7:519 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with regard to these edits: (a) "former child actor" is not an occupation; (b) per this discussion, Rivertorch (talk · contribs) and I agreed that the format of Actor<br />[[veterinary physician|Veterinarian]] for occupation, and 1971<br />1984&ndash;present for years_active was the clearest and most accurate way to present the information; (c) Mr. Ostrum was an actor first, and a veterinarian second; and (d) he's known for acting, not for Charlie Bucket.

  I can concede a possible use for including the occupations in years_active, or vice-versa, but I'd like to discuss whether it's necessary here first.

• 107.185.145.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with regard to this edit: the citation ([1]) and the film's credits spell the character's surname as "Teevee".
• Philip Cross (talk · contribs), with regard to this edit: I can't find any policy, guideline, or MOS that depreciates linking "XXXX in film". Can you point me to such?

I've reverted these edits for the reasons above. Please feel welcome to participate in a discussion of these edits as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:YEARLINK would seen to apply for the article on Peter Ostrum. The closest example for a work here, on the Sydney Opera House, is the precedent for not using a year in film link. The two uses for a legitimate year link are not applicable here in my view. Philip Cross (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

While I don't agree that that guideline is exactly relevant here, I can see your interpretation of its intention. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Filmography

I think it's confusing and trivia to include a filmography of appearances. Is there some general consensus that applies to one-time actors? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, especially since they aren't performances. Furthermore, though, I'm continuing to remove it because it's in violation of the verifiability policy. Is there a codified SOP for such things? Not that I'm aware of. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That's where I see the confusion: They are not performances. We're not here to document every interview and appearance.

I'll request page protection, since there's a dynamic ip involved. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:VET

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

October 2022

On 14 October 2022, Ladyoftrees (talk · contribs) began editing the article (without a single edit summary) in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and the logic of the prose itself. Then, when I replaced the previous version IAW the the BRD cycle, they instead continued making their unexplained edits.

• We don't have a reliable source for the specific year of Ostrum's marriage, only which of two years it has to be; this is in accordance with the verifiability policy.
• The sourced prose of the article specifically says that Wonka was his only professional acting role, which makes that section wholly inappropriate to fall under a second-level header of "Career".
• Wikipedia:Red link says, Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. I haven't seen any evidence, and Ladyoftrees provided none, that South Lewis Central School shouldn't ever have an article, should somebody be so inclined to make one.
• Double-spaces after terminal punctuation shouldn't be removed, as the English Wikipedia Manual of Style says, Some editors place two spaces after a period/full stop (see Sentence spacing); these are condensed to one space when the page is rendered, so it does not affect what readers see. Since it doesn't affect readers, and makes the monospaced editing interface easier to manage, there's no reason to remove them.
• What is the bright-line delineation of the subject's "Early life" as opposed to their "Personal life". Furthermore, how is his "Early life" not a component of his "Personal life"? In addition to the logical inconsistencies, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout says, Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. We know very little about his non-professional life to sustain two separate, short, stubby paragraphs.

I have reverted these edits explained above, and left a note to discuss such edits here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

infobox occupation & years

On 30 September 2024 at 20:41 UTC, 103.231.73.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited the page's infobox to disassociate the years from Ostrum's occupations, saying only, It’s better like this. Among other changes 151 minutes later, I replaced the previous formatting, saying, Undid revision 1248673287 by 103.231.73.87 (talk) as unclearly separating the dates from what they represent. On 1 October 2024 at 16:05 UTC, they changed the formatting again, saying, It looks dumb like that, don’t change it.

While I appreciate aesthetic concerns, I neither see what the anonymous contributor is 'explaining', nor should aesthetic concerns triumph over clarity and unambiguity. Separating the data with different list formatting, or at all, when there're multiple variables, adds ambiguity as to the specific and clear connection, especially when compared to OCCUPATION (YEAR/S) that was previously implemented. I've begun this discussion that the anonymous editor should've begun before reverting (IAW WP:BRD). I've replaced the previous formatting and encouraged discussion here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion and your work maintaining this article.

The stable version is clearer. The ip's version seems misleading. --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My edits are quite on quote, NOT misleading. There is nothing wrong with having a years active info in the infobox. It was kept there before in the past, disagree with it now is completely dumb. Besides, there isn’t anything wrong with it. 103.231.73.87 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Disassociating the years from the occupations (in a different format, no less) introduces ambiguity, whereas the established formatting does not. No information is being lost, and there is clear connection between the year and occupational data. If you disagree, then first secure a consensus for your edits here; don't edit war. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t mean to be nitpicking, but I still disagree. Having years active is fine as it is, because having the year next to the occupation looks really dumb and it should be separate. Plus, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense about it, therefore that is not an excuse for it not to be kept in the article. 103.231.73.87 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)