Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [1].

Michael Tritter

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Music26/11

I'm nominating this article for featured article because i got it up to GA status last year, since it had a PR, I have my doubts about the "Storyline" section, but I think the article is good enough to be nominated. Your comments on the article are of course very helpfull and appreciated. Thanks. --Music26/11 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, people. Most of the world looks at Wikipedia using IE, which can only display single-columns anyway, making this entire discussion moot. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70% and dropping Gary King (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm on Firefox, and I prefer a two-columns reflist. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to me, I use IE, so I don't see the difference between a single-collumned and a two-collumned reflist.--Music26/11 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:DetMichaelTritter.jpg - I see no need for this fair use image. I do not think we need a fair use image to convey this character, as claimed in the fair use rationale, particularly when there is a free image available (see WP:NFCC #1). The article provides no commentary on the character's appearance that requires the reader to have a visual representation of him (such as perhaps a giant bug monster might, for example). I do not think that the reader gains anything significant from this image, as required by WP:NFCC #8. Awadewit (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your points seem fair. But there are a few things I don't agree with. The image is taken on the set of House, which is a little bit significant, but that is just minor. The most important thing is that the image is a photo of the actor in costume and in character. The free available image is an image of the actor, not in costume nor character nor anything else. Plus, but this is just my opinion, if the image was to be deleted, the lead goes under the infobox wich looks a bit ugly (I think). I don't really mind if the image was deleted, but I would like the opinion of other users first.--Music26/11 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not mention the set or the costume - that is, there is no critical commentary on this image, a requirement for a non-free images. Note that at WP:NFC, the acceptable uses of images require critical commentary (with the exception of logos, stamps, and currency). If the article discussed this image, including the set and costume, I would agree that the argument for this image would be a lot stronger - but it does not. Unfortunately, ugliness is not a relevant factor in the decision. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've removed the image.--Music26/11 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. --Music26/11 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this, it shows that Television without pity is a digital asset of Bravo network (which is owned by NBC Universal), which, I think, makes it reliable.--Music26/11 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by sgeureka. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The toolbox still identifies variety as a dab. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I cannot explain that. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me neather, the article has only two links to variety, and both are correctly disambugated to variety (magazine).--Music26/11 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Music26/11 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by Sceptre.--Music26/11 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love using the libre image for the character, cheers on that!

    There're some inconsistencies between the article and its parent, as well as within itself as to what the name of the show is. It's sometimes referred to as House, M.D., sometimes only as House. Is there a rhyme or reason to where certain usages were included as opposed to others? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I've never really thought about it, I've renamed all of the links that said House, M.D. to House, since wikipedia depicts the show as house without m.d; (see this and this, both discussions regarding a move of the House article).--Music26/11 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : Disclaimer : I reviewed this article as part of the Peer Review process. Still, I'm pleased to say that the prose has mightily improved since then, especially the Storyline section. It meets all my expectations. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support (I was the GAN reviewer), but some minor issues before then:
    • Could we get a link to a recap or similar for each episode, as a way of bolstering the primary citations? TVGuide.com or even Television without Pity would probably suffice as a convenience link (best to go with straightforward recaps, though) (edit: actually TVGuide's are user-submitted. Find one where its staff created or similar.)
    • There's also some prose issues, but I think a light copyedit will catch them. Here's the diff, so make sure I didn't accidentally change any meanings. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy-edit, it really helps, here are a few comments it:
  • Why did you change Primetime Emmy Award to Emmy Award, Emmy Award refers to name of the award, but there are various kinds of Emmys (sports emmys, daytime emmys, primetime emmys etc.)
  • Why did you unlink perjury?
  • Why did you delete "however" in the reception. (sentence: "Morse, however, gained...")

No further comments.--Music26/11 20:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was trying to reword the emmy bit to be more straightfoward, if I lopped off a word by all means fix it. I unlinked perjury as I figured it was a common enough word, and removed "however" because it feels a little awkward to start out a new paragraph that way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back "however", since it shows that although the character mainly received negative responses, Morse didn't. The other points are explained clearly enough. Thank you very much for your help.--Music26/11 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found recaps yet? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know where to find them, but why exactly do we need them again? Is it so that readers can read what happened in the episode? I don't really see the point. Anyhow, if you can explain a reason to me, recaps can be found on Blogcritics, Entertainment Weekly or Television Without Pity. Blogcritics and EW are more critical, while TWoP (is also critical but) also describes the events of the episode.--Music26/11 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of Verifiability, recaps should be linked so that readers can confirm what happened in the episodes for themselves. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them.--Music26/11 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that takes care of my concerns, thanks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Weak support for no other reason than I feel wary of immediately supporting after a review where there was relatively little comment. I will come back for a final read-through tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support I've just given this a copyedit, and left a few inline comments there with specific questions. Altogether this is well done, and very close to FA. Maralia (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments Looking good! A couple comments to resolve before I support:
    • "Morse stated in a 2006 TV Guide interview that, although discussions had been made ..." You don't "make" discussions, and this needs to be switched to active voice so we know who had the discussions. The mention down in the Creating and casting heading needs active voice as well.
    • "When House refuses to take the deal, Wilson convinces Cuddy to stop prescribing House's Vicodin ..." We haven't been told that Cuddy was prescribing the Vicodin, so this doesn't make sense.
--Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, looks good now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I've done another copyedit, and I think the article now meets FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose by karanacs. [reply]

  • The quotation(s) in the lead should be cited in the lead. The rest of the lead does not need citations.
  • I think the storyline section might go into a little bit of unneeded detail. It reads like a play-by-play of every action the character took, and I don't see that as necessary. I don't watch the show, and the many details distract and confuse me a bit. A slightly higher-level overview would make much more sense for me, and those who want the nitty-gritty details might be able to better get them from the episode article.
    • Various copy-editors, have slimmed down the section to a readable prose. It used to be much longer, but if you can be more specific on your concerns I'll see what I can do.
  • What are the standards for referencing quotations from the show? Does this need a specific minute mark, so that someone could go through and verify?
  • The real-world sections are chock-full of quotations. At times, this feels like a bit much. It is not necessary to quote everything; paraphrasing can often lead to a much more readable bit of prose.

Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, I did some rephrasing in the reception section (and had to delete a ref while doing it), now every section has 7 quotation marks. Which is still too much, I think, if anybody could try and get every section up to a maximum of 5 quotations that would be great. I've tried, but it's hard.
  • Personality - 7
  • Creation and Casting - 7
  • Reception - 7 (originally 10)

--Music26/11 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • When the case ultimately comes to court, the judge sentences House with one night in jail and finishing his rehabilitation, telling Tritter that she thinks House is not the drug addict he tried to make him out to be. - change "thinks" to "believes".
  • Nevertheless, Morse was praised for his portrayal, and gained an "Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series" Emmy Award nomination for his appearance in the episode "Finding Judas". - "nevertheless" → "however".
  • When House attempts to leave the room, Tritter kicks House's cane so that House trips. - Remove "that".
  • In "Merry Little Christmas", Tritter and Wilson work out a deal for House so that he can keep practicing medicine if he pleads guilty and spends two months in rehab - Ditto with above.
  • I echo Karanac's concerns about excessive quotations. For example, every sentence in the Personality contains a quoted word or phrase. It would help to even remove some of the quotation marks to allow for straight prose.
  • The producers did not want a "bad guy" character, but someone "with the strength and presence to really stand up to House" and "as focused and as smart" as the doctor, so that House has to come up against a real force. - Remove "that".

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, based on the very first part of WP:WIAFA: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work." I think this article's subject – a fictional character of no great fame who appeared in six episodes of a not-very-serious TV series – is just too unimportant to be an FA. In other words, it can't possibly be our "very best work", because the subject is just too insubstantial. I'm fine with it being an article (and I don't mind that WP has ten jillion articles on fictional characters overall), and I'm okay with it being GA. But GA as I understand it was originally defined to be the goal for articles or subjects that weren't substantial enough to become FA, and I think this is such a case. And I think it would be embarrassing to the project if this ever showed up on the main page. Said with no offense to anyone involved, and the FA directors are free to strike my position if you've been through this argument before. But I just had to say it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not actionable FACs are evaluated on their content and presentation, the subject matter does not apply to whether an article is important or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Michael_Tritter&oldid=1197948810"