Talk:George (Blackadder)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. I'll be reassessing this article against the GA criteria in this individual reassessment, as I believe the current article does not meet the GA criteria.

In the meantime, the article has at least one unreliable source: "The Student Room", which is a forum anybody can edit/post to making it unsuitable for use as a reference. The 'Reception' section is quite short, clocking in at 2 or 3 sentences. Is there wider information available that you can use to expand it?

Those are my initial thoughts and (esp. the sourcing) my basis for starting this reassessment. I'll return after I've gone through the article more closely. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the info from the The Student Room ref, I couldn't find a reliable source to back it up. I looked for a long time to find sources to expand the reception section, but was all I could find, I think a reception section should be as long as possible, with a minimum of three reviews. This section has three reviews. Feel free to expand.--Music26/11 12:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

It is generally well-written. The article uses British English and US English throughout, however. Examples: world war I as well as the first world war, or 'modeled' as well as 'trousers'. The article should be consistent in whichever it uses. Although the show is British, with both styles used I don't know which is preferred by the article's main contributors to make adjustments. Done

Could you clearify what you consider British English, I usually try to write using American English, but I used a lot of info from the original page.--Music26/11 12:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either is acceptable. The usual approach on Wikipedia is to respect the existing predominant style used in the article, which generally means the style chosen by the original primary editor; rewriting or substantially rewriting an article from scratch probably wipes the slate clean. The reason for that approach is to avoid disagreement caused by people converting articles back and forth between their preferred style. Some WikiProjects stipulate one preferred style for their articles. An example, is the Doctor Who project which stipulates British English, on account of the shows British origin. Parent projects (like television) aside, there's no active project in this case.

As for the differences, whole books have been written on the topic. Usually, it comes down to people changing color to colour, z=>s and using periods inside quotations, etc. I brought it up because the mix of both (First World War and World War I; trousers vs. modeled) was slightly jarring. You can use whichever consistent style you wish. –Whitehorse1 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses fiction using the past tense. Consider using the present per WP:TENSE. –Whitehorse1 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, sorry. I completely forgot about this reasessement until it suddenly popped up on my watchlist. Almost all of your concerns have been adressed now (I think), most of the sources you presented (thanks for those) were a bit difficult to put in and I've been unable to expand the reception section (if you figure something out that's fine with me). Anyhow, I'm going to change the past tense to present tense and then I will leave you a message. Again, my apologies.--Music26/11 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I look at it I think past tense is better, since most of the stuff already happened. I read the WP:TENSE guideline and feel I do not break a rule or anything by not writing the article in present tense.--Music26/11 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness; focus

It would be nice to make more of the issue of its representation of upper class young men being sent to war for which they were ill-prepared or malsuited. You use a book by Ian Stewart and Susan Carruthers, does that go into further detail? Done

There are barely any sources that compares the "ill-prepared or malsuited upper class young men" with George. You can read the book I used as a ref online with Google Books.--Music26/11 13:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first section hinted at it. If there aren't sources comparing them that's fine. We can only work with the material we have. –Whitehorse1 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development section

~~It mentions Laurie's later appearances as a guest star. It omits a role mentioned in the linked articles, in Blackadder II episode "Chains" as German Prince Ludwig. Worth including?~~

It mentions Laurie's appearance in the final two episodes of Blackadder II, one of which was his appearance as Prince Ludwig in "Chains".--Music26/11 13:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'd asked as the same paragraph spells out the episode in which the previous actor (McInnerny) had guest-starred. –Whitehorse1 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

Does the Television Without Pity book give any detail on why or on what basis they deemed Laurie one of the "best actors"? The other two quotes are more specific. Done

No, sorry.--Music26/11 13:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the quote from The People newspaper, did they just give a passing mention while discussing programmes generally, or were they covering it in some depth? Done

Laurie's performance was only mentioned briefly.--Music26/11 13:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. –Whitehorse1 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a good job searching out those sources. From what I could see there's not much written on the character. I had a look through LexisNexis to see if I could find any more. Most items were just passing mentions of the role. Are you able to do anything with these? –Whitehorse1 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blackadder has cunning plans for the dome; Millennium." The Sunday Times January 17, 1999.
"Rumours over the past decade that Blackadder might return in the guise of a 1960s hippie, a Conservative MP or an astronaut all proved unfounded."

Sydney MX (Australia). "Goss & Glam"; Pg. 26. June 22, 2006
"Blackadder could be revived as a film, star Stephen Fry revealed ... writer Ben Elton has thought about a one-off special, set in the last days of the tsars. Fry, 50, told a webchat: 'Ben wanted to do a Blackadder movie set in the Russian Revolution, with a Russian branch of the family. He had some brilliant ideas maybe that'll happen one day.'"

"Blackadder's wartime portrayal was not that far from reality." This is Brighton and Hove November 11, 2004
"[Academic] Esther MacCallum-Stewart argues the average Tommy was more like Hugh Laurie's stiff upper-lipped Lieutenant George in the BBC comedy series than a despairing war poet [Wilfrid Owen]."

"Guilt and the goggle-eyed gargoyle; Embarrassed but unspoilt by his success as upper-class twit, Hugh Laurie is making the best of being a good sort." Independent May 12, 1991, Sunday. p14. Mark Lawson
"Among his contemporaries, Laurie [is] significant for adapting what are principally the skills of a silent comedian: the ability to produce a laugh from a facial expression. There is a particular Laurie expression, which he gives to what are pejoratively called upper-class twits, it is a look which combines huge benevolence towards others with satisfaction towards self. The comedy comes from the fact that the character, operating on a different mental time-zone, is unaware of all the reasons he has not to look so happy. His Wooster wears it, as did his bewigged Prince Regent (thick as a whale omelette) in Blackadder the Third. In Blackadder Goes Forth, set in the trenches of the First World War, his George maintained the expression until shortly before being slaughtered (perhaps the most audacious ending in sit-com history) by the German guns. Only on the edge of being sent over the top did he ask for: Permission to feel scared, sir. Laurie's portrayal of these types cannot strictly be called a send-up, as they contain more than a little sympathy and an element of close observation."

I also came across two academic papers online which analyze the show's humor using linguistics:
- A linguistics humour analysis journal paper focusing heavily on Blackadder, exploring "hyper-understanding" and misunderstanding in interactional humor. (Brône, Geert. 2008. "Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor." Journal of Pragmatics 40, no. 12:2027-2061)
- A paper analyzing the humor of Blackadder through a pragmatic analysis using Gricean maxims, and rhetorical analysis against Bergerean rhetorical techniques. (Kalliomäki, Laura. 2005. “Ink And Incapability”. Verbal humour in the TV-sitcom Blackadder: a pragmatic and rhetorical analysis. Pro Gradu Thesis; University Of Jyväskylä Dept. of Languages.)

They're a little heavy (unless you've studied linguistics I suppose; I haven't). I'm not saying use is required. But they might be useful for adding critical analysis expanding the depth of the Reception section. After remaining loose ends are tidied up the assessment will pass of course. I just wanted to throw those out there as a suggestion to see what you think. –Whitehorse1 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The non-free-use rationales for the images that show the various incarnations in period costumes could use some beefing up.

Sources

It appears Regents: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases may be not be a reliable source. A Google Books search locates the book, and its preface shows it is part generated by free-licensed Wikipedia content (like a mirror site). It shouldn't be hard to find an alternative source if necessary, and I could help if needed. Done

If you don't mind. I don't really know where to look for history sources. This link was copied of the Prince George page, so if you find another source you could replace that one too.--Music26/11 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'you mean George IV of the United Kingdom? It doesn't include that book. It's a featured article and while promoted to featured a while back, it seems amply-referenced, perhaps improved since promotion. A search ("George IV" "Prince Regent" +1811 +1820) turned up any number of Google scholar or books results; I chose and added one.

Just going to add one for the review. If you Wikilinked something in a citation once, you don't have to Wikilink it again in a citation.Mitch/HC32 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

Out of pure curiosity: The talk page has a few wikiproject banners. I saw that the WikiProject Blackadder page has an "Inactive" banner at the top; activity on the related articles is steady though. Perhaps it's worth reactivating to some degree?
There were some potentially useful items in an anniversary retrospective show. Apparently there were a few of these put out, which used the same interviews and anecdotes. I could find out the details if you think they're usable. Here're some very rough notes. Do you think any of these worth using?

'George represented the tragedy of posh people thrown into war, like Rudyard Kipling's son.'

Pefect triangle of two cretins with Blackadder in the middle (director Richard Boden?)

'a truly brilliant performance of a foppish regency idiot' (Ben Elton)

tragedy was 'His idea about war came from games' (Hugh Laurie)

Result

Sourcing and the significant prose concerns are now addressed. I've conferred with other reviewers, too. I'm going to close this GAR as a Pass at this point. For further improving the article do look at the improving those image rationales, plus fleshing out reception or critical analysis coverage. Thanks, Music2611. –Whitehorse1 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]