Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christian Bale/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2021 [1].

Christian Bale edit

Nominator(s): KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Welsh-born English actor. Known for his work in films, including the Dark Knight trilogy, Terminator Salvation, American Psycho, and The Fighter, the last of which earned him an Academy Award; he has been noted for repeatedly gaining and losing weight for his roles. The article has seen a major expansion since its successful GA review, so here's hoping that one of the most physically gifted and versatile actors of his generation becomes one of Wikipedia's featured articles! KyleJoantalk 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • File:Ch Bale 02.jpg What's the evidence that the uploader actually took the photograph?
  • Currently there's a lot of headshots in the article. Would be better to replace some with group photographs or other images that show the subject in context for variety. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed Ch Bale 02.jpg from the article. Since so many of the uploader's files have been kept after deletion requests, I though it was at least established that there was also no evidence of the contrary (i.e., the photos not being their own work), but I understand that this is not in line with the FA criteria. Regarding the other headshots, I've replaced the photos from the Public Enemies premiere and the American Hustle promo rounds with ones from the 2011 Oscars and the 2019 TIFF red carpet. KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a famous guy like Bale usually OTRS or being taken at a public event is required to show that the images are free, at least that's what I think is reasonable at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for the image review and comments, Buidhe! KyleJoantalk 05:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe edit

  • You state that he "will play". This should be rephrased to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, such as saying that Bale has agreed to play these roles. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced it with "is set to" and "is attached to". General question: is it still inappropriate to say "will" when a film has wrapped production? KyleJoantalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • IDK, I don't edit many film articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" is too long—should be split up. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed "2005–2012: The Dark Knight trilogy and acclaim" and "2013–present: Continued success"; added "2005–2011: Batman and dramatic roles", "2012–2018: Continued acclaim", and "2018–present: Recent career". KyleJoantalk 04:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an improvement, although I would say 2005–2011 section is still probably longer than ideal. Keep in mind that a majority of readers will be accessing on their phones, where this section (on my phone, at least) is more than six screens long—more frequent section breaks would make it easier to read. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adjusted the headings to encompass 2005–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2018, and 2018–present. You were right about the section breaks. The article seems to flow much better this way. KyleJoantalk 06:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • He attended Bournemouth School but later said that he left school at age 16 - why "but" here?
    • I thought "attending" would imply that he finished school, but I've rephrased it: "He attended Bournemouth School, later saying he left school at age 16." KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 of 1986–1999: Career beginnings and breakthrough and para 2 of 2000–2004: Rise to prominence and commercial decline are a bit listy. I sorta get why but some other bits about the roles he did/motivation/or any anecdote might break the listy feel. THe article has 26kb of readable prose so size is not a worry at this point.
    • Added these sentences:
"Rebecca Milzoff of Vulture revisited the film in 2012 and found the cracks in Bale's voice during his performance of the song "Santa Fe" charming and apt even though the actor was not a great singer."
"Of Bale's performance, Ryder said that he captured a complicated component of the role."
"Bale said he found it refreshing to play Mandras, who was emotionally humane, after working on American Psycho and Shaft."
I hope these suffice! KyleJoantalk 05:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is good - didn't need much, just something to give it a bit of colour/depth. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...an audio recording of when Bale went into a tirade on the film's set.... - I remember this...the wording here is slightly awkward. However I am having trouble thinking of a smoother alternative.
    • This was a struggle for me. Does this read better? "In February 2009, an audio recording of a tirade on the film's set in July 2008 involving Bale was released." I think it works because the sentence right after explains that it was Bale who directed the profanities. KyleJoantalk 05:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not terrific but an improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there anything about which actors he was inspired by, and who has regarded him as an inspiration?
    • The "artistry" section lists Rowan Atkinson and Gary Oldman as those who have influenced him. Regarding the latter, I couldn't find anything in reliable sources. There have been actors, such as Amy Adams and Bella Thorne, who have praised Bale in interviews, but those have only been captured on video and not been written. This is why I thought it was important to include statements or quotes from the directors Bale has worked with on the "career" section because they at least convey some aspect of the industry's general perception of him. I hope the new bit from Winona Ryder also contributes to said perception. KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise pretty comprehensive. Reads well - there are a few run-on 'and's but alternative phrasing with subordinate clauses don't spring naturally so not sure they can be "improved" as such. Will read through again as I am not the best at picking up prose improvements. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your copyedits were all appropriate, Cas Liber. That aside, I believe I've addressed the above points. Please let me know if there are other changes you believe would be suitable. Thank you very much! I truly appreciate the time you took to examine the article. KyleJoantalk 03:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, am happy with comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much again, Cas Liber! Have a wonderful weekend! KyleJoantalk 01:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bettydaisies edit

My first thought is that this is a very, very well written article that manages to be pretty consistent in tone and wording throughout, an impressive feat for anything on this website. It employs summary style beautifully while still leaving the reader informed about the legacy and weight of each of his roles, and tells his life story in a digestable, interesting way without comprising the integrity of its status as an encyclopedia page. I really have very few suggestions: during the phrase "For Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March, recommended Bale" there's a small moment of 'recommended Bale for what?' before you move on to the next sentence; it might possibly be beneficial to simply add a "for the role of Theodore "Laurie" Laurence" or some other clarifying phrase, if needed.

This image also might be served a bit better with a crop, since the four others in the frame have little to do with the information in the body, but I can see it might be difficult simply given Bale's positioning in the picture. Also, the phrase "believed it marked the beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman in a great way" seems slightly simplistic given the sophisticated (but readable) vocabulary in the rest of the article, and could be replaced by something like "to critical praise/significant acclaim/etc." or other. Those are really the only things that happened to catch my notice, apart from the multitude of rock-solid positives and exemplary writing. Kudos to all, including KyleJoan of course, who worked on the article!--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments and unbelievably kind words, Bettydaisies. Regarding the image from the 2011 Academy Awards, the group setting adds the variety that Buidhe mentioned during the image review. It also shows Bale among his peers in addition to providing context to his win at that ceremony. That aside, I've rephrased the two sentences based on your terrific suggestions:
  • "For Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March, recommended Bale." → "In Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film Little Women, Bale played Theodore "Laurie" Laurence following a recommendation from Winona Ryder, who starred as Jo March." The source only specifies that Ryder recommended Bale for a role, so I neutrally put together his portrayal of Laurie and the recommendation without directly correlating the two.
  • "Critics viewed the film positively and believed it marked the beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman in a great way..." → "Critics commended the film and deemed it an excellent beginning of the next phase in Bale's career after playing Batman..." I hope this serves as a more polished summary of the sources.
Please let me know if these changes are suitable and whether there are any others you'd like to see! KyleJoantalk 08:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This look lovely! Thank you for the considerations + explanations. Best of luck with this nomination, and I fully support its candidacy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear! Thank you so much again! KyleJoantalk 00:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman edit

I casually read through this article a couple weeks back but was reluctant to show support because I didn't want to come off as just stamping nominations. It was a good read! I also have my own nomination for Jamiroquai here [2] if you're interested in reviewing. 😃 웃OO 07:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! And I'll be sure to read the Jamiroquai article and see what I can offer. "Canned Heat" is a great song! KyleJoantalk 11:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "Known for his ... leading man status" - source?
    • There are three references in the article that verify this: The Guardian ("American Psycho, based on Bret Easton Ellis’s novel, established Bale as a leading man with a very sharp edge."),[3] Vanity Fair ("This was the part that took Bale from promising young star to leading man with range."),[4] and Vulture ("That rare child actor to evolve into an indomitable leading man, Bale is notoriously dismissive of celebrity.").[5] KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox claims he has been active since 1982. What is the source for this claim?
    • His first acting role came at age eight per the The Guardian article above, which would be around 1982. If this is inappropriate, I could change the year to 1984, which is the year he performed in a West End play. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was around 1982, or exactly 1982? If the former, suggest adding a {{circa}} to the claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be the former, so I added the template. KyleJoantalk 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Associated Press is not a work title. Ditto BBC, check for others
    • Sorry about this! I made ABC News, Associated Press, BBC, BBC Cymru Wales, BBC News, CBS News, CNN, ComingSoon.net, Dark Horizons, Den of Geek, Digital Spy, IndieWire, Moviefone, MovieWeb, NPR, The Numbers, Reuters, RogerEbert.com, Rotten Tomatoes, UGO Networks, and Yahoo! Movies all publishers. KyleJoantalk 14:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but unfortunately some of these are works - eg RogerEbert.com. If it's helpful, for items that have Wikipedia articles you can look there to see whether it is italicized or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made RogerEbert.com a work title. I believe all of the others are publishers. KyleJoantalk 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Harron had chosen Bale for the part, the film's production and distribution company, Lionsgate, originally disagreed and hired Leonardo DiCaprio to play Bateman with Oliver Stone to direct. Bale and Harron were brought back after DiCaprio and Stone left the project." - is there a better source for this?
    • Yes! I added The Guardian.[6] Thank you for reminding me that People shouldn't be used on its own for such loaded information. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Dark Horizons a high-quality reliable source? MovieWeb? Den of Geek? ComingSoon? The Quint?
    • Dark Horizons garnered a Webby Award nomination in the Film category in 1999.[7] The website and the article's author, Paul Fischer, are both Rotten Tomatoes-approved as a publication and critic.[8][9] Entertainment Weekly called it "a must-read for industry execs, agents, and entertainment junkies alike."[10] Its content has been included in reliable publications, such as The Guardian and Rotten Tomatoes' editorial section.[11][12]
    • MovieWeb publishes its fact-checking and correction policies.[13][14] While the website is not Rotten Tomatoes-approved, the article's author, Fred Topel, is.[15] The Los Angeles Times specified it as a notable film database website.[16] Its content has been referenced in the New York Daily News, the editorial section of Rotten Tomatoes, Time, and Vulture.[17][18][19][20]
    • Den of Geek and the article's author, Ryan Lambie, are both Rotten Tomatoes-approved.[21][22] Its content has been cited by BBC News, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The New York Times, the Radio Times, and Variety.[23][24][25][26][27]
    • ComingSoon is Rotten Tomatoes-approved.[28] Its content has been noted by BBC America, Digital Spy, Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Vulture, and The Washington Post.[29][30][31][32][33][34]
    • The Quint's reliability has been compared to that of Rappler, a reliable source per WP:RSP, by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.[35] It publishes its correction policy.[36] The nonprofit organization the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network has certified the website's fact-checking branch, WebQoof.[37] KyleJoantalk 14:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a page reference for the Reuters citation? I'm having trouble locating that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry about that! The comparison can be found in the fourth paragraph of page 11. KyleJoantalk 03:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see there that they are comparable types of publications, but I don't see that they have been judged as having comparable reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The report called The Quint and Rappler "international newsrooms combating disinformation through innovative reporting and storytelling". In addition to having referenced The Quint's reporting and fact-checking, Rappler published the study's conclusion about how both publications "combine a sense of mission and a commitment to journalistic values". The Quint's film industry-related reports have been included on Al Jazeera English and in GQ India, while its content in other topics has been cited by Reuters and the South China Morning Post. KyleJoantalk 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, I personally would read those report excerpts as considering the sites comparable in terms of their type and mission, not in terms of their relative reliability. But thank you for providing those additional citations, that's helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN180: as per WP:ROTTEN there are limitations around use of this source for works before the 2000s
    • I removed Little Women (1994) from the list of his top-scoring films on Rotten Tomatoes. KyleJoantalk 10:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but if we are needing to omit part of his oeuvre because of this issue... why is the scoring a meaningful statement to include? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The scoring is an indication of Bale's best-reviewed films, which reflects their critical merits. About Little Women, a New York Times ref in the "career" section verifies that it was "a critical and box office triumph", so its score meets the accuracy and effectiveness ROTTEN mentions. I only removed the film from the statement because I forgot about said citation, so I've re-added it. Aside from being meaningful, I believe the list is due for inclusion given that we've verified that the pre-2000 films garnered the same type of reception Rotten Tomatoes notes. KyleJoantalk 03:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, we've verified that that film garnered the same type of reception Rotten Tomatoes notes. We don't know whether other of his pre-2000 films might have showed up in the list if the site didn't have these limitations. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • My bad, I meant "pre-2000 film" in the singular sense. The source for the list is Rotten Tomatoes' editorial, which means that we're citing a news article that references the scores and critical consensuses rather than the scores and consensuses themselves. Initially, I could see how Little Women's score could be undue. But even if there is no New York Times article to verify the acclaim, "According to the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes..." is a biased statement of opinion, so the limitations do not apply here because we're merely presenting the editorial's findings. Any high-quality news article is similarly limited, so the attribution should be sufficient in the same way that it is for praises or criticisms. Variety's Kristopher Tapley said in 2017 that Bale's performance in Out of the Furnace was his best, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Joe Williams wrote in 2014 that Bale's work in Exodus was his career's most indifferent. Bale has appeared in several films after 2014 and 2017, but if there are no sources to contradict these opinions, then there's no use in pondering whether he may have done better or worse work after those years. Likewise, more comprehensive data possibly existing in other publications do not lessen the list's reliability and high quality. All of that said, would it be more appropriate to write "some of Bale's highest-scoring films" to give the list a tad less weight? KyleJoantalk 04:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. The issue I have with this isn't that RT is unreliable for what the RT site itself says; it's that, given these known issues about RT, does this give people a misleading impression, even with the in-text attribution, of what this actually means. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's completely understandable. I added "some of" to the sentence to counterbalance the ranking aspect, allowing readers to conclude how well-reviewed the rest of his films are themselves. KyleJoantalk 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of Further reading should match References. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! I believe I've addressed all of the above points, Nikkimaria. Please let me know if I need to provide more documentation or clarify anything. Thank you so much! I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. KyleJoantalk 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria and thanks for that. How is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No remaining objections. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Nikkimaria! KyleJoantalk 02:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shahid edit

  • "leading man status" - this sounds like a very vague and unclear phrase. You could write "he has been a leading man in a range of film genres, and is a recipient of various accolades..."
    • Is this better? "Known for his versatility and physical transformations to play his roles, he has been a leading man in films of various genres. Bale is a recipient of many accolades..." I thought it would be less run-on-esque if the sentence was split into two. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bale secured a minor role in the television film Anastasia" - a) please specify the year b) do you know how he got the part?
    • Specified the year, but there are no details about how he was cast. There's not a lot of information about the film in the first place, and Bale's involvement seems the most notable for how its star connected him to Spielberg. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then recommended Bale for Spielberg's" - "then" seems redundant, it obviously happened after the first film (you could switch it with "subsequently" which makes more sense).
  • "which was unsuccessful at the box office and with critics" - I'd add "both" before "at"
  • This might be just my own preference, but referring to him as "the actor" sounds very journalistic and unencyclopedic. It is particularly ambiguous when other actors are mentioned before. It might be my own problem so suit yourself.
    • Removed two "the actor"s that read the most unnecessary or ambiguous, as you mentioned. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ryder said he captured a complicated component of the role" - maybe you want to clarify what she meant (that he captures the cmplex nature of the part? Its complexity?), but I'd anyhow rather see what a critic might have thought of his performance instead of a co-actor.
    • Used "the complex nature" in the place of "a complicated component". I haven't found any review that highlighted Bale's performance, and I thought Ryder's take injected a nice change of pace from the regular critical reviews. It also provides the anecdote that Cas Liber suggested above. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after DiCaprio and Stone left the project" - "had left" I'd say.
  • "He also had his teeth capped to embody the character's narcissistic nature" - how so?
    • Changed this to "He also had his teeth capped to assimilate to the character's narcissistic nature." Bale basically said that Bateman would be obsessive about his own aesthetic and that the character wouldn't feel right about having Bale's old teeth. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was released in April 2000, becoming a commercial and critical success as well as developing a cult following" - I'd change it to "The film was released in April 2000 to critical and commercial success, and later developed a cult following" (I think "later" is a key word in cult following as it happened in the years that followed".
    • Rephrased this to "The film was released in April 2000, becoming a commercial and critical success and later developing a cult following..." The commercial and critical success also did not come right away, so this phrasing connotes that bit but also specifies that the cult following came even later. KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bale claimed he had not worked for a while because he hadn't come upon scripts" - hadn't - not contractions are allowed but then twice "had not" would be bad so please revise it.
    • Revised this to "...Bale claimed he had stopped working for a while because he did not come upon scripts that piqued his interest..." KyleJoantalk 16:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later, Shahid • Talk2me 13:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments, Shahid! I've begun implementing some, and I'll respond to each point after I address them all. I look forward to the next batch! KyleJoantalk 15:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nolan himself chose Bale, who was still fairly unknown, for the role" - the use of "himself" clearly aims to imply something, but then it's a little POV - 'himself' as opposed to whom? And why is it important? I think it goes without saying that a film director would be the one to pick the star of a film. If you want to say he was impressed with Bale, say that. "Bale, who was still fairly unknown at the time, was cast in the role by Nolan because..."
    • Done! Rephrased this to "Nolan cast Bale, who was still fairly unknown at the time, because Bale had 'exactly the balance of darkness and light' Nolan sought." KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He regained the weight he lost for The Machinist and built muscle, weighing 220 pounds (100 kg) to play the character. He also trained in weapons, Wing Chun Kung Fu and the Keysi Fighting Method." First, two sentences starting with "He", the first "He" should be changed to Bale (Nolan was mentioned in the previous sentence, too). Also, "to play the character" is repeated from the previous paragraph so I would suggest rewriting the entire thing to "For the part, Bale regained the weight he lost for The Machinist and built muscle, weighing 220 pounds (100 kg), and underwent training in weapons, Wing Chun Kung Fu and the Keysi Fighting Method."
    • Done! This suggested phrasing clarifies so much. That said, I kept the weapons training and whatnot separate to minimize the repetition of "and". I hope that's OK. KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, in 2005" - please refrain from overusing "also", "Later that year" would be good enough, and the next sentence "He had been a fan of Miyazaki's animated film Spirited Away".
  • "For the 2006 film The Prestige" - the sentence is too long, better to break it into two.
  • For The Prestige, you don't mention his part.
  • "The Dark Knight has been regarded as the best superhero film" - by whom? It's better to say "was cited by ... as".
    • The two sources cited say this in a way that reads like a neutral representation of an established consensus rather than each publication's personal view. Variety, in particular, says that the film is "widely regarded as the best in the genre", so it wouldn't work to attribute the view to Variety when the magazine is noting a universal belief. I could name specific critics from various reliable sources that share the notion, but it would overwhelm the paragraph, so the general statement seems more appropriate. In addition, since I did not find any source that contradicts this claim (i.e., another superhero film being universally regarded as the best), I thought the general statement was due. KyleJoantalk 09:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It captured the actor directing profanities at Shane Hurlbut, the film's director of photography, after Hurlbut walked onto the set during a scene Bale was filming with Bryce Dallas Howard and also threatening to quit the film if Hurlbut was not fired" - too long -> " "It captured him directing profanities at the film's cinematographer Shane Hurlbut, who walked onto the set during the filming of a scene acted by Bale and Bryce Dallas Howard, and culminated in Bale threatening to quit the film if Hurlbut was not fired."
  • "Actors Whoopi Goldberg, Terry Crews and Sharon Stone defended Bale attributing the incident to his dedication to acting; director Darren Aronofsky also defended him" - hmmm the list is a little redundant and reads like a court defense (and I'm sure there might have been others who condemned his conduct), although the essence it not. How about "Several colleagues in the film industry defended Bale, attributing the incident to his dedication to acting."?
  • "He added he and Hurlbut had completely resolved the matter and after seeing a rough cut of the film felt that Hurlbut had 'done a wonderful job'" - isn't that a bit of a stretch, it's just an incident on the film's set and it dominates the entire paragraph, while its value is quite gossipy anyway. I'd shorten it to "Bale publicly apologised in February 2009, calling the outburst 'inexcusable' and his behaviour 'way out of order' and affirming to have made amends with Hurlbut" (the compliment to Hurlbut is unnecessary anyway)
  • "Terminator Salvation was released in May 2009" at least let us know how the film fared after all the fuss. :) The sentence as it stands is not informative at all.
    • Ah, I see what you mean. Added "abysmal reviews". Interestingly enough, there's nothing about the film's overall commercial receipts, which probably means it performed adequately (i.e., not bombing but not exceeding expectations either). KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During filming in January 2011, Bale, and a crew from the CNN television network, attempted..." - absolutely unnecessary trivia, in my view, and doesn't belong in the career section anyway (not that it belongs elsewhere considering it didn't even materialise).
    • I actually expanded this material and made it part of Bale's personal life. It seems his and Chen's relationship had more legs than I even realized. I think it adds context to his support of/work with nonprofits. Would love your thoughts on this. KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I've addressed all of the above points. Please let me know if you'd still like to discuss some of them. Thanks again, Shahid! KyleJoantalk 04:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, all good so far. I'm reading the Artistry section now. I have a little question - the article looks very well sourced, but I have to note that a quick go through Google Books shows some substantial coverage of Bale, including entire books dedicated to him. Did you read some of them? Do you think they have any information that is otherwise missing in the newspapers/magazines that this article employs? Else it could be beneficial to list the major ones in the Further reading section. This isn't criticism, just asking. Shahid • Talk2me 12:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it interesting that you mentioned this because sourcing has been tricky, as Bale has not contributed much to the coverage surrounding him due to his reserved nature. There was even an interviewer that noted Bale requests that his profiles be in Q&A format so reporters can't paraphrase and narrate on his behalf. Due to this, I did browse some books. The biography by Harrison Cheung, which seems like the most notable book about Bale, is gossip-filled, as Cheung worked as Bale's assistant for years and said the two became estranged. While the biography by Matt Green seems more credible, I was not confident that it's a worthy further read since its first paragraph does not even say anything that is not verifiable via an already-cited Vulture piece. So to answer your question, I found the books available to be less comprehensive than the web sources cited. KyleJoantalk 13:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, let me read other parts of it before I can support it, Shahid • Talk2me 14:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Shahid! Checking in to see if you had any other comments, qualms, or suggestions. KyleJoantalk 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional, general comments
  • "During his acceptance speech at the 76th Golden Globe Awards..." - I really don't get the purpose of this sentence, it's really vague and the readers just need to guess what he meant and what Liz Cheney meant. How about adding what exactly Bale thinks about Dick Cheney? There must be something more substantial out there.
    • There is an interview where Bale compared Cheney to Donald Trump, so I added the adjectives with which Bale described Cheney. That said, Bale never divulged his personal feelings about Cheney. I can't find the exact quote, but I remember him saying that he intentionally refrained from doing this to remain ambiguous about his stance on Cheney's politics. I believe this is why the "Satan" moment at the Golden Globes became the sensation that it did, as Bale essentially confirmed that he felt the same way about Cheney as Americans did. It was the closest thing to a tangible statement about Cheney that we got. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances where I wish there was some additional information about his character other than just its name, including some context of the film's story in relation to the character, its trials and tribulations. I do understand why some rather unidimensional parts such as Batman would not require this sort of detailing, but the more complex roles he played do need to be elaborated on. For example:
    • What was the time period during which the story of Vice takes place? The film's article says "The film follows Cheney on his path to becoming the most powerful Vice President in American history" - wouldn't it be beneficial in Bale's article as well? We need to know what he plays, not just who he plays.
      • I don't know how accurate that quote about Vice is, as the film chronicles Cheney's life from the beginning of his political career until way after his career had ended. While his fame and power culminated in his involvement in the Iraq War, which is depicted in the film, it does not dominate the film the way the description leads you to believe. Due to this, I added a sentence about a general perception of Cheney, which I believe conveys a better sense of the character in a more appropriate way. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He then portrayed sports car racing driver Ken Miles in the 2019 sports drama Ford v Ferrari" - what is this film about? What was Damon's role? Isn't it relevant that Damon was there too? It doesn't require a lot of additional work - just like in Public Enemies you changed the introductoy sentence to "Bale portrayed FBI agent Melvin Purvis opposite Johnny Depp as gangster" which gives us valuable context, the same should be done here.
    • Going back, even in American Psycho - the duality of the role is missing, the fact that he was an investment banker who moonlights as a serial killer is an important plot element and description of his character, as it says a lot about the complexity of his character and lets the reader know it's not just about the regular villainous role (although imo, it is :)).
      • Done! I added that Bateman is "a stock market investor who is revealed to be a serial killer", as it would sound awkward to read that he works as somebody who kills people, which is a more apt description for a hitman. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same for The Machinist - according to the film article, he plays "...a machinist whose insomnia and psychological problems lead..." - that is crucial information which explains why he had to lose weight, smoke cigarettes and drink whiskey.
    • Same for The Fighter - this is perhaps the most acclaimed performance of his career and yet we know nothing about his role. I see now he struggled with drug addiction, which explains Bale's weight loss (contrary to what's expected in the case of boxers) and that he is a retired boxer in the film who trained his younger brother. As is, the article says, "Bale's portrayal of professional boxer Dicky Eklund, for which...", I'd add - "Eklund, who/during [something about his part]..." to let the readers know more about this popular performance.
      • I see what you mean by this. This role definitely needed more weight, so I included the additional context accordingly. KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please apply this across the board where you see a role about which more can be said. This could really help readers respect his psychological rather than just physical efforts to play his roles. Shahid • Talk2me 14:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe all of the other roles are pretty comprehensive as they are. The only one I went back and forth on was John Connor in Terminator Salvation, but then I realized there weren't any sources available that elaborated on Bale's process for the film because the coverage had been dominated by the outburst and the negative critical response, so I added the description "post-apocalyptic" to the genre to better illustrate the fictional setting. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you for the additional comments, Shahid! Please let me know if there is anything else I need to add or change! KyleJoantalk 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I support the nomination for promotion. Shahid • Talk2me 10:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again, truly! It's been a pleasure discussing this article with you. KyleJoantalk 11:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- spotchecked half a dozen online citations for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; no issues. Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Christian_Bale/archive2&oldid=1036431150"