Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Van De Kamp/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:53, 22 September 2007.

Andrew Van De Kamp[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

User:Zythe, User:Elonka, User:Moreschi, User:Dev920, User:Erik, User:Paul730 notified.
  1. 1(a) - Someone might want to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Sentences like -- This hurt Andrew so much he believed the only way to deal with it was to stop loving Bree first, so when she rejected him, it would not hurt so much. -- hardly fall under "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
    • When Bree accuses Andrew of having a relationship with his friend Lisa, he merely laughs.
      • The prose is minor, it needs some copy editing and rewording, but not the major issue.
  1. 1(b) - Where's the information on how they created the character? Where's the information on the casting of the actor who plays the character? How about some character development from the writers, directors, and actor's POV? How come there isn't anything about what they've specifically done to advance the character through the years.
  1. 1(c) - From Andrew's hurt reaction to his mother's rejection of him, it appears that he deeply loves his mother, as his determination to hurt her in Season 2 is so he can "stop loving her first". He also loves and respects his father, and only Rex who can get him to stop tormenting Bree in Season 1, albeit briefly. Later on in Season 2, Karl, another strong male figure, has some similar success in forcing Andrew to stop harassing Bree temporarily. In Season 3, it is Orson, and not Bree, who persuades Andrew to return home and whom he continues to respect throughout the season. Andrew is very protective of his mother, as is shown in Season 2 when he attacks George after George tries to kiss Bree against her will, and then in Season 3 where he threatens Orson under the belief that Orson may hurt Bree. -- All original research. It's drawing conclusions based on actions. You cannot do this. Only verifiable, reliable sources can interpret a character, and his/her motivations. Simply reporting what is happening wouldn't suffice either, because then it would be just indiscriminate information.
    • While fans have heatedly debated his sexual orientation - Unverifiable. What fans? How many fans? Is that a significant number? Is that relevant in the wide scope of the article that should be directed to everyone, and not simply fans?
  1. 2 (MOS criteria) - Seems to fail WP:WAF and WP:PLOT.
  1. 2(a) - This takes up the majority of the lead:

    Andrew first appeared in the pilot of Desperate Housewives and had a recurring role throughout Season 1 as Bree's increasingly delinquent son. Eventually sent to juvenile boot camp, Andrew is removed when he told his mother he was gay. Although he later stated he liked "both vanilla and chocolate", claiming he had originally said he was gay to get out of the camp, Andrew refers to himself as gay in almost every instance. When asked whether Andrew was specifically gay or bisexual, Shawn Pyfrom stated "I really don’t even know at this point." Nevertheless, Andrew had seen how his mother reacted and believed that she would never accept him for who and what he was. This hurt Andrew so much he believed the only way to deal with it was to stop loving Bree first, so when she rejected him, it would not hurt so much. Andrew was made a regular character in Season 2, in which he deliberately set out to provoke Bree as far as he could. This backfired when, finally unable to cope, Bree abandoned him on the streets to fend for himself. Andrew returned home eight months later in Season 3 "a changed man",[2] but only making small appearances.

All of this is just plot information. Little too much emphasis on the IU. If the article was comprehensive then this probably wouldn't be a problem.
  1. 3 - There are three images in the "history section". None specify what their need actually is. They appear to just be eye candy, showing off the character of the article...which the image in the infobox takes care of.
  1. 4 - One of the biggest problems with this article is the lack of summary style in the "history" section. It is not impossible to summarize events of an entire season. FA criteria, WP:PLOT, even style guidelines clearly state that the IU information should not dominate the article. We have season pages and episode pages that catalog these details, we don't need them here as well. People can watch the show if they want the details of what the character did on the show. Wiki isn't a substitute for watching a television show. All these direct quotes from the show, completely unnecessary. What purpose do that serve? I can't see any other than stealing copyrighted material. There's a reason we have a Wikiquote, because lists of quotes are no encyclopedic information, and neither is a list of IU quotes surround by more IU information that doesn't assert why the quote is relevant.

Please see Troy McClure, Bernard Quatermass, Jason Voorhees, Jabba the Hutt, Padme Amidala, Palpatine, for good examples of comprehensive articles.... and specifically in regards to the plot information: User:Paul730/Buffy Summers#Television. Paul has managed to summarize seven seasons worth of appearances by a main character (Andrew is a secondary character) into a much more concise overview of the fictional character's appearances. I also suggest changing the title of the section to just "Character", like Bernard Quartermass, since this character has not appeared anywhere outside of the show. Saying "History" invites more extraneous details, as it suggests you want a complete description of everything in the character's history, which is not encyclopedic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the character history is a major issue. Try to focus on what Andrew's character arc was in each season and only mention key points rather than specific details. The way I see it, it would be something like:

  • Season 1 - Comes to terms with sexuality, tells parents and copes with their reaction, vows to punish Bree
  • Season 2 - Explores sexuality further with Justin, torments Bree, is thrown out
  • Season 3 - Comes home, repairs relationship with family, now close to and protective of Bree

Try to summarise that in about three short paragraphs is my advice. I also recall the creator of the show mentioning that Andrew was originally planned to be a minor character, and only became prominent after the casting of Shawn Pryform (is that his name?). If more information can be found, a "Casting/creation" section would improve the article a lot. Paul730 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and MoS issues (2). Marskell 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I have to vote to remove FA status. There are lots of issues that were brought up, but no one has talked about them, or just taken action to fix them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Per all the concerns mentioned above. This article is not FA quality and nobody seems to have made any effort fix it in the weeks since it has been under FAR. Paul730 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2. No progress made. Jay32183 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above arguments and lack of initiative. There are far more appropriate articles on fictional characters, such as the recently-promoted Jason Voorhees. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What has Jason Voorhees got to do with anything? Please judge each case on its own merits, they are completely different characters and should not be compared. I realise that user BIGNOLE wrote the Jason article (and that FAC and this FAR seem to have attracted his overzealous sycophants), but this FAR is not about trying to boost BIGNOLE's already over inflated ego.80.1.32.8 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep personal attacks out of this. If you look above, you can clearly see objective concerns about the article, as well as half a dozen other example articles to look at. If you are only here to criticize editors, then please leave, but if you are here to discuss the issues with the article--or take action cleaning it up yourself--please stay and share your opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mentioned Jason Voorhees because I consider it an example to follow. Andrew Van De Kamp does not serve as an appropriate model for articles about fictional characters. While Bignole and I have collaborated, we are critical of each other's work and do not hesitate to point out flaws. I don't appreciate the personal attack in my selection -- it is the "freshest" article on a fictional character available currently. If you'd like to impart your objective perspective of the status of this article, feel free to do so without attacking other editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I just want to point out that as almost the sole author of this article (with input from Zythe), I took the decision to dewatchlist both this FAR and Andrew himself because I was not prepared to wreck what I see as a perfectly good article to comply with the whims of some vengeful and tempramental editors. What this empty FAR has shown is that no-one else wants to as well. Delist if you want, but it's only a star - it's still FA quality. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the attitude that brought us here in the first place. Unfortunately, there are clear cut problems with the article, the most important of which is that it is not comprehensive--which is one of the requirements for FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been silent till now, but my understanding of FA quality has changed. I find while this would make a brilliant article for a Desperate Housewives website, for Wikipedia it requires more focus on out of universe context and less on plot summary. Making Andrew into an FAC wouldn't be impossible - there is some press which discusses the character, compares it with Stephen on Dynasty etc. which could all be used. ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Andrew_Van_De_Kamp/archive1&oldid=1036776170"