Wikipedia

Talk:Bib Fortuna/GA1

< Talk:Bib Fortuna
Latest comment: 4 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago44 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Sorry to see this languishing for so long - I'm happy to take a look, but, as it's a longer article, m review may be a little bitty! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • It strikes me as a bit odd to talk about applying the Fortuna outfit before you've specified who portrays him - honestly, I'd expect actors to be named in the opening paragraph!
    • I've seen it this way in other fictional character articles so I may have based it on that. It's basically because I thought of the creation of the costume as part of the "Conception and creation" of the character, which it seems to me goes before the portrayals. Also, the costume was designed chronologically before the actor played the character, so it made sense to me in that regard too. That being said, I can move the portrayal up if you feel strongly, and if you don't think it will mess up the structure of the article? — Hunter Kahn 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Sorry, I should have been clearer. I absolutely agree with your structuring of the article; I am talking specifically about the lead. Compare Luke Skywalker - Hamill's name appears in the second sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • I personally think it makes more sense to have Hamill's name that high in that article because the actor is so synonymous with the character, whereas with Bib Fortuna that's not really the case. However, I did rework the lead a bit so that the creators and actors are now in the second paragraph, which I think gets the info higher up without disrupting the flow of the lead. Does this work for you? — Hunter Kahn 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I think there are some issues with tenses in the article. My understanding is the fictional events should be presented in the present tense (unless they happen before or after the actual appearances of the character). I made some changes in the lead, but haven't touched the biography section; could you take a look at this?
  • "Fortuna had the monks remove Secura's brain before his body can be thrown to the rancor" I've not changed this as I suspect this will all need to be changed (per above), but this doesn't work!
  • "Carter wore lifts on his feet to make himself taller, as well as arm extensions,[53] and as claw-like finger extensions,[66][53] which were fit through fingerless gloves that Tippett said gave Fortuna "a spidery reach".[65]" Needs revisiting.
  • "Carter down other similar roles because he said" turned?
  • I wonder if it is worth giving Matthew Wood his own section in the appearances section, and then just have a couple of lines for other portrayals?
  • "and actor Rainn Wilson jokingly tweeted that he would like to play Fortuna in a stand-alone Star Wars spinoff film.[115]" Fun, but if we don't have a secondary source, I don't think it warrants inclusion.
  • "which was available only as an exclusive at FAO Schwarz." Ref?
  • "A rare encapsulated Bib Fortuna action figure that will be included in an auction in Pennsylvania in November 2019 is expected to seek between $10,000 and $75,000.[147]" Update?
    • Unfortunately I don't think there have been any follow-up stories about how much it actually fetched. :( I did change the tenses to past rather than present though, now that this date has passed. — Hunter Kahn 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • A few more (free!) images wouldn't go amiss.

Other than that, it reads very well - please double-check my edits.

A first quick very look at the references:

But I need to look more closely.

Stopping there for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Images:

And sources:

  • The Chris Fuller source... I don't think student newspapers really cross the line in terms of reliability. It's not sourcing anything controversial, though, so if you want it there...
  • Dark Horse Comics is a publisher, not a publication - it should not be italicised.
  • Page number for the McGovern source?
  • "Reid, Georgina (January 11, 2001). "I was a monster hit but it's so good to be a human again". The Sun. p. 6." Ah, bad news - The Sun is out. (See WP:THESUN.) I think that's all going to have to go unless other sources can be identified.
    • Fortunately the majority of information that came from that source was also attributable to other sources. I've removed the citation tags, as well as whatever info came solely from the Sun source... — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Page numbers for the Kingsport Times-News source?
    • I got that article from NewsBank. Most NewsBank entries have the page number as well as the publication and date it ran, but some do not, and this one didn't. So I don't have a page number to add, unfortunately. — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • (I know some editors get concerned about extensive quotation in references... But I can't see there being too much of an issue here.)
  • Page numbers for the Tim Martin source?
  • "Note: The Daily Telegraph has released multiple versions of its list of the best Star Wars character, and the rankings are different each time. To avoid confusion, this article simply states that Bib Fortuna was included on the newspaper's list, without including a ranking." I don't really like this self reference. Could you not just list them separately?
  • The Swardson source: You don't italicise StarWars.com, but you do elsewhere.
  • Page number for Las Vegas Weekly?
  • I think there are a few borderline sources that might create a headache at FAC - Bleeding Cool, Fox News, some very small local newspapers. But don't worry about them now.

Other than The Sun and the the tweet, none of these sourcing comments are anything like deal-breakers - they're more just things to help along the way to FAC, where I hope this is headed. If you do not want to make any of these changes, the only things that need to be looked at are the replies above, The Sun, and the non-free image rationale. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hunter Kahn: Pinging in case this was missed. I am still a little oversubscribed on Wikipedia, so definitely no rush from my end. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bib_Fortuna/GA1&oldid=955036064"