Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kurt Hummel/archive1


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:47, 14 June 2011.

Kurt Hummel

 * Nominator(s): HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel is quite a fascinating character to grace the screens of television these days. He's a representation of how gay people struggle with bullying in high school, is often regarded as an icon for the gay community, and is referred to by critics as a "fashionista". Originally a background character, he's grown into one of the more complicating leading character's to be featured on Glee. The article is currently a Good Article, and has undergone a peer review and two copy-edits. A lot of work has gone into bringing this article up to standards, and I think it has a chance to be a Featured Article here on Wikipedia. This is my first nomination. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm unfamiliar with Glee, so this might sound odd, but would it be possible to get an image of Kurt for the infobox under fair-use? Also, in it's current state, it seems pointless to have both File:Chris Colfer (Glee).jpg and File:Chris Colfer 2011 Shankbone.JPG so close together. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now there is a fair use image File:KurtHummel.png, but I didn't know whether or not to keep it before nominating. The rationale right now is to highlight the high class wardrobe the character wears which is quite different from the way Chris Colfer dresses in real life, but I didn't know it if it would pass the FUR. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a question which has come up a few times recently on the NFC talk page, and an issue on which I am personally undecided. From the pictures, the character and the actor don't look all that different- they even do their hair in the same way. However, it would obviously be improper to lead the article with a picture of the actor not in role, as the actor =/= the character. Not an easy one to call. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at a few other articles about TV characters and non-free images seem to be ok to use on a fair use basis. Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson and Bernard Quatermass are all FA class articles and have non-free images. I would put it. Coolug (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Publications like Los Angeles Times should be italicized
 * Use a consistent date format
 * Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc
 * Ref 6: publisher?
 * Why do you sometimes include publishers for newspapers and sometimes not?
 * In general, reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
 * The author of this site has a restricted profile - can you expound on their expertise/qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went through every source and rearranged them. Does this look more consistent now? Also, AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com is a media website that posts news pertaining to LGBT people/characters. The site was founded by Sarah Warn in 2002. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but who is the author of that particular article, and what qualifications does that author have? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was written by journalist Lesley Goldberg, who has worked for the Los Angeles Times, and Frontiers in LA magazine. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Sources need a lot of work. The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Out TV Guide and many others need to all be italicized as they are magazine/newspaper publications. You need to check for a lot of formatting inconsistencies. For example, the cite news and cite web templates are not used properly throughout: refs. 50 and 61 are from Entertainment Weekly, and each use a separate template; Boston Herald should be cited using a news template; ditto for ref 57. Ref 83 uses the news template, but it's not used for ref 7, even though they're the same work. A number of citations lack publishing information or have general important information missing: ref #1 has no publishing information, although the same work is listed with a publisher in other citations, the same for refs 34, 53, 23, 20; refs 10, 44, 54, 71, 35 etc etc need publisher info. To be honest, while it's sometimes excusable for websites to lack publishing info., there should be no reason for it to be missing in newspaper and magazine citations; ref 85 has no retrieval date; ref 39 lacks both publisher and work. For ref 75, Atlantic Media Company is the publisher, and should not be italicized- the work is The Atlantic (publisher found for ref 60!). There is also a lot of general inconsistencies: Why is IGN italicized in ref. 24, but not italicized in refs 21, 32, 43, 54, 55 etc? Refs. 41, 42 and 47 are from the same work, but written/formatted completely differently, all lacking a publisher. Also, for ref 47, E! Online isn't published by E!, but by NBCUniversal. Should websites be italicizes? PR Newswire is italicized in one citation and not italicized in another. I doubt this is a high-quality reliable source. I'm sure you can find the same info on a more reputable website. Oran e  (talk)  08:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If time permits, I'll see if I can help you with some of these citation errors. You've done a great job on the article, but as I've learned, references are just as important as the article itself, and need to be just as consistent and professional. Oran e   (talk)  08:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding your input. I'm going to try to look over those sources again ASAP! HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just went over and smoothed over the kinks in the sources. I think it looks better now. Can you take a look? HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks a lot better now. There is still a couple minor errors, but not enough for me to still object. For example, For ref 47, work should be "CBS News" and publisher should be "CBS Corporation". Ref 54 is not formatted properly, and ref 53 is missing the work field (which I'm assuming is IGN); ref 66, 69 and 73 should all be using the citenews template. For ref 29, is "Starry Magazine" really the publisher? If not, leave the field blank in the template. It's better to have missing info than incorrect info. Oran e   (talk)  22:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just went and fixed all the small problems you mentioned here. Is there anything else that might need work? HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're all good. Oran e  (talk)  23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. I really wanted to do the copyediting myself here, but there's a bit more than I have time for, and a lot of judgment calls I don't think I have the answers to. I'll just throw out the sentences and words I ran across that seem problematic. If you can get some copyediting help, that would be great, I'd like to see the article pass. This is all from the lead section:
 * "Glee follows the trials of an Ohio-based high school glee club mostly seen as a group of outsiders and rejects": trials, Ohio-based and rejects aren't quite right, and a definition for "glee club" in the text would be best, although some writers prefer to handle this with a link ... you offer a link, but not at the first occurrence of the term.
 * "a glee club ... Kurt is a member of New Directions": the reader will wonder at this point whether you're talking about one or two glee clubs.
 * "His storylines focus on his struggle with his sexuality as he comes out to his father and deals with his crush on the glee club co-captain.": Well, if this is what the best secondary sources say, then that's fine, but from memory, in most of the scenes he appears in, he's advancing a wide variety of plot lines and integrating well with the students. This description makes it sound like he's oppressed, brooding and solitary.
 * "He subsequently encounters a homophobic classmate": Better would be "After a homophobic classmate [does specific thing] at [specific point in the season], Kurt ..."
 * "Colfer describes Kurt as projecting a very confident "I'm better than you" persona, but ultimately being a typically scared and anxious teenager.": Since your POV shifts here to Colfer, the paragraph break would work better just before this sentence. When that happens, the middle paragraph will look skimpy; more detail would be helpful.
 * "usually concentrating on show tunes": again, going from memory, most of the time he's singing, he's singing whatever the group is singing, so he doesn't really concentrate on show tunes in practice, even if he prefers them.
 * "Kurt's occasionally complex relationship with his father has been a focus for the show.": This would be better combined with the similar sentence in the second paragraph.
 * "Colfer and the series' writers have received critical praise and awards for how Kurt has been portrayed, including Colfer's winning Best Supporting Actor at the 2011 Golden Globe Awards.": Skimming the article, I don't see any award won by the writers, but I might have missed it. If this is true, then I wouldn't lump Colfer and the writers together as the subject of this sentence, I'd break it into two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, looking at Glee (TV series), I see the show won the "2010 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy", which is sort of an award for the writers. Per WP:LEAD, if you say that someone or something won an award in the lead section of this article, then that should be backed up in the text of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just fixed up most of your comments. What do you think? HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not great, but as I say in my standard disclaimer, publishers are more interested in good writers than in writers with good copyediting skills, so don't sweat it, keep writing. You might ask for help with the copyediting at WT:GOCE or possibly WT:LGBT. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.