Talk:Andy's Play/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to give this one a review.

Straight forward things first:

• No duplicate links - there was one, but it was actually a double link to Angela Martin went the second one should have been to Angela Kinsey. All fixed now.

• References: I've no doubt that it is a reliable source since you've used it, but could you explain the rationale for OfficeTally being reliable? Vulture I'm happy to accept straight away due to the link to New York magazine.

  I've used it to cite an interview that Ed Helms did with the site. While it is a fansite (that is well-renowned; the founder, Jennie Tan, even appeared in the series' finale, and writers and directors often participate in Q&As for the site), the interview itself is a primary source from a notable and reliable person (in this case, Helms), and its used only to expand upon an element of the production. That's why I used it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Now for the proper review:

• Lead: "Robert Mammana as actor playing Sweeney Todd" - probably should be "Robert Mammana as an actor playing Sweeney Todd"

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Random thought - surprised there isn't an article for Robert Mammana, I did a quick Wiki search for him and he's been in Star Trek Voyager and Enterprise, so I might end up finding sources for him eventually anyway!

  Yeah, I was kinda surprised he didn't have one either.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Anyway, back to the review:

• Reception: Personal note - I'd link tablet through to iPad and phone to iPhone. But that's just me, you don't have to.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image: The image is fine, but you don't need to link Ed Helms in the caption as he's already linked prominently in the article.

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is everything, the prose as always is good and with a couple of very minor changes it easily meets the GA requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed or explained all the issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's great, I'm happy for this to be graded as a Good Article now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• You are all aware, I presume, that this article, describing an episode of a television show (television being a visual medium) was passed to GA status without a single image of the work in question, due to, IMHO exaggeration and improper interpretation of WP:NFCC elsewhere, and a failure of will about what really is meant by "good" here. I think there is a need for GA review criteria to expand, and demand rich content where possible, and refuse to pass to GA articles about visual media, but which include no visual media about the subject of the article. IMHO this is not yet a good article, because it's about visual media, but fails to visually support the article prose, stated and cited from multiple RS. New readers of this article, especially those who have seen the episode, may legitimately wonder why there's no image. Indeed, why does Wikipedia do so little to support understanding of subjects in visual and performing arts articles with relevant, RS-supported images?

There was a screencapture showing a frame of the scene of Andy fumbling on stage with his phone (File:Andy_checking_phone_on_stage.jpg), a key comedic point of the episode, described explicitly, and published widely in three RS reviews. IMHO, it added significantly to understanding of the play, enhancing the prose in the way only relevant images can. If there was ever a reason to include a non-free image about a TV show episode in an article, this was it, and, IMHO, it passed all WP:NFCC.

Here's the FFD with my inexperienced response to experienced, determined deletionists, the deletion from the article, deletion review all accomplished in defiance and misinterpretation of NFCC#8, by people who IMHO misinterpret and selectively enforce misrepresentations of policy, and consistently publicly label those who actually want the literal policy enforced as written, as somehow wrong.

The freebie image of Ed, by the way, actually adds literally nothing to the understanding of the episode.

I would like GA reviewers to stop accommodating deletionists; that is, refuse to promote to GA articles about visual media which would concretely benefit from an appropriate non-free image which meets WP:NFCC. --Lexein (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an entirely irrelevant location for you to post that. Take it to WP:NFCC. Miyagawa (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I just also wanted to say so that I'm not coming across harsh that I understand what you're saying, but as a member of the Star Trek WikiProject which just had quite a lot of fair use images culled from episode articles recently - I am quite familiar with what is the expected requirements of the criteria right now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Belated thanks, understood. --Lexein (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)