Talk:John Barrowman/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJMitchell    You rang?   08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK then. There are a few minor issues with the lead, but nothing that's not easily fixed:
 * The very first sentence says "Scottish born British American actor". Could that be refactored to be more easily read? For example, "British American actor born in Glasgow"?
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like another editor removed the link. Either he's a British American or he's not.  How do we describe him? Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that (I've got it on my watchlist). Is there a source that specifically says "British American"? If not we might have to stick with something like "Scottish born", if there is, I'd say stick it back in with a ref. HJMitchell    You rang?   02:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "media personality" seems unnecessarily loose- could we use "television personality" or some such?
 * Every time I read "such shows as", I'm reminded of Troy McClure
 * I've never been, but Illinois is a pretty big place. Whereabouts did they move?
 * The problem is that they first moved to Aurora, then Joliet. I think that is too detailed for the lead, since we are just illustrating his accent, it's probably ok for now.  Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's definitely too much detail fro the lead. HJMitchell    You rang?   12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously his sexuality is important because of what he and the media make it, but does it really have to be as blunt as "Barrowman is openly gay."? HJMitchell    You rang?   08:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. I think for some people their sexual orientation is important for them, and Barrowman might be one of them.  Perhaps it might be worded differently with other biographies.  I can't speak for Barrowman, and I don't know that much about him, but being "openly gay" seems to be a part of his identity.  I'll do more research on this though, and see what I can find. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then. I think his orientation is probably worth a mention in the lead (although would we mention it if he was "opnely straight"?), it's just that "... is openly gay" seems harsh prose if nothing else.
 * It is probably considered uncommon, rather than harsh prose. If you aren't used to seeing it, then yes, it can be surprising.  This is true for anything new or different.  I looked at several different reliable sources and they all use this terminology, so it seems appropriate.  I'll put it past another editor and a WikiProject and see what they think, just to be safe. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems better now that the sentence is linked to the award. My issue wasn't with the wording (no point beating around the bush). HJMitchell    You rang?   14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life/ career

 * "next few years" needs to be more specific
 * There were several moves and it seems to have been about a decade, but I temporarily changed it to "the family finally settled in" until we fix the sourcing problem. I'll come back to this. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we specify when he was at the US Internatinal university? What did he study there? Did he graduate?


 * I'd recommend splitting the section into "early life and education" and "career" to keep it tidy and chronoligical


 * Subject is repeatedly referred to as "he"- try to stick to "Barrowman" but obviously avoid close repetition.
 * I'm working on fixing this. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "panto" is very informal- I'd suggest using the full word and linking it (pantomime)
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "best knoown for ..." in the body of the text, at least, is quite subjective and if it's not published, it could be WP:OR, WP:SYNTH etc and possibly POV. I'd suggest refactoring- perhaps call it "a high profile role" or something similar.


 * Some explanation of what BBC America is might be in order, along with something to back up the claim "is popular on BBC America".
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The mentions of Torchwood seem to make a big chronological jump: "Due to the character's popularity, in 2006 Captain Jack Harkness was given his own spin-off series Torchwood, which began filming its third series in August 2008"


 * References are sparse throughout the section- for example, the list of plays he's appeared in and the sentence "Barrowman's musical abilities have been featured in film..." are not referenced at all. I created a subpage a while back that might be able to help with places to look, particularly ibdb.
 * In progress... Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The prose is not the best. Ideally, sentences would flow nicely into each other- these seem to end abruptly and jump to another topic. While it only has to be "reasonably well written for GA", it could do with a copyedit. I'll try and sort what I can myself. I have some experience copyediting on WP but I don't want to compromise my role as an "uninvolved reviewer"!
 * In progress... Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be enough there to make a good start. I'll continue the review later today. HJMitchell   You rang?   10:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The "presenting" section seems overly long- could it not be combined with some of the information above to make three sections?


 * Again, the prose is not ideal and there seem to be some references lacking


 * No obvious issues in the personal life section


 * Is the "credits" table necessary? The information seems to be dealt with (in more detail) in the "career" section.
 * I'm not sure if it is necessary, but as the reader, I find it informative and easy to read. With a glance, I can briefly review his work without having to read the prose.  However, I think the appropriate format is "Filmography", so it should probably be changed to reflect this convention. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Headings changed. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of "rotten" links in the refs.

No major issues. I'd have thought most of them could be resolved with a few hours' worth of editing so I'm happy to leave the GA open. I'll put it on hold for now and check back tomorrow. Feel free to get in touch beforehand, though! HJMitchell   You rang?   20:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from nominator
Some miscellaneous issues that are in progress:

✅
 * Lead section
 * Rewrite and expansion in progress... Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, but could always use some more eyes. Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

✅
 * Early life section
 * Rewrite and expansion in progress...Close to done, but I feel like a third paragraph would be best. I'll just close this out for now and come back for another revision (to meet the reviewer's criteria and to add missing details such as Aurora) during final draft. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Missing major details added. Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ ✅
 * Career section
 * Rewrite and expansion in progress...This is going to be tough because the current section is almost unreadable as prose. It's basically a glorified list.  This could take a couple days. We'll see how fast it goes. Viriditas (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dancing on Ice contestant needs correct placement and source. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dead links
 * Checklinks - at least half a dozen broken/suspicious links need fixing. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Press release announcing acts for the 2008 Royal Variety Performance  Fixed and replaced with . Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) . John Barrowman drags it up for role Removed link and dated material.  No replacement necessary, however a fully cited ref would allow us to add the actual source info.  Please don't just add links, people, for this reason; Always give the title, publisher, author and date. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) John Barrowman: "I'm Going to Be a Desperate Housewife" Media Monkey, July 31, 2009 Fixed and replaced with  Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)   Deleted.  There are several different links in this regard on his site, from YouTube videos to memorials, but nothing supporting this material nor archival links.  I'll keep looking. For now, I've just added a fact tag. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)   Dead link.  Thisisnottingham.co.uk currently only hosts a 2009 interview, which appears to be different than the 2007 version.  So, I'm deleting this for now. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

✅
 * Archived links
 * 1)  Fixed and replaced with .  However, I'm not convinced this is important or best represented by this source.  The only source available (that I can find) is a scheduled appearance written on his website before it occurred.  I think the article needs to focus less on these appearances and more on his biography. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Fixed and replaced with .  Unlike "Bafta Red Carpet", this one actually has a link to the BBC.  Still, this article needs to focus more on his biography, and less on his minor appearances in prose. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) John Barrowman official website, biography section.  This should be updated with this new link.  However, the reason it hasn't, is because the new bio is mostly focused on Barroman's recent successes rather than his past like the old one.  The reason for this rewrite probably has to do with the fact that this information can now be found in his book, whereas at the time of the old version, the book had not yet been published.  I'll keep it in the article for now, until I find another source. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)   Unfortunately, I'll have to remove this for now as I believe it violates the copyright of Scotland Magazine.  They have provided an excerpt on their website, but not the full article as it appears here.  I don't believe we can link to this here, so I'll just add the plain ref. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)   Ok for now.  Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Looks ok for the moment, but this could change in the future.  If it does, I will try to preserve the link. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  This link says nothing about Barrowman, so I'm leaning towards deletion.  Will review it again just to make sure...Ok, moved it to a footnote temporarily.  It appears to be obsessive detail unconnected to Barrowman's biography.  No harm in keeping it in a footnote for now, but I'm still leaning towards deletion when I get to final draft. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)   New news page doesn't go back that far, but the information might benefit from additional sources.  I'll either leave it in, delete it, or add new sources, so I'll consider this link reviewed and close it out as the information is fairly tame.  If at all possible, I will delete it and add links to news articles on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) .  New live page located here . Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unreliable
 * 1) John Barrowman - Biography Removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: I was unaware of the poor state of sourcing in this article prior to nomination. Now that I have had a chance to review it in more detail, the article as it currently stands does not appear to meet the basic requirements. I will attempt to try to salvage what I can, but I doubt this will be possible without a full rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is concerning. Having made only a cursory check of the references to start with, I did notice the dead links (which I think I mentioned above) but was not aware of the extent of the problem. HJMitchell    You rang?   11:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing I just noticed is that there aren't any references from either of the two major biographical works on Barrowman -Anything Goes (2008) or I am What I am (2009) - used in this article. This is unfortunate, as I would expect a GA class article to use at least one. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's the end of the world- I wouldn't fail a GA based solely on that, though it could be easily fixed if you have access to either or both? You might be able to "cheat" and get a few excerpts from Google books- those kinds of publications do tend to be particularly useful for a bit of expansion and a few titbits you can't find on the net. HJMitchell    You rang?   20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think either book is on GBooks, but I'll keep looking. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Anything Goes received poor reviews and appears to have content duplicated in other interviews, so I'll look for something on I am What I am instead. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold the presses. AfterElton.com has a four-page review with choice quotes and descriptions from Anything Goes. I'm not familiar with the site, so I don't know if it is considered reliable, but looking at the wiki page, it could be. Could someone confirm?  The writer of the review is apparently using a pseudonym ("Locksley Hall" cannot be his real name) so I need some feedback.  On the plus side, the review is informative, and allows us to cite material from the book. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This would indicate they would be considered a reliable source. -- Banj e  b oi   23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I personally would not rely on this for information about Barrowman, however, if I use it just to cite parts of his autobiography, which the source quotes, I think it would be acceptable.  I'm still on the fence, but I'll look into it. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note, is there a reason why his Dancing on Ice appearence is listed under presenting where infact he was a contestant and not a presenter?Mark E (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on it... Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to hidden inline comment until I can find sources and place it in the appropriate section. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this can be wrapped up soon. Great progress has been made on the article; if the reviewer has any further notes on fixed then hopefully they could be added. The review is going well, but seeing how long this article's been at GAN I'd like to see it wrapped up. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's almost there. A lead expansion and a little tweaking and it's done. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done for now. Might do some touch-up later, but a reviewer should pass or fail at this point. Viriditas (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Final comments from reviewer
The article has improved massively since the start of the review and I'm very happy with the progress I've seen as I've checked in. I've given it a very quick copyedit. I've checked the links and the tool doesn't highlight anything concerning. There are two issues I've noticed, though these should be easily resolved: --Good work. If you'd drop me a line when you're ready, I'm sure I'll be able to pass it. HJMitchell   You rang?   17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Titans cast.jpg (in Television and film section) needs a separate fair use rationale for each article. I'd recommend using the template generated table for simplicity, but a manually written one would be fine.
 * I'm wondering about the chronological order of the "Doctor Who and Torchwood" and "BBC presenter"- personally, I'd flip them but the chronology does overlap, so it's up to you.
 * Sure, I can add the rationale later (I'm out the door). You can go ahead and flip the sections if you like, or I can do it later. As for the lead, the previous version that said "his family immigrated to the United States" was correct.  If it said, "his family emigrated from Glasgow" that would also be correct, but it starts out with "Born in Glasgow, Scotland" and follows up with the emphasis on moving to the U.S.  Also, I dislike using too many commas in the lead as it is supposed to deliver the main points without tripping up the flow for the reader; "including, in 2008...and, in 2006," doesn't work well in a lead section.  I think using dates inside parenthesis, such as with Music Music Music (2008), is a good way to avoid the commas and is a standard dating convention used in encyclopedias, biographies, and critical reviews. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on most of that, but the dates for the other productions mentioned in the lead aren't in parenthesis. I wouldn't fail a GA review over two characters though! I might flip the sections if you haven't already done it by the time I get to it. As for immigration/ emigration, I'm not sure so as long as it works, I don't have a problem. HJMitchell    You rang?   04:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't so important, but take a look at the "Television and film" section; These productions have a specific release date, like Music Music Music. The reason you see a lot without parens is because they are productions that occurred during multiple years, or don't have a defined start and end date, such as touring companies and revivals.  I think you raise a good point about consistency, but when a work like a book, album, or film has an initial release date, it's ok to use parens.  I just got home, so I'll get to work on the rest.  Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I reckon you can probably crack it in an hour or two so, despite having been up all night, I'll still be on- drop me a line and, all being well, I'll pass it! HJMitchell    You rang?   08:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! Working on the FUR right now... Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what? Forget it.  It just isn't worth it.  I've written lots of FUR's but I have no interest in dealing with the trigger-happy anti-FURs, who will show up like clockwork to delete it.  I don't like the fact that this is a screenshot rather than a published promo.  I'm just going to upload a free image from flickr. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You get used to them. I upload very few images to WP for exactly that reason but if you can find a "free" image, so much the better. HJMitchell    You rang?   09:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are still awake, but if you are (or if you are reading this when you wake up) please go ahead and close out the review. I believe I may have removed some changes you made (commas, dates, etc.) so please add them back in if you feel I've royally screwed something up, or make any other changes you feel are necessary.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)