Talk:Criss Angel

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

beLIEve: Spike TV[edit]

Angel debuted a new TV show entitled "Criss Angel: beLIEve" on Spike network October 15, 2013 where he performs various stunts and tricks, similar to his other TV show from A&E "Mindfreak". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeLIEveCA (talkcontribs) 02:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Criss Angel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Right - I'll do this one - loved his shows. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Can you caption the images and give basic info (where and when taken, and who is in the second one)
  • Ensure all refs have dates formatted the same way (look at accessdate of FN 103 for example)
  • Given the size of the article, the lead should be bigger - aim for two paras each about the size of what's currently there (i.e. double the lead in size)
  • I'd split the first sentence in the Early life section - avoid run on "and"s
  • By the time he graduated from East Meadow High School, he decided to pursue a career - I'd make it "had decided" - pluperfect tense here
  • The last sentence about his Greek decent sits oddly where it is. I'd try and get it near the beginning of the section.
  • With his career, how was he selected to go on TV in 1994...any info here would be good.
  • ... in a "water torture cell" - if this is the name of the device, doesn't need to be in quote marks
  • where he was "Shackled and submerged in a phone-booth-sized tank of water in New York's Times Square" - rewrite without quotation marks - should be straightforward. Use quotes only for memorable ones, as the quote marks are jarring to read.
  • To prepare for the trick, he practiced in a neighbor's backyard swimming pool next to his mother's house in East Meadow, New York, and prior to the performance he had only managed to spent 12 consecutive hours in the water. - the "and" sits oddly - would split the sentence there.
  • ...and was named one of the best shows of the summer - state by whom
  • I'd link root canal
  • Is there any more discussion on how he does his tricks? That'd be good to add.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cas Liber. I have followed your advice on each of these points and made changes to the page accordingly. The one item I had trouble with was an explanation as to his 1994 selection. I was able to find a non-RS source (an unsourced undergraduate essay) that claims he was chosen because he was willing to reveal how his magic tricks were done, however I cannot find an RS that supports this. So while the information is out there, I'm not sure there is a reference we can use to add it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Aah, this is not uncommon - nevermind, leave out until something turns up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a great quote in this on how he feels about mediums which gives a good insight,
  • I note there is some material on google books. though not accessible for me in Oz. Can you access any of these or get them in a local library?
Thanks Cas Liber, I have taken your advice and added in material from the Newsday article, in addition to some additional material I found regarding how he has revealed his tricks and box office information. In terms of Google books, those with free previews are only travel books talking about his show and a comedian skewering him for a joke, so I'm not sure there is additional material available there. There is a preview for his own book, but I'm not sure if including material from it will help as it is a primary reference. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - I was umming and aaahing over breadth of coverage WRT GA status for a few days. Ultimately I think if one were trying for FA then one would need one or more of the books, but as it stands the coverage is broad enough to qualify for GA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great, I will keep that in mind as I revisit the article over time! Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK Excerpt Possibly Incorrect...[edit]

According to this, Cris Angel's TV show was "the first weekly magic show to air in over 40 years;" I can verify that this information is at least partially false because just a few years ago I used to watch a weekly secrets-of-magic revealed show--that said, I would not have any problem if there was a distinction made between a magic show and a magic-exposed show. I'm just wondering about this for clarification purposes. Thanks! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 18:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, it is the first show to focus the performed illusions. A show that does not focus on illusions wouldn't be a magic show persay. However, what is the show you are looking at, perhaps I can research the origins/broadcast information to clarify the information on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeremy; the show in question is called Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed and aired for a while on Fox. We actually do have an article on it; all I was wondering was if it could be merited as a "magic show" due to its nature, after all, many of the tricks exposed in this show are extremely advanced tricks that an illusionist such as Criss may perform. :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
I've taken a look--there were only four non-weekly shows broadcast in the 90's; the show didn't become weekly until after Mindfreak debuted in 2005 (the weekly Breaking began in 2008). The airdates for the original Breaking were not consecutive, as can be seen here, thus the original incarnation was not a weekly series :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
For more of an RS this book described it as a "four part show" and not a weekly series. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, no problem here. I was just wondering...on another note, I do remember seeing this show for several months a couple of years ago on Fox very late at night where I live. I'm not sure if it was a sequel to the four part show, or if it was different entirely, but I do remember it. :/ მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014[edit]

96.227.201.157 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC) In your article, you describe the "Implosion Escape" by Criss Angel. The article is totally false. The show was promoted as "LIVE", yet the escape was done using a pre-recorded video of him picking locks on the way to the roof. It was only LIVE until he reached the first door inside the building. His claim that the original purpose was to reach the roof helicopter is totally false. FOXTV revealed the pre-recorded tape on their news broadcast the same night the show aired. "Criss Angel Mindfreak" was loaded with tricks that were done by video effects (Digital Compositing, edits), etc. Example: Levitating from buildings. Shots real that this 3 minute illusion actually took hours to shoot and are full of edits. Why does Wikipedia post claims that are sp obviously false, and wont allow comments to show the truth?

[citation needed]
And read WP:Not Censored, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and WP:Verifiability -- Your claims of Wikipedia posting obviously false claims and not allowing comments to show the truth are ridiculous. Get off your soapbox, cite a reliable source (instead of giving us your personal claims, because as far as we know, you're making up or are confused about what you saw on TV), and then we'll add it.
Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)