Matt Bomer was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 15, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In early 2007 Matthew confirmed to Nylon magazine that he is indeed a homosexual but hopes that the media will respect his privacy.
I changed "will premiere on May 10th" to "premiered on May 10th". 72.153.234.176 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)luhan10@gmail.com
Matthew's dad a former Dallas Cowboy?
The main article makes the claim that Matthew's father, John Bomer, is a former Dallas Cowboy. I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. The all-time roster in the official 2008 Dallas Cowboys media guide does not include anyone by that name, either as a player or coach.-- Fgoodwin ( talk) 05:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Was he in any other movies i think i saw him as a badguy cop in a movie once (it was on tv) Githyan ( talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the information about the outing of Bomer removed? It was all sourced and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, we've gone well beyond three reverts now. Ain't it time to discuss?
1) The paragraph seems to be quite balanced and heavily referenced. Is it not?
2) Someone's said it's against BLP. Is it?
Primaler ( talk) 00:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I find the page as currently shown (15 Jan 2009) substantially misleading. Please consider the following:
(1) Matthew Bomer is a celebrity and whether rightly or wrongly his sexuality is likely to be of interest to the public.
(2) The public will look to a trusted source such as Wikipedia for information.
(3) On reading the current version of the page, they will find the primary claim in the "personal life" section, where one would expect to read about personal relationships, is that he likes playing sports, a claim for which no references are provided and which is clearly intended to create an unsubstantiated (and on the balance of evidence probably false) perception that he must be straight.
Let's not obfuscate: there is a perception that gay men don't do sport, and the unreferenced claim about sports appears to have been prominently and deliberately placed in a location where a reader would expect to infer (from the details of domestic relationships) whether the subject of the article is gay. The claim is apparently made here with the intention of throwing the reader off the scent.
If it's forbidden to make unverified but circumstantially evidenced claims, then it's certainly unforgiveable to use the judicious insertion of apparently uncontroversial (yet unreferenced) claims to deliberately mislead the reader. I assume it is libellous to suggest that a gay person is straight (since the opposite appears to be true), and in the interests of avoiding any risk of litigation I hope that someone properly versed in Wikipedia's policies will therefore fix this page. Arcman ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, so long as there are people thinking along your (racist) lines, the likes of Matt Bromer will tend not to come (fully) out. And so long as they stay in the closet, people like you will never stop thinking about homosexuality the way you are now. Lucky you're a minority nowadays, but sure you can be annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.205.62 ( talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit Sports Quote? Interesting discussion. One point made above I agree should be changed: the sports quote. I want to delete "Bomer enjoys participating in sports such as football, baseball and tennis, as well as playing the guitar."
A search of the web revealed not one RS. Rather, this seems to be one of those "If enough people say it enough times it must be true" quotes. Such is the power of Wikipedia, and why I would like to discuss the change. I fear that if I simply go ahead and delete the above sentence, someone will reverse the change "because it's true."
After deletion, I propose adding the verifiable facts (with references) that Matt played football in his youth, and attended Sports Camp.-- Watsammatta u ( talk) 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
81.159.60.195, since you left unsigned remarks inside other people's messages above, as well as remarks that clearly violated WP:Civility, I have moved your message down here, with a time-stamped signature, and removed the incivil portions of them. In answer to your points:
Primaler's remark "somewhat libellous" and Stifle's comment about exception claims needing "exceptional sources" should be taken as a grain of salt. While I do not speak for them, I understand their comments to be the normal shorthand in which people speak every day. They do not require a legal or technical exactness that you seem to demand, and they certainly do not justify your pejorative comments. Stifle is correct in that controversial material needs reliable sources. That he chose to use the word "exceptional" is unimportant.
Speaking as someone who applies a strict adherence to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS, Wikipedia articles do not leave in unsubstantiated positive or favorable information as a matter of practice. Since there are 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, articles and passages are bound to be found that appear to be written in an overly promotional tone. This may be because the things for which entertainers are known for are both the things that their publicists promote, but are also the things that make them notable, and therefore, what qualify them for articles here. Naturally, those things will comprise the primary material of their articles. But the same may not hold true in reverse to the same degree with negative information, since editors trying to create articles on notable material will naturally outnumber vandals and those with an ax to grind. This is not because Wikipedia has "no problem" with positive material; it's just because the project is too huge to fix these problems all at once, as it is a constant work in progress. For my part, I always tag, rewrite, remove, or nominate for deletion passages or entire articles that contain nothing but overly promotional or unsourced material. You can check my edit history for this.
Many people do indeed rely on Wikipedia as a trusted source, just as many people do not. The fact that you fall into the latter camp does not mean that those in the former do not exist. Nightscream ( talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
In contrast to 79.27.205.62 I think that the following: The fact that being gay is something most people think is worth discussing and mentioning in an encyclopedia, clearly shows how long the road ahead of us still is and that being gay is still far away from being seen as "equal" to being straight. Everybody talks about the fact that being gay is not a big deal, but on the other hand people want to write paragraphs in encyclopedias about that fact. Maybe we should add an "sexual orientation" field next to "born" or "occupation". We could really do a bunch of those, like "favorite beverage" (I am sure there is public interest in what people drink), "average number of farts a day" and "standing while pissing?". I honestly think that those are of the same importance as the sexual orientation. --12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.50.58 ( talk)
Every IP is trying to add information to the article that was shown on the Today Show about Bomer's three children. None of it is sourced. Much of it is barely English. At first, I thought the information was bogus, but I watched a video of the show on the web, and, sure enough, Bomer said he had three children (I've forgotten the names, gender, ages). It came out of nowhere, and the interviewer didn't follow up on it - like are they his biological children and, if so, who's the mother? Regardless, I have no problem putting this information in the article, but we need to be able to cite to a reliable source, and we can't source to the video because of copyright issues. I've looked for reliable news about it and, so far, I've found none.
I might also add that I can't keep reverting without risking violating WP:3RR, so at some point, unless someone else helps, the most garbagy edit may remain in the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
not getting into a further edit war, but i disagree with recent changes/reversions to my recent edits.
perhaps others will weigh in.-- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've already removed this section once as adding nothing to the article. In addition, contrary to the IP who wants the section to remain, these portals are not "standard". Please see the ongoing discussion at WT:FILMBIO. The section should not be reinserted into the article unless a consensus has been reached that it is appropriate.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the sources and his IMDB page refer to him as Matt Bomer. Is there a reason to keep this article styled Matthew Bomer? I don't see anything where he's used that spelling of his name professionally, and WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most common name for the subject when possible, which appears to be Matt.
I'd go ahead and boldly move it, but looking at the article's history, there might be some objections. I want to get clear the reasons for the objections before I make the change. — C.Fred ( talk) 12:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit Matt Bomer's 'Personal Life' section. On Jimmy Kimmel live this year, when he was interviewing, he had on a wedding ring. I would like to add this to the page. Here is the source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtvZQtqrhA Jeureka12 ( talk) 03:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Bomer is such a typical German surname. Can anyone edit anything to Bomer's possible German American descent? Thanks! 91.66.8.15 ( talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I heard he recently came out as " gay". Does that mean bi or what? And how long do we wait for the dust to settle before we slap him with a cat? (Sorry, no wet trout today; come back in the spring.) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Did he graduate from Carnegie-Mellon in 2000 or 2001? Both dates are given in consecutive paragraphs--how did someone not notice this? Rontrigger ( talk) 08:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think all the discussions on this page missed the real point: he wasn't born in Texas. It seems like his parents moved there in the mid to late 1980s, but there's no record of him being born there (i.e. on ancestry.com and elsewhere), and the same is true of both of his siblings. I know articles say he is a "native" of Texas, but that doesn't always necessarily mean he was actually born there. A definitive source is needed. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 07:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I was told at Wikimedia that OTRS tickets cannot be used as citations. Nightscream ( talk) 04:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"Just a website" isn't a very valid argument. Many sources are websites that do not credit specific authors, such as BBC News, CBC, IGN, etc. Many articles of entertainers cite the subject's profile pages, at The New York Times, which do not list authors. Neither do a number of NYT articles, such as this one, which is cited in this article. When I added, to the articles of the 40 or so 9/11 victims who have their own WP article, of where their names are at the National 9/11 Memorial, I cited the Memorial's website, which does not indicate authors. The list goes on and on. Nightscream ( talk) 02:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alysia Sands ( talk) 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Change photo to <Matt Bomer.jpg>
A new image has been uploaded and I think proper permission has been added.
Just to be clear, the choice of image resides with a consensus of the editors. However, in the case of close calls, it may be relevant to know what the subject prefers. The subject's representative requested this image.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you didn't say that the subject gets to control the article is irrelevant. The point is what's inferred by the fact that you changed the photo, and used the subject's representative's wishes as the rationale for doing so.
You didn't make a comment about close calls? Sure you did. It's above, where you said, "Just to be clear, the choice of image resides with a consensus of the editors. However, in the case of close calls, it may be relevant to know what the subject prefers."
As for reading comprehension, try reading WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and see how well you comprehend that. Nightscream ( talk) 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a consensus discussion to determine which of the following two photos is a more appropriate choice for the article's Infobox:
So which do you prefer? The color one? Or the black and white one? Nightscream ( talk) 21:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I put the black & white picture into the article (down with the filmography), since why not have two pictures. If the consensus is to have it in the infobox instead, that's fine with me, I'd probably prefer the color one in the infobox. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed his birth year to 1976, because according to the October 14/21, 2011 (double issue) of Entertainment Weekly, he turned 35 that year. For the record, his birthdate is not mentioned in the 2012 edition. However, it was reverted back stating that "All sources state the 1977 birth date. One EW article is an exception, which suggests probably print error." I see one source in the article stating this and it's an online TV Guide bio. It's not even an article attributed to anyone, so this too could be a "print error". Are there other reliable sources that state the same? I honestly don't care either way, but I'd hate to throw out a truly reliable source for this reason. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 00:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Matt Bomer's birthyear of 1977 is totally correct. It's his birthplace of Texas that is incorrect. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 09:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the reference to Reference #34: Performances: Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City, Utah (1998). The current reference links to: "^ Ultimate Cleavage: 10 Hottest Actresses in Hollywood. "Matthew Bomer profile at Moviesonline". Moviesonline.ca. Retrieved 2013-12-05.", and does not have valid information on Matthew Bomer for anything. The link should go to some article about Matthew Bomer's performing at the Utah Shakespearean Festival in 1998. 184.167.140.120 ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Bomer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matt Bomer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I was looking this article over to potentially do the GA review, but decided not to given the substantial sourcing issues which appear to be present in the article. Specifically the use of IMDB, use of mattbomerfan.com, which pretty clearly does not appear to be RS, in the first four citations and the use of a variety of sources which might or might not be acceptable depending on context (e.g. metacritic and less favorably the New York Post). I would suggest some time be spent, ahead of a review, improving the sourcing, even if it means removing some information which can't be cited to a RS. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC I am not monitoring this page so please ping me if you'd like a reply
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally I do a detailed read and offer comments as part of my GA review process. Both because of the scope of issues I see in this article and because of my general wiki mood I am not going that route at the moment. Instead let me provide summary review of the criteria, offering examples of what will frequently be a broader problem. If based on the work that results from that a detailed read then makes sense I will do so at that point.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | This is not my strongest area as an editor and I will likely have some quibbles (and/or some corrections I make myself) when I do my detailed read but overall this criteria is largely met. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | "He is known for his versatility of his performances in successful independent films"is WP:PEACOCK prose in the second sentence of the LEAD. A general read through with this kind of language in mind should be done. The LEAD is also not a MOS compliant summary of the article omitting certain sections all together while being overly detailed in others. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | In general this article seems to use more sources than is necessary to support the information. For instance "Bomer married publicist Simon Halls in 2011; the marriage only became public to the media in 2014" is fully supported by each of the two functional links (neither the GQ link or its putative archive version work), so why are there two? My guess is that 10 - 25 percent of the current sources are superfluous. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Huge strides have been done with this criteria. I was expecting to have this be on hold pending my detailed read given that there aren't any remaining sources that are obviously bad to use (e.g. previous inclusion of IMDB and Daily Mail) and I will have to more carefully examine some sources as RS that I'm unfamiliar with. However, there remain a couple citation needed templates. Perhaps a few of the sources from criteria 2a can be repurposed to cite this information? | |
2c. it contains no original research. | The issues noted above are the opposite of OR. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Should be noted that other sites come up on Earwig as a match here but as best I can tell they are all copying from Wikipedia and as such there is no COPYVIO. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparing it to other GAs of current actors, this covers the areas one would expect. However it fails to put Bomer's parts and career in any kind of context. There are a few general critics quotes but little that focuses directly on Bomer. In a good article, I am skeptical that White Collar would receive roughly the same length of coverage as Viper Club. How do the highest quality sources put his career in context? | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This article feels written by fans. While most (but certainly not all, with one such example mentioned above) of the PROMO language has been made neutral, it remains relentlessly positive in its coverage of him. I am guessing he hasn't received glowing reviews for every performance especially given that some movies were critically panned. As an example, a quick search suggests his casting in Anything was criticized (e.g. [3]) but this isn't mentioned in the article. I am not enough of a Bomer expert to know what all is missing with what I'm writing here and in 3A but I am aware enough of Bomer, Hollywood, and Wikipedia artile writing to know stuff is missing. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | While technically not required for GA, pics should really have alts for the visually impaired or those who are browsing with images turned-off. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Govvy I am guessing you remain interested in this? As I look to to do a review it doesn't seem fair to let this sit any longer. However, despite some positive momentum since my December comment, this still has some issues from a very preliminary skim of the article. Namely there are still at least 1 troubling source - no GA should be citing the Daily Mail for anything except information about what the Daily Mail says, and some stilted/awkward writing. Just want to put this out there up front. Assuming you are still up for the review I'll get started soonish - but it might not be until the weekend. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Matt Bomer was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 15, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In early 2007 Matthew confirmed to Nylon magazine that he is indeed a homosexual but hopes that the media will respect his privacy.
I changed "will premiere on May 10th" to "premiered on May 10th". 72.153.234.176 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)luhan10@gmail.com
Matthew's dad a former Dallas Cowboy?
The main article makes the claim that Matthew's father, John Bomer, is a former Dallas Cowboy. I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. The all-time roster in the official 2008 Dallas Cowboys media guide does not include anyone by that name, either as a player or coach.-- Fgoodwin ( talk) 05:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Was he in any other movies i think i saw him as a badguy cop in a movie once (it was on tv) Githyan ( talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the information about the outing of Bomer removed? It was all sourced and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, we've gone well beyond three reverts now. Ain't it time to discuss?
1) The paragraph seems to be quite balanced and heavily referenced. Is it not?
2) Someone's said it's against BLP. Is it?
Primaler ( talk) 00:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I find the page as currently shown (15 Jan 2009) substantially misleading. Please consider the following:
(1) Matthew Bomer is a celebrity and whether rightly or wrongly his sexuality is likely to be of interest to the public.
(2) The public will look to a trusted source such as Wikipedia for information.
(3) On reading the current version of the page, they will find the primary claim in the "personal life" section, where one would expect to read about personal relationships, is that he likes playing sports, a claim for which no references are provided and which is clearly intended to create an unsubstantiated (and on the balance of evidence probably false) perception that he must be straight.
Let's not obfuscate: there is a perception that gay men don't do sport, and the unreferenced claim about sports appears to have been prominently and deliberately placed in a location where a reader would expect to infer (from the details of domestic relationships) whether the subject of the article is gay. The claim is apparently made here with the intention of throwing the reader off the scent.
If it's forbidden to make unverified but circumstantially evidenced claims, then it's certainly unforgiveable to use the judicious insertion of apparently uncontroversial (yet unreferenced) claims to deliberately mislead the reader. I assume it is libellous to suggest that a gay person is straight (since the opposite appears to be true), and in the interests of avoiding any risk of litigation I hope that someone properly versed in Wikipedia's policies will therefore fix this page. Arcman ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, so long as there are people thinking along your (racist) lines, the likes of Matt Bromer will tend not to come (fully) out. And so long as they stay in the closet, people like you will never stop thinking about homosexuality the way you are now. Lucky you're a minority nowadays, but sure you can be annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.205.62 ( talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit Sports Quote? Interesting discussion. One point made above I agree should be changed: the sports quote. I want to delete "Bomer enjoys participating in sports such as football, baseball and tennis, as well as playing the guitar."
A search of the web revealed not one RS. Rather, this seems to be one of those "If enough people say it enough times it must be true" quotes. Such is the power of Wikipedia, and why I would like to discuss the change. I fear that if I simply go ahead and delete the above sentence, someone will reverse the change "because it's true."
After deletion, I propose adding the verifiable facts (with references) that Matt played football in his youth, and attended Sports Camp.-- Watsammatta u ( talk) 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
81.159.60.195, since you left unsigned remarks inside other people's messages above, as well as remarks that clearly violated WP:Civility, I have moved your message down here, with a time-stamped signature, and removed the incivil portions of them. In answer to your points:
Primaler's remark "somewhat libellous" and Stifle's comment about exception claims needing "exceptional sources" should be taken as a grain of salt. While I do not speak for them, I understand their comments to be the normal shorthand in which people speak every day. They do not require a legal or technical exactness that you seem to demand, and they certainly do not justify your pejorative comments. Stifle is correct in that controversial material needs reliable sources. That he chose to use the word "exceptional" is unimportant.
Speaking as someone who applies a strict adherence to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS, Wikipedia articles do not leave in unsubstantiated positive or favorable information as a matter of practice. Since there are 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, articles and passages are bound to be found that appear to be written in an overly promotional tone. This may be because the things for which entertainers are known for are both the things that their publicists promote, but are also the things that make them notable, and therefore, what qualify them for articles here. Naturally, those things will comprise the primary material of their articles. But the same may not hold true in reverse to the same degree with negative information, since editors trying to create articles on notable material will naturally outnumber vandals and those with an ax to grind. This is not because Wikipedia has "no problem" with positive material; it's just because the project is too huge to fix these problems all at once, as it is a constant work in progress. For my part, I always tag, rewrite, remove, or nominate for deletion passages or entire articles that contain nothing but overly promotional or unsourced material. You can check my edit history for this.
Many people do indeed rely on Wikipedia as a trusted source, just as many people do not. The fact that you fall into the latter camp does not mean that those in the former do not exist. Nightscream ( talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
In contrast to 79.27.205.62 I think that the following: The fact that being gay is something most people think is worth discussing and mentioning in an encyclopedia, clearly shows how long the road ahead of us still is and that being gay is still far away from being seen as "equal" to being straight. Everybody talks about the fact that being gay is not a big deal, but on the other hand people want to write paragraphs in encyclopedias about that fact. Maybe we should add an "sexual orientation" field next to "born" or "occupation". We could really do a bunch of those, like "favorite beverage" (I am sure there is public interest in what people drink), "average number of farts a day" and "standing while pissing?". I honestly think that those are of the same importance as the sexual orientation. --12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.50.58 ( talk)
Every IP is trying to add information to the article that was shown on the Today Show about Bomer's three children. None of it is sourced. Much of it is barely English. At first, I thought the information was bogus, but I watched a video of the show on the web, and, sure enough, Bomer said he had three children (I've forgotten the names, gender, ages). It came out of nowhere, and the interviewer didn't follow up on it - like are they his biological children and, if so, who's the mother? Regardless, I have no problem putting this information in the article, but we need to be able to cite to a reliable source, and we can't source to the video because of copyright issues. I've looked for reliable news about it and, so far, I've found none.
I might also add that I can't keep reverting without risking violating WP:3RR, so at some point, unless someone else helps, the most garbagy edit may remain in the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
not getting into a further edit war, but i disagree with recent changes/reversions to my recent edits.
perhaps others will weigh in.-- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've already removed this section once as adding nothing to the article. In addition, contrary to the IP who wants the section to remain, these portals are not "standard". Please see the ongoing discussion at WT:FILMBIO. The section should not be reinserted into the article unless a consensus has been reached that it is appropriate.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the sources and his IMDB page refer to him as Matt Bomer. Is there a reason to keep this article styled Matthew Bomer? I don't see anything where he's used that spelling of his name professionally, and WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most common name for the subject when possible, which appears to be Matt.
I'd go ahead and boldly move it, but looking at the article's history, there might be some objections. I want to get clear the reasons for the objections before I make the change. — C.Fred ( talk) 12:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit Matt Bomer's 'Personal Life' section. On Jimmy Kimmel live this year, when he was interviewing, he had on a wedding ring. I would like to add this to the page. Here is the source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtvZQtqrhA Jeureka12 ( talk) 03:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Bomer is such a typical German surname. Can anyone edit anything to Bomer's possible German American descent? Thanks! 91.66.8.15 ( talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I heard he recently came out as " gay". Does that mean bi or what? And how long do we wait for the dust to settle before we slap him with a cat? (Sorry, no wet trout today; come back in the spring.) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Did he graduate from Carnegie-Mellon in 2000 or 2001? Both dates are given in consecutive paragraphs--how did someone not notice this? Rontrigger ( talk) 08:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think all the discussions on this page missed the real point: he wasn't born in Texas. It seems like his parents moved there in the mid to late 1980s, but there's no record of him being born there (i.e. on ancestry.com and elsewhere), and the same is true of both of his siblings. I know articles say he is a "native" of Texas, but that doesn't always necessarily mean he was actually born there. A definitive source is needed. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 07:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I was told at Wikimedia that OTRS tickets cannot be used as citations. Nightscream ( talk) 04:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"Just a website" isn't a very valid argument. Many sources are websites that do not credit specific authors, such as BBC News, CBC, IGN, etc. Many articles of entertainers cite the subject's profile pages, at The New York Times, which do not list authors. Neither do a number of NYT articles, such as this one, which is cited in this article. When I added, to the articles of the 40 or so 9/11 victims who have their own WP article, of where their names are at the National 9/11 Memorial, I cited the Memorial's website, which does not indicate authors. The list goes on and on. Nightscream ( talk) 02:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alysia Sands ( talk) 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Change photo to <Matt Bomer.jpg>
A new image has been uploaded and I think proper permission has been added.
Just to be clear, the choice of image resides with a consensus of the editors. However, in the case of close calls, it may be relevant to know what the subject prefers. The subject's representative requested this image.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you didn't say that the subject gets to control the article is irrelevant. The point is what's inferred by the fact that you changed the photo, and used the subject's representative's wishes as the rationale for doing so.
You didn't make a comment about close calls? Sure you did. It's above, where you said, "Just to be clear, the choice of image resides with a consensus of the editors. However, in the case of close calls, it may be relevant to know what the subject prefers."
As for reading comprehension, try reading WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and see how well you comprehend that. Nightscream ( talk) 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a consensus discussion to determine which of the following two photos is a more appropriate choice for the article's Infobox:
So which do you prefer? The color one? Or the black and white one? Nightscream ( talk) 21:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I put the black & white picture into the article (down with the filmography), since why not have two pictures. If the consensus is to have it in the infobox instead, that's fine with me, I'd probably prefer the color one in the infobox. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed his birth year to 1976, because according to the October 14/21, 2011 (double issue) of Entertainment Weekly, he turned 35 that year. For the record, his birthdate is not mentioned in the 2012 edition. However, it was reverted back stating that "All sources state the 1977 birth date. One EW article is an exception, which suggests probably print error." I see one source in the article stating this and it's an online TV Guide bio. It's not even an article attributed to anyone, so this too could be a "print error". Are there other reliable sources that state the same? I honestly don't care either way, but I'd hate to throw out a truly reliable source for this reason. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 00:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Matt Bomer's birthyear of 1977 is totally correct. It's his birthplace of Texas that is incorrect. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 09:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the reference to Reference #34: Performances: Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City, Utah (1998). The current reference links to: "^ Ultimate Cleavage: 10 Hottest Actresses in Hollywood. "Matthew Bomer profile at Moviesonline". Moviesonline.ca. Retrieved 2013-12-05.", and does not have valid information on Matthew Bomer for anything. The link should go to some article about Matthew Bomer's performing at the Utah Shakespearean Festival in 1998. 184.167.140.120 ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Bomer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matt Bomer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I was looking this article over to potentially do the GA review, but decided not to given the substantial sourcing issues which appear to be present in the article. Specifically the use of IMDB, use of mattbomerfan.com, which pretty clearly does not appear to be RS, in the first four citations and the use of a variety of sources which might or might not be acceptable depending on context (e.g. metacritic and less favorably the New York Post). I would suggest some time be spent, ahead of a review, improving the sourcing, even if it means removing some information which can't be cited to a RS. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC I am not monitoring this page so please ping me if you'd like a reply
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally I do a detailed read and offer comments as part of my GA review process. Both because of the scope of issues I see in this article and because of my general wiki mood I am not going that route at the moment. Instead let me provide summary review of the criteria, offering examples of what will frequently be a broader problem. If based on the work that results from that a detailed read then makes sense I will do so at that point.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | This is not my strongest area as an editor and I will likely have some quibbles (and/or some corrections I make myself) when I do my detailed read but overall this criteria is largely met. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | "He is known for his versatility of his performances in successful independent films"is WP:PEACOCK prose in the second sentence of the LEAD. A general read through with this kind of language in mind should be done. The LEAD is also not a MOS compliant summary of the article omitting certain sections all together while being overly detailed in others. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | In general this article seems to use more sources than is necessary to support the information. For instance "Bomer married publicist Simon Halls in 2011; the marriage only became public to the media in 2014" is fully supported by each of the two functional links (neither the GQ link or its putative archive version work), so why are there two? My guess is that 10 - 25 percent of the current sources are superfluous. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Huge strides have been done with this criteria. I was expecting to have this be on hold pending my detailed read given that there aren't any remaining sources that are obviously bad to use (e.g. previous inclusion of IMDB and Daily Mail) and I will have to more carefully examine some sources as RS that I'm unfamiliar with. However, there remain a couple citation needed templates. Perhaps a few of the sources from criteria 2a can be repurposed to cite this information? | |
2c. it contains no original research. | The issues noted above are the opposite of OR. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Should be noted that other sites come up on Earwig as a match here but as best I can tell they are all copying from Wikipedia and as such there is no COPYVIO. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparing it to other GAs of current actors, this covers the areas one would expect. However it fails to put Bomer's parts and career in any kind of context. There are a few general critics quotes but little that focuses directly on Bomer. In a good article, I am skeptical that White Collar would receive roughly the same length of coverage as Viper Club. How do the highest quality sources put his career in context? | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This article feels written by fans. While most (but certainly not all, with one such example mentioned above) of the PROMO language has been made neutral, it remains relentlessly positive in its coverage of him. I am guessing he hasn't received glowing reviews for every performance especially given that some movies were critically panned. As an example, a quick search suggests his casting in Anything was criticized (e.g. [3]) but this isn't mentioned in the article. I am not enough of a Bomer expert to know what all is missing with what I'm writing here and in 3A but I am aware enough of Bomer, Hollywood, and Wikipedia artile writing to know stuff is missing. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | While technically not required for GA, pics should really have alts for the visually impaired or those who are browsing with images turned-off. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Govvy I am guessing you remain interested in this? As I look to to do a review it doesn't seem fair to let this sit any longer. However, despite some positive momentum since my December comment, this still has some issues from a very preliminary skim of the article. Namely there are still at least 1 troubling source - no GA should be citing the Daily Mail for anything except information about what the Daily Mail says, and some stilted/awkward writing. Just want to put this out there up front. Assuming you are still up for the review I'll get started soonish - but it might not be until the weekend. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)