Talk:Raymond Burr/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Parts of this article are decent, but in the most important aspects the article is far from GA quality.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I didn't evaluate the prose, due to more serious issues. The footnote formatting is very uneven, with newspaper stories not always in quotes, newspaper names not always in italics, a mixture of written-out dates and YYYY-MM-DD dates, and the two references to Raymond Burr: A Film, Radio and Television Biography handled completely differently. The film name in the top caption needs to be italics, not quotes. When People magazine is mentioned in the article text it needs to be linked and in italics.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is a major concern given the nature of this subject. This article has to be researched with a fine tooth comb, looking at all available sources and evaluating which are correct. In cases where this is not clear, the question should be raised in a "Notes" section apart from the citation footnotes. Note that NNDB is not a reliable source and cannot be used. IMDB for awards may be okay, but a book source would be better. There should be more citing to the two published book-length biographies of him, assuming those are considered accurate in factual accounting (even if their emphasis or slant might be off). Some of the websites used look a little iffy.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the biggest problem; see below for more.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article seems neutral and fair in this respect.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I guess so, although the talk page doesn't give complete confidence.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The two images need WP:ALT descriptions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There's a lot that is missing from this article, most concerning his acting abilities and characteristics. This is, after all, what he became famous for, and that should constitute the bulk of the article, especially in the Perry Mason period. In particular:

• What characteristics of his acting made him effective in roles as a heavy?
• How did he convey menance in his Rear Window role (which was, as the article states, his most well known of these)?
• How was he able to avoid typecasting and make the transition from playing bad guys to good guys?
• The circumstances of his initial Godzilla role should be briefly mentioned (new footage shot for North American release).
• The Godzilla remake/Razzie material should be moved down, into proper chronological place.
• What was it about his voice that was distinctive? There's one mention, but a good deal more is needed.
• What was it about his physical appearance that was distinctive, and ultimately attractive in a leading role?
• Most importantly, what was it about his portrayal of Perry Mason that 'clicked'? His persona, his gravitas, something ... Perry Mason became an iconic screen presence, and Burr's role in that needs to be a focal point of the article.
• The same for Ironside, to a somewhat lesser extent.
• How did Burr differentiate his Ironside persona from the familiar Mason one? Was he worried about being typecast?
• What did critics say about Burr's acting, in the Mason role, in the Ironside role, in general? What limitations as an actor did he have?
• The balance of this section is off – there's more on the Perry Mason remakes than the original, which is backwards.
• His weight issues in his early and later years, and how it affected his acting and his roles, needs to be mentioned (not a lot, but can't be ignored).

The handling of Burr's hidden life and fabricated biography is done reasonable well in the article, but could use improvement in areas:

• A more detailed account of his time in the military. What unit, what actions, how wounded, etc. And some notes-level discussion of the claims that he fabricated some/all of this.
• Some explanation of the kind of reception that a public homosexual would get during the period of his career should be added, for the benefit of younger readers who may not realize what it was like back then.
• The article can't decide whether Burr was gay for sure or just maybe. Thus "Hiding in Plain Sight, a 2008 biography of Burr written by Michael Starr, claimed that Raymond Burr was homosexual, but hid his sexuality for most of his life out of fear that it would damage his career." Is this really only a "claim"? Does any reliable source doubt this at this point, or doubt the long relationship with Benevides? I haven't done the research into all the sources, but unless there's a good case to be made otherwise, the article should just tell it like it was.
• If the "second" marriage was true, the dates of it should be given, if known.
• That the NYT obit got semi-fooled by Burr's fabrications should be noted, as it indicates the magnitude of the false bio.
• The items listed on the talk page as removed from the article for being uncited should be researched, and added back in with cites if true.

I'm not putting this GA status on hold, because the issues here are too severe for this article to be improved in the typical hold period of time. Good luck with it, this is going to require a lot of diligent research to do a good and complete and fair job. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)