Talk:Frank Underwood (House of Cards)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Done
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: NA
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: good
Done
|
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
|
Done
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:
6: Images Done (NFC with a valid FUR)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:
- "When Urquhart ... machine-like ambition. Even his affection for his wife is a calculation."[3] (Check on source 3, partly successful, "The British ... machine-like ambition.", Even his affection for his wife is a calculation is not in source 3)
"I love that woman, I love her more than sharks love blood."[3] (Check on source 3, unsuccessful, it should actually be cited to source 11 which has ""I love that woman," Francis Underwood says to the camera at one point about his wife. "I love her more than sharks love blood."")- Refs swapped.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis (MOS:INTRO). The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
- Major Point 1: "Underwood was born ..." (Background of Underwood, not covered in the body)
- I can only source hometown.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Major Point 2: "During season 1, he is a Democrat ..." (should be a summary of section Season 1)
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Major Point 3: "In season 2, he is ..." (not covered in the body)
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Major Point 4: "... narrative technique that breaks the fourth wall ..." (not covered in the body, the term fourth wall appears only in the lead)
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK)
- Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response (not covered in the lead)
- I think I got this now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Major Point 1: "Underwood was born ..." (Background of Underwood, not covered in the body)
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm glad to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Refer here. The difference between the two revisions is the addition of two sentences in the lead. They are: "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise." and "The character has also been Golden Globe Award- and SAG Award-nominated.". The latter sentence belongs to the Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK), which was never an issue. The former sentence belongs to the Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response for which the lead still does not provide an accessible overview and does not give Relative emphasis. Please compare the due weight given to these two points in the body and the lead. In fact, you've hardly addressed any issues raised in the review since the article is on hold. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The current version (after last edit at 05:04, 18 January 2014) of the article is here. On applying the above checklist to the latest version, the issues identified are:
- Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): Done
- Major Point 1: Background and description "Underwood is from Gaffney … speaks in a southern dialect." (not a concise summary of the Background and description section)
- Major Point 1.1: Underwood vs. Urquhart "" (not in the lead)
- Major Point 2: Season 1 "During season 1, he is a … " (not a concise summary of the Season 1 section)
- Major Point 3: Season 2 "In season 2, he is the … " (summarised well in the lead)
- Major Point 4: Critical response "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise … vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." (not a concise summary of the Critical response section)
- Major Point 4.1: Awards and nominations "" (summarised well in the lead)
- Check for Relative emphasis: Done
- Major Point 1: Background and description "Underwood is from Gaffney … speaks in a southern dialect." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
- Major Point 1.1: Underwood vs. Urquhart "" (not in the lead)
- Major Point 2: Season 1 "During season 1, he is a … " (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
- Major Point 3: Season 2 "In season 2, he is the … " (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
- Major Point 4: Critical response "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise … vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
- Major Point 4.1: Awards and nominations "" (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
- Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): Done
- Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. (WP:BETTER).
- Section Season 2 needs to be fixed.
- Short paragraphs need to be fixed.
This nomination has been on hold for 7 days. I'm going to fail this nomination due to above issues. If you resolve the above issues at a later date, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted my review closure as per discussions in the GA forum. However, I'd like to resign from this review. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note to any new reviewer: I believe I have addressed the concerns above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Outside comment: This article bases all its information on what has been revealed in Season 1 of House of Cards. In 3 weeks (on February 14), all of Season 2 will be released, doubling the amount of information on Frank's character, background, actions, etc. It's unavoidable that the article will change a great deal quite rapidly at this point. I think this may introduce stability concerns, per criterion 5. If it were just season 4 or 5 that were about to be released, I wouldn't think the amount of new information would be enough to create a problem. And in an ordinary TV show, where new episodes are released once each week, this might not be a problem. But the amount of new information that will be released, combined with the fact that it will be released all at once, combined with the nearness of the release date—put together, that makes me think that a GAN really shouldn't pass until after season 2 is out (and after critics have had time to give sourceable analysis). – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- The content won't nearly double. Maybe it will expand 20%. Most of the content will be unchanged. It is not like he will become a new character with a new background, style and history. He is not going to switch parties, change accents, get a new wife, recognize a new hometown or stop breaking the fourth wall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're right that much of Frank's personality and background is likely to remain stable, but I'm not sure if we can know how much or how little his character will change. If he were to, for instance, become President of the U.S. (mere speculation, but not impossible), then that fact would belong in the lead sentence. Chapter 8 of Season 1 abruptly showed that Frank was secretly gay, or at least had a homosexual relationship in college, which was totally unexpected; I think it possible that further unexpected and character-changing revelations will occur in Season 2. (I'm not taking over and failing the GAN for criteria 5 concerns; I'm merely raising the issue so that whoever takes over this review can take it into account.)
- Speaking of which, why is Frank's former homosexual relationship not mentioned? Reliable sources at Slate, AVClub, and a NYT blog mention it. – Quadell (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard of it or seen mention of it before you pointed this out. I will add it now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)