Talk:Alan Partridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alan Partridge's badge[edit]

It deserves to be mentioned. Cognoscens me AHA Cognoscens Te —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


This Wiki reads too much like a fan site, with its 'fictional biography' et al. It would work much better if the information was presented in a non fanboy way, such as presenting the history of the development of the character by Steve Coogan, the radio shows, its transition to Television etc. I understand that there are dedicated fans out there who are so absorbed in the fictional 'realities' of the show that they appreciate a wiki that presents every subtle, and trivial 'fact' as found in the shows, but the rest of us want to find useful information on Wikipedia rather than a fictional biography of a fictional character.

Also, these pages contain many spoilers that people new to the show may not appreciate.

I dont really expect to reach a consensus for a re-write, but I think it is needed.

Sorry, didn't sign. M000558 16:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to trim out the fat from the 'character' section - it's useful to have a description of what the character's like, but as it originally was it was just too detailed. But yeah, the 'biography' needs some real trimming - it's longer than some real people's that I've seen on Wikipedia, and is just crammed with lots of trivial stuff.--Joseph Q Publique 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a character history. It doesn't even mention that Partridge was created by Lee and Herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Alan Partridge is the funniest man alive. I never leave these one-off messages but it's true. Marskell 22:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

House of the Dead 3[edit]

"While playing House of the Dead 3 against a child, "Shitty zombies!" -Are we sure it's HOTD3? It looked like Crisis Zone to me... Magic Pickle 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought there were zombies in Crisis Zone. While one could imagine zombie-like creatures running abound in HOTD3. And we all know how precise Alan is about defining his undead... Rockpocket (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any zombies in Crisis Zone - but the gun he's using is the one from Crisis Zone - pretty sure... Magic Pickle 12:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


I made a correction to the Radio series, the person who updated it recently (and they may have been building on something I originally, and mistakenly, wrote) said that Alan shot Forbes on the radio program. It happened on the final episode of the TV series. And it did not end his BBC chat career, that fate was sealed when he punched Tony Hayers on the 1995 Christmas special. User:Sponline 23 March 2006


I notice that someone who altered a comment said 'fictional characters aren't born'. That may be true, but how is it of relevance here? Alan Partridge is clearly a real person, as we live and breathe.

No, he's a fictional character. Jim Michael (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(Fictional) government minister[edit]

Why fictional? As the writer of (most - iirc) of the orginal piece, I don't really know why I used it - but several real people have appeared with Alan, including Clive Anderson, Bryan Ferry and Elton John. But you can take it out if its annoying you that much. User:Sponline 23 March 2006

Why the qualification? One acknowledgement at the top of the article is enough, there's no need to explain on a character-by-character basis. Guyal of Sfere 09:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A little too self referential...[edit]

Although beautifully written (almost as a good as Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNabb which, of course, actually improves with every read) some of the text in the article is a little too Partridgesque for the general reader. I've tried to tone it down a little without losing the light tone. Rockpocket 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


As much as we all love them, i fear the quotes sections is getting a little too comprehensive. The problem appears to be that every week or so, another editor appears and adds his or her favorite Partridge quotes. WP is not a collection of quotes, so i think we should think about pruning these and then limiting the addition of new ones. I'm not quite sure how to go about it, though. I would suggest starting with context. They have to stand alone to the reader unfamiliar with the subject.

For example, although the "Dan, Dan" scene is among my favorite of all time, it is really prety meaningless as a quote. The comedy is all in the context. Similar with the Chris Rea/Mini Kiev monologue. That isn't a quote, it is a scene. Finally, the "Oh Ladyboys" quote is a minor part of a larger joke (it was said as a gesture of disgust after taking a sip of the mixture). Its pretty meaningless as a standalone quote to anyone not familiar with the scene. Thoughts or suggestions? Rockpocket (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Am I right that Partridge got himself a Lexus because he thought it was a luxury car (presumably he was strapped for cash so couldn't get something prestigious)? I have added this to the Lexus page trivia section but it keeps on being removed (possibly by irate Lexus owners, who presumably have done a Partridge themselves!) DavidFarmbrough 07:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Alan considers Lexi (plural) to be "the Japanese Mercedes" [1]. I would say he is among the most famous Lexus drivers and deserves a mention in their trivia section. Rockpocket (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That is what I thought. He even got a mention when Top Gear were reviewing Lexi as a 'mark against' buying a Lexus. DavidFarmbrough 08:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Further to this, Partridge has affected the image of the Lexus to such an extent that he is referre to in Parkers] Price guide: "If you fit into Lexus' buyer profile for the IS, you're probably young, affluent and style-conscious. But that was before ex-Rover-driving, sports-casual-wearing Alan Partridge decided to buy one." So it's not just me!DavidFarmbrough 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Alan is now mentioned in the Trivia section of the Lexus article. Looks like he has managed to be deemed important enough! 23:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


In opening paragraph:- "Two radio and three television series..." surely "four television series"? The Day Today, KMKYWAP and the two series of I'm Alan Partridge??

I think, in this case, "series" refers to "shows" as opposed to "seasons" (to adopt the US terms). The character has appeared in three different series (of whch one had two, em, series). Perhaps the paragraph should say "Two radio and three television shows" to make that clearer. Rockpocket 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Morgan of Glossop died from an apparent heart attack...?[edit]

"and, in the series finale, his guest Lord Morgan of Glossop died from an apparent heart attack."

Where did this come from? Alan cleary shoots him in the chest by accident when looking at the dueling pistols! Hence why LMoG says "Be careful with that!", then the gun goes off and blood appears on LMoGs chest.

You are confusing the radio show with the tv show. The man Alan shoots on the TV show of KMKYWAP is Forbes McAllister; Lord Morgan of Glossop appeared on the radio version of Alan's show. 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I am struggling to find any reference in the programme to the car used by Alan t drive to Dundee. The article says the car was a Vauxhaull Vectra, but I don't believe this is the case. Alan went to great lengths to hold on to his Rover 800 in series 1 of I'm Alan Partridge, and has a Lexus in series 2. I can't recall a Vectra ever being mentioned.

  • I think this is just a comment made in conversation on one of the episodes- and was not shown on TV as such - and if I recall right Alan also says something like driving to dundee in bare feet too. That could be how the vectra comment came about --PrincessBrat 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on Cars[edit]

The section on Cars is esoteric and not important enough to be on its own. I've removed the section as well as cleaning up the rest of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. The article was starting to drift from the formal tone.

I'm Still Alan Partridge: the new series is coming[edit]

Isn't that just a working title of the second series of I'm Alan Partridge? There doesn't seem to be any new Partridge series in the works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alberon (talkcontribs) 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, and if you look at the dates on that page, it's obviously from 2002.

20:45, December 17, 2006 edit......[edit]

Just submitted a minor edit to the article. Few things added. I removed the following line ....

"In one episode, he seems protective of his personal assistant Lynn when they encounter a swinging couple who Alan describes as "sex people"."

.... as I don't feel that's the way things were at all. Alan feel protective of anyone?! Naaah! He just wanted to piss off as quickly as possible. He probably didn't want Dan and his wife to see the fat-deposits on his lower back. Now, if Mrs. Dan had been a ladyboy.... Gardener of Geda 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Character inspiration[edit]

I removed this entire section as original research. The only reliable sources were those detailing the similarity between Partridge and Wilson, which is already discussed in the previous section. Everything else is webpostings or discussion boards, or using comparisons to Partridge to illustrate a point about the individuals mentioned. For example, an article referring to Nick Owen as behaving like "Alan Partride on crack" is not an appropriate source for a claim that Partridge is based on Nick Owen. Rockpocket 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You bastard. I was looking for that section. I don't suppose you kept a list of the names? Couldn't you just have put {{Fact}} tags around some of them?
In fact, you could have just made sure that it said "Although no major inspiration has ever been mentioned by Coogan or other writers, it has been speculated that Alan Partridge is an amalgamation of x, y and z." It IS relevant that his character is a broad spoof of a certain type of "old school" TV presenter.


I've removed this link to a forum per our external links policy, as by its own admission has only 43 members, which isn't sufficiently notable enough: On 10th December 2005, the Alan Gordon Partridge Appreciation Society (AGPAS) was founded and has 43 members as of 26th January 2007.

Bob talk 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


does alan look like Gordon Burns?

Yep. I suppose he does. A little. Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

or is it just me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, I don't know. I don't know what you look like. Send in a photo and we'll give you an opinion. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC), gordon burns, and alan partidge 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean to tell me that you are Gordon Burns? Oh. Hi Gord! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
would explain why alan's middle name is "Gordon" - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)., 15:09, February 17, 2007
True, Gord. True. Tell me - your middle name isn't Alan, by any chance? That would be good, that. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 20:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

btw im not gordan burns... i was watching the krypton factor on ftn and i thought he looked like alan - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)., 00:13, February 18, 2007

Oooooohh - sorry, Gord. Imagine how embarrassed I feel now, thinking that you were Gordon Burns! I thought it was a bit strange that Gordon Burns would be writing in to Wikipedia telling people that he looked like Alan Partridge and not bothering to sign his posts, mind you, but stranger things have happened, I'm told. Yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This is ironic, im watching the Krypton Factor just now and Steve Coogan is guest staring in it 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ironic, Gord? No way. There's clearly a plot afoot. I reckon this Steve Cougar guy, whoever he is, reads Wikipedia and deliberately went on the program to flummox us. I'm scared. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Partridgedvd2.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Partridgedvd2.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Partridgedvd1.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Partridgedvd1.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bangkok Ladyboys is 'Bangkok Chickboys'[edit]

The sentence: " Hayers was not impressed, and Alan had to wrap up his production company Peartree Productions, firing all its staff. During his time at the Linton Travel Tavern, we discovered more about Alan's failed marriage, his children and his obsession with "Bangkok Ladyboys". "

Should have "Bangkok Chickboys" at the end...

Character inspiration strikes again[edit]

Although I note that it's been removed and replaced before, I have removed the section headed "Speculated character inspiration" as original research. Unless specific citations can be made for inclusion, it should probably remain here:

While it is likely that Alan Partridge is not based on any one particular real-life personality (but rather a composite caricature of various presenters from British television), it has been speculated that certain presenters might have inspired his creation. These have included Nick Owen, Fred Dinenage, Tony Wilson, Alan Titchmarsh, Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Madeley. Peter Levy is often jokingly cited as being the 'real' Alan Partridge.
The writers of Alan Partridge have yet to explicitly state who their inspiration was, if indeed, there was anyone.

Bob talk 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham!?[edit]

Dear, Jesus, God no. I'm not sure if I could think of someone less suitable to play mousey Lynne. Maybe Paris Hilton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Also, in the second series of I'm Alan Partridge recounts a story about a time <...>"

This is an example of poor grammar. There is no mention in the sentence of who recounted the story. I am making a change to this. DanTheShrew (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


"Also, in the second series of I'm Alan Partridge recounts a story about a time <...>"

This is an example of poor grammar. There is no mention in the sentence of who recounted the story. I am making a change to this. DanTheShrew (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi DanTheShrew, thanks correcting any mistakes, but you don't really need to point out every minor correction you make to this article on the talk page unless it's particularly controversial - an edit summary will suffice. Bob talk 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Best of the Beatles, Pete Best?[edit]

"... he describes Paul McCartney's band Wings as "the band The Beatles could have been" (by whom, his favourite album is, of course, Best of the Beatles, the joke here being that this album was in fact a cash-in effort by Pete Best that contained no actual Beatles music). "

It seems to me that the joke in question here is that Alan couldn't name any Beatles albums as his favourite, so he just said "The Best of the Beatles". I really don't think he was referencing some obscure thing involving Pete Best. Can anyone give some insight into this? Colleen3217 —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Exactly what I was thinking. Nothing to do with a Pete Best album, he could equally have said "The Beatles Greatest Hits" or something similar. Decorativeedison (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


How do we know he actually wants to be a ladyboy with 10 inch shoes on him? Could it be that he is worrying about being put in to a such scenario. I imagine he is day-nightmaring) if such a word exists. He is trying everything to kickstart his quagmired career. If he wanted to be a ladyboy, he would have given it a go already.-- (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alden Partridge, Norwich, New Hampshire, USA, born 1755[edit]

The Bill Bryson book, A Walk in the Woods, refers to a remarkable character Alben Partridge who was born in Norwich, New Hampshire in 1755. He was superintendent of West Point by the age of 30 and somewhat of a hiker. Is this coincidence or was the name / location any kind of inspiration for the Steve Coogan's character? --Maclauk (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bouncing Back[edit]

"It was met with positive reviews and was a commercial success, compared to his fictional last book 'Bouncing Back' which was panned by critics and didn't sell well."

This is in the section about the Partridge autobiography, I'm sure 'Bouncing Back' was just the book he wrote in the 2nd Series of IAP?

Does it really have any relevance to a REAL book that's been released? Wallhead3004 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire fictional biography section is a bit confused. Some subsections are entirely fictional information, apparently synthesised from various sources, sometimes with citations to individual episodes or books. Other subsections have quite a lot of out-of-universe information - the section about the movie is entirely real-life information, for example. I'm not sure quite what to suggest about this. I'd do some work on it myself only I'm not enough of a fan of the character to have all the necessary source material, and it's not obvious what facts come from what source. Ho-hum. Morwen - Talk 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Places of My Life[edit]

Steve Coogan is doing a mockumentary type program with the Alan Partridge character, this should be mentioned in the article but I lack the know how to implement it with references ect.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It aired over the winter and was...fine. Ceoil (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael's time in the army[edit]

It was said in an audio commentary by the writers/directors that if they decided to do a third series they would've revealed Michael was never in the army, completely understand if unrealized plans for a fictional friend of a fictional figure aren't article worthy, but just thought I'd mention it. -- (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It was kind of impled anyway. Remember the stuff with the spoon. And no, prob not worth mentioning. Given Coogan is second only to Carr in generating spin off, lets keep this page as canonical as we can. Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In-Universe tag[edit]

I tagged this article because there is too much original research which is not supported by third-party sources. The article really needs a good trim. Any takers? --John (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Alan is a twitcher[edit]

Under "interests," it says that Alan is into birdwatching. I don't think this is accurate. He "used to be able" to imitate the call of a partridge, which he attempts on Mid Morning Matters, but this could just be part of his interest in his namesake, which is references several times across all of the series. Please correct me if I am wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alan Partridge/GA1. 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)


 Done Popcornduff (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would put a bit more from the "character" section in the lead.
 Done 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.
 Done 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)
  • There's no work for ref 1.
 Done 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?
@Popcornduff: Yes. This is my main remaining comment. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Johanna: What do you think about it now? Too much? Not enough? Popcornduff (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: 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)
  • 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.
  • 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.
Reception and influence
Not done 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)
  • Also, I think you could reorganize this section to show reviews in chronological order so that it mirrors the history section.
 Done 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.
Not done 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)
  • In addition to the cite error mentioned above, ref 3 is dead.
 Done 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 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)

@Popcornduff: 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[edit]

@Ww2censor, Popcornduff, and Johanna: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? — 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor, Popcornduff, and Johanna:Any updates on this one ? — 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)

@Popcornduff: 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[edit]

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
Fantastic! Thanks for your work, and sorry this was such a protracted process... Popcornduff (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)