Talk:Alan Partridge/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 19:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Third on my to review list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Lead
 * Link fictional character to character (arts)
 * ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would put a bit more from the "character" section in the lead.
 * ✅ do you think it's OK? Popcornduff (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of putting two reviews of the character in the lead, put some more general opinions on the character.
 * ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I know this wasn't caused by you, but I seriously doubt that that image is free. It was uploaded by a user who is currently blocked for being a vandalism-only account, and I don't see how this review could possibly be his/her own work. So try to verify this for a non-free use rationale.
 * That's a bummer, especially as I don't think there are any other images we can use. I'll investigate this. Popcornduff (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, the rationale provided by the original uploader is definitely bullshit ("own work" allegedly!). I don't have a lot of experience with using copyrighted images on Wikipedia. I notice that the image for Homer Simpson (a FA) is a copyrighted image taken from a press pack, so I suppose this article could do something similar. I downloaded a press kit for the Alan Partridge film from here though none of the photos are ideal, IMO. The image from this Mid Morning Matters press release would be ideal for the lead, but do you think it can be used? Popcornduff (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * History
 * There's no work for ref 1.
 * ✅ I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain? edit: oh, I think I see what you mean. Is it fixed now? Popcornduff (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's definitely better now. :)


 * Should be "is portrayed by" not "is performed by"


 * Could you add stuff about what he says and does or what his main actions are in each?
 * What do you mean? In each TV show/movie/book etc?
 * Yes. This is my main remaining comment. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about it now? Too much? Not enough? Popcornduff (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is pretty much just right. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is The Herald's review necessary for the image caption, especially in this section?
 * I think image captions are a nice place to put extra information in articles. The information mentioned here - that the Herald described Coogan's performance as "reptilian" - isn't a review per se, they're not praising or criticising Coogan's performance, they're just describing the nature of the performance. Perhaps it would be better off in the character section. What do you think?
 * Considering that there is another very appropriate file in the character section, I think it's okay to leave it where it is. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Character
 * The first paragraph reads just like a collection of facts, so if you could try to make it flow together better and show why these should be grouped together, that would be great.
 * Reading it again, I believe it is fine. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The same applies to the fourth paragraph, as the second two are connected due to them being Coogan's comments.
 * I've rewritten this all now to try and make it flow better. Popcornduff (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a citation error in ref 19.
 * I don't know how, but the error went away. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reception and influence
 * Link to Basil Fawlty
 * ❌ Basil Fawlty is linked earlier in the article. Unless you think the mentions are far apart enough to justify linking twice?
 * I didn't see that, so you don't have to link it.


 * Question: have there been any negative or mixed reviews of the character?
 * I did actually search quite hard for this. For example, I thought AA Gill might have criticised the character at some point, as he's famously contrary, but I couldn't find anything. I certainly haven't excluded negative reviews deliberately, I just can't find any; at this point the character seems to be too much of an institution. I'd love to find some just for balance, though. Popcornduff (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if there aren't any, that's okay. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I think you could reorganize this section to show reviews in chronological order so that it mirrors the history section.
 * ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence about Den of Geek is the exact same one used in the lead--change the wording up a bit.
 * ❌ Sorry, I hate to disagree, but I don't see the utility of changing the wording just for the sake of it; this is, as best as I can manage as a writer, the clearest way to express this information. The sentences are at opposite ends of the article so it doesn't harm the reading experience IMO. Is this a deal-breaker for you? Popcornduff (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think it's okay. It's not a big deal to me. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * References
 * In addition to the cite error mentioned above, ref 3 is dead.
 * ✅ Turns out I didn't need it anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Go through your refs with a fine-toothed comb--there's a lot of works missing, no authors, etc. Also, be sure to link the works/publishers at least the first time they're mentioned.
 * I've started work on this, but I think you've exposed a massive hole in my Wiki knowledge. I don't understand the difference between the website title (which seems to be auto-italicised, confusingly) and publisher. What's the difference, and do I need both? God, I hate referencing... Popcornduff (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, considering that you use VisualEditor, I won't have any technical advice for you, but I can guess what you're getting at. In references, the website and publisher are included in one field, which is the name of the site in plain words with a link if applicable (i.e. The Guardian). This is probably the publisher field in yours? But the bottom line is that you don't need both, and put the name of the work (as above) not something like guardian.co.uk. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I went through all the references a while ago - how do they look to you now? The citation error you mentioned for ref 19 should be fixed too. Popcornduff (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done! Congratulations on a very nice article! I can pass after this, and the only major comment would have to be the ref one. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! I've made a start already, but I'll spend some time working through your comments. Popcornduff (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. By the way, how's the work on Kid A going? Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... it isn't. I dramatically rewrote most of the article, especially the Recording and Reception sections, but it still needs more work. I haven't looked at it in a while, though. Popcornduff (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * image review comments
 * I saw the image question on WP:MCQ and feel I should contribute a comment. I agree with your suspicion about the lede image. It is found on hundreds of webpage by tineye but most have no attribution though this Guardian webpage attributes it to Steve Coogan PR. Also the mural image is an obvious derivative work that does not have permission from the artist so I have nominated it for deletion. In the UK 2D "graphic works" are not allowed the freedom of panorama exception. If you can persuade the artist to release it freely it might be ok otherwise, as a non-free image, even if you moved it to the enwiki, it is doubtful that it would pass WP:NFCC as there is no critical commentary about the mural itself. As was mentioned at MCQ, there is really no visual difference between Steve Coogan and Alan Partridge, so a Steve Coogan image will be acceptable. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I understand that the mural image should be deleted and I won't contest it.
 * But... no visual difference between Steve Coogan and Alan Partridge? I guess not in face, but the character is noted for his clothes and hair; these are distinctive parts of his character and this is discussed in the article. I mean, compare the image of Coogan in the article to this image of Partridge, showing his famous tie-badge-blazer combo (probably the enduring image of the character). Having a photo of Coogan out of character in the lead would IMO not be representative of the article subject matter. Popcornduff (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reflecting further, this seems like a weird one. I mean, are you saying the same applies to the Harry Potter (character) article? Or the Dr Who article? should they not use promo photos of their characters either, and just have photos of the actors instead? I mean, maybe - I genuinely don't know. Popcornduff (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen this discussed elsewhere but can't put my hand on it. What I am saying is that when there is great similarity between the actor and the character it is hard to justify using a non-free image. Regarding the two examples, the Dr Who article shows a montage of different doctors which is not comparable while the Harry Potter (character) is indeed much more of the character. The current lede image File:Alan partridge2.jpg is not very different from a Steve image but the dvdtalk example is IMHO more likely to pass WP:NFCC. Also remember that when we get to this level of quality we make every effort to use only free images which one might get away with at a B or C-class rating. You are probably best off moving the image to the enwiki and filling the image details something like this one File:Poppy Meadow.jpg. Good luck chaps. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Still stumped by this. Tried to upload the DVDtalk image but I was unable to complete the upload wizard because, for example, I don't know the original author of the photo or where it was first used. I could really do with some help with someone more experienced in this area. Popcornduff (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review status query
It's been almost a month since last post to this GA Review subpage -- what's the current status on rest of this GA Review? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a lot of changes suggested by Johanna, but to be honest I still don't know what to do about the lead image. Popcornduff (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this file File:Alan partridge2.jpg to be deleted on Commons, as it's clearly not "own work", and likely copyvio. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Any updates on this one ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped until someone can figure out how to fix the lead image problem. Popcornduff (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've nothing more to add as I just reviewed the images and now the lede image had been deleted you will have to try and find a replacement but do remember that biogrphic article do not have to have a lede image though when they do it looks better. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed the lead image for now, as I don't really think it's absolutely necessary if no suitable replacement can be found and this one is questionable at best. However, there are a few comments of mine you have not responded to. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, looks like I neglected to respond there, though I did the work on them a while ago. I'll respond to the comments above in a second. Popcornduff (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Final assessment
Pass. Wonderful job in responding to my comments!


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Fantastic! Thanks for your work, and sorry this was such a protracted process... Popcornduff (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)