Talk:Michael Van Patrick

GA review
I am requesting a second opinion, given my own inexperience in working with this process. Having said that, my review is as follows:
 * The article has some language concerns. "Killed off" and some other phrases strike me as definitely slangy. Some sentences may also be too long with too many dependent clauses, and even possibly run-ons. Three of the first four sentences of the "Michael Van Patrick" section start with "After". Such repetition should be avoided, as should starting as many sentences with prepositions as this article does. Also, standardization of how the subject is referred to might be in order. The subject is also occasionally referred to in the present tense, which may not be appropriate considering he is dead in-universe. I don't have any real concerns regarding the other GA criteria, though I acknowledge my own unfamiliarity with the process, but believe the linguistic concerns should be addressed. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Second opinion: It's not broad enough, in that there is very little information on the creators, the series the character has appeared in, or any other real world context. I think the sentence"MVP is as intelligent, strong, fast, agile, and durable as it is possible for a human being to be without being considered superhuman", may fail our original research policy as speculation unless a source is provided and the sentence reqritten to reflect the source. You'd need to attribute the quote, basically. The "Abilities and equipment" section contains a few typos which need fixing. It also fails WP:WAF, namely it is written entirely from an in universe perspective.  For an example of how to write a good article on a fictional character, see Anarky. To summarise, it fails 1 (a) and(b), 2 (c) and 3 (a). Hope that helps give pointers on where to improve. Hiding T 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I'm very new at this. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Providing a second (or third?) opinion, I would agree with Hiding and say that it should be failed as it contains no out-of-universe content and thus is missing a critical component of a fiction article (not to mention all the smaller things that Hiding has pointed out). It should be failed outright but, as always, the final decision is left to the original reviewer. Cheers, CP 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also say it has some WP:WAF issues. A word about creation or development by the main artists would help. See the GA Anarky how to do it better (note how much Alan Grant has to say in that article), and Superman (a FA) how to do it best. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a competent reviewer, having never done one before and said that up front. I have yet to do any real reviews, and clearly acknowledge that I stepped outside of my own area of knowledge in this case, so, if possible, I want someone who actually knows what they're doing to make the formal review. Arguing for the "defense", as it were, though, this seems to have been at least somewhat possibly a case when there may not have been much, if any, published comment from the creators regarding the creation of the character. At this point, he is not exactly a major character. In instances like that, I can see there not being much to go on. I will try to check what few sources I have available to find out one way or another, though. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, the character has not had the long term exposer, or wide use, in the Marvel Universe thus it is extremely difficult to find any creator comments specifically to this character (currently drudging through Dan Slott interviews to find some useful comments). Also, id like to thank you guys for having a look through this article and helping progress to a better standard, hopefully in time the character/clones' continuing appearances will generate more source material. --- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it might be worth, I did a google search and found no reliable information along the lines of creator comment on the character. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the creator comments has come to a dead end at the moment, so im going to re-writing the sections from a real world perspective to help fix the In-Universe problem for now. --- Paulley (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who edited the article after I had made the original review, I think I probably am disqualified from further review. Having said that, I think it might be reasonable to say that the article might fail stability, even if it does meet other criteria based on the information currently available, on the basis that any new material relevant about the subject relating to the "real world", like creator opinions and the like, are currently lacking. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, you should still make the final decision on what to do with the article and, if you decide to fail it, you should remove it from the WP:GAN list. Cheers, CP 06:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That being the case, article fails GA status.
 * 1. Well written? Passes. By and large, a few remaining phrasing problems, nothing significant.
 * 2. Factually accurate? - Passes. Accurate, regarding what information is included.
 * 3. Broad in coverage? - Fails, on the basis of lack of out-of-universe material.
 * 4. Neutral point of view? - Passes.
 * 5. Article stablility - Passes, as article has been basically stable.
 * 6. Images? - Passes. Use of first and third images is appropriate and fitting with policy, and adequate justificataion is given. I have reservations about the use of the first panel in the second graphic, as it seems basically unnecessary. If it would be possible to clip the image so that only the relevant second panel is included, that would probably be advisable. It might fail on that basis were it not for the larger failure of breadth of coverage. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the second image has been resolved --- Paulley (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this article is written in an in-universe manner. It discusses the character and fictional events as if they occurred. For example, from the lead: "Shortly after his death however, he was cloned several times".  This is guided against in our manual of style and Writing better articles.  My apologies, but I completely disagree with the review above stating that the article is well written in line with our guidance. Hiding T 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworded that opening to "Despite the character's death, Micheal Van Patrick still plays a prominent role within the series as he was cloned several times.", there is some places were in-universe matter pops up which need to be addressed however for the most part the article follows the WAF plot summaries guidelines, opening paragraphs with "The events of the 2006-2007 Marvel Comics crossover", "along with a selection of old and new characters to make up the cast of the Avengers: The Initiative.", "Avengers: The Initiative Annual #1 reveals", "a couple of months prior in a few panels of Avengers: The Initiative #4" etc etc... the article has been failed already, shouldn't we be looking into bringing the article up to guidelines rather than discussing a moot point --- Paulley (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was moved to post my comment here by your edit summary which stated im not sure about the in-universe tag. yes the article needs more out of U content (which currently isnt avaliable) but it is written in an out of U style as part of its GA review. I felt I should clarify why I added the tag. Hope that helps, Hiding T 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And the above editor has a far greater range of experience in dealing with articles of this kind than I do. On that basis, I would take his work over my own. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, im glad for any input and would hope to see some suggestions (and some help) improving on the matters discussed. Im still having very little luck on finding opinions from the creators regarding the character. -- Paulley (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
No move Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Van Patrick → MVP (comics) — MVP is the character's superhero name. I think most people looking for his article will type that in, and not "Michael Van Patrick." — DrBat (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose MOS:ABBR makes it clear this is not just a question of the most recognisable name: "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar)." MVP as a term in this sense does not appear to be "widely known and used", and so the full name should be used as a title. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - he was really only briefly known as MVP, and this article talks probably more about his clones (Scarlet Spiders, KIA, and the one who took his place at home) than the original character, and these clones were never known as MVP. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above, many of the clone continue to use the full name (eg the Spiders being called Michael, Van, and Patrick) while the short term code name abbreviation isnt regularly in use. --- Paulley (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

So far we have two opinions, one that MVP would be widely recognised and the other that it wouldn't be. Some evidence would be good. Andrewa (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article focus
I personally find this article somewhat confusing? The article opens as if the focus is on the original character, but the clones should be the focus. Maybe it's just me, but I think this article needs some work. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)