Talk:Clark Kent (Smallville)/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cirt in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Good article nomination on hold
editThis article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Good article structure and flow, but a bit heavy on the in-universe stuff. There are some comments from secondary sources sprinkled throughout the article, but a bit too heavy reliance on primary sources and lacking secondary source commentary and thorough discussion.
- There is no requirement for secondary sources, they are merely preferred. As for the "in-universe" stuff, the only "in-universe" stuff is in the "Appearances" section. The discussion of Clark in the show from the perspective of the people that are writing him is not "in-universe", it's actually "out-of-universe". Granted, if I come across some secondary source that I can use to replace the primary source, I'll be sure to do that (or just take it on as an additional source).
- This is just a helpful suggestion, but I am sure it is something that would come up in a peer review, and definitely would be a hindrance at FAC. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for secondary sources, they are merely preferred. As for the "in-universe" stuff, the only "in-universe" stuff is in the "Appearances" section. The discussion of Clark in the show from the perspective of the people that are writing him is not "in-universe", it's actually "out-of-universe". Granted, if I come across some secondary source that I can use to replace the primary source, I'll be sure to do that (or just take it on as an additional source).
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, nice job on the cite structure of the cites to primary sources, would have been nice to see a bit more usage of secondary sources, however.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: There is a major gap here. Apart from a brief bit of info on awards received by Welling for portrayal of the character, there is nothing on commentary about the character and reception in secondary sources. How have trade magazines received this incarnation of the portrayal of the Clark Kent character? Reviews in television publications throughout the series? Newspapers? Books analyzing the show and popular culture - have they discussed this character? This could be an entire additional subsection titled something like "Reception" and perhaps even an additional subsection "Analysis in secondary sources" or "Themes", etc. The lede has Tom Welling has been nominated for multiple Teen Choice Awards and Saturn Awards for his portrayal of Clark Kent since the show began its first season. - but there really should be at the least a few good substantial paragraphs on reception of this portrayal of the character in secondary sources.
- Difference between "Broad coverage" and "Comprehensive". What you are asking for is comprehensiveness. Per the GAC, "it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." I agree it should be there, but I'm still in the process of finding that information, at which time it will be a comprehensive article, whereas now it is merely broad in its coverage.
- This is a big sticking point for the GA Hold status. Basically this article is descriptive, but not analytical at all. I am sure that this character has been discussed in many secondary sources, but we don't have any representation of that in this article, and that is a major defect of the article. It is not a matter of simply being "comprehensive", though it should be - it is a big obvious gap. It would be like having a film article with zero information about box office performance, and critical reception. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, because you're comparing information that IS present for all theatrically released films with information that isn't always covered for every television character, let alone their show. It would be like comparing it to analytical information about a film (e.g. themes) which isn't always done for every film. You're forcing your opinion that there must be secondary sources to create a whole new section in a GA article that IS already broad in its coverage. FA says, " it neglects no major facts or details", while GA says, "it addresses the main aspects of the topic." It does address the main aspects of the topic, and the main aspects of a topic are those directly related to it. Now, the major facts about a topic would clearly include things that aren't necessarily covered by the people close to the project, but by outside interpretations and coverage of the topic. Also, there is "analysis" of the character, it's merely done by the people who take part in the project. The crew makes note of analyzing Clark and Lex's relationship. They also note the Christ-like symbology of the character, which is backed up by a two secondary source that makes the same connection. I disagree with your opinion that we have to have an entirely new section created just be considered "broad in coverage", as I think you're asking for "comprehension" and not "broad". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There has got to be plenty of information and discussion of the Clark Kent character in Smallville out there in reviews of episodes, general reviews of the series, and perhaps direct discussion and reviews of the character itself, in multiple secondary sources. This should be included in this article or else otherwise it is very deficient and lacking in this area, and is just chronological plot summary with some background data on the character and in-universe material. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm working to find it, but you'd be surprised to find out how little they actually discuss Clark, or Tom, in those sources, from the perspective of anything analytical. I can do a google search and turn up dozens of results, but going through them and finding something of value is completely different (I'm not the type of editor that adds fluffed, vague, descriptions from TV critics and the like. Substance is the key, and there isn't a lot of substance out there. I agree, the article will be deficient without it, but it will be deficient for FA status, not GA status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There has got to be plenty of information and discussion of the Clark Kent character in Smallville out there in reviews of episodes, general reviews of the series, and perhaps direct discussion and reviews of the character itself, in multiple secondary sources. This should be included in this article or else otherwise it is very deficient and lacking in this area, and is just chronological plot summary with some background data on the character and in-universe material. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, because you're comparing information that IS present for all theatrically released films with information that isn't always covered for every television character, let alone their show. It would be like comparing it to analytical information about a film (e.g. themes) which isn't always done for every film. You're forcing your opinion that there must be secondary sources to create a whole new section in a GA article that IS already broad in its coverage. FA says, " it neglects no major facts or details", while GA says, "it addresses the main aspects of the topic." It does address the main aspects of the topic, and the main aspects of a topic are those directly related to it. Now, the major facts about a topic would clearly include things that aren't necessarily covered by the people close to the project, but by outside interpretations and coverage of the topic. Also, there is "analysis" of the character, it's merely done by the people who take part in the project. The crew makes note of analyzing Clark and Lex's relationship. They also note the Christ-like symbology of the character, which is backed up by a two secondary source that makes the same connection. I disagree with your opinion that we have to have an entirely new section created just be considered "broad in coverage", as I think you're asking for "comprehension" and not "broad". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a big sticking point for the GA Hold status. Basically this article is descriptive, but not analytical at all. I am sure that this character has been discussed in many secondary sources, but we don't have any representation of that in this article, and that is a major defect of the article. It is not a matter of simply being "comprehensive", though it should be - it is a big obvious gap. It would be like having a film article with zero information about box office performance, and critical reception. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is where we differ, for I certainly feel the article will be deficient for GA status as well. Like I said, this would be as if it were a film article with zero Reception section at all. I am not saying that this is a direct comparison, just an analogy. We wouldn't pass a film article as GA if it had all the other subsections with excellent writing and information, but no Reception information whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, since you seem to think that there is this abundance of information of that sort out there, then please, show me, because I have been searching for it. And please don't give me some Google results, because, as I explained above, that means nothing when it comes to what is actually written in the articles. There is a difference between a film article that was theatrically released (virtually guaranteeing coverage from secondary sources), and a television character (who only garners 4 million viewers a night, which, if it wasn't on the CW, would have killed the show a long time ago). If that's your decision then fine. I do continue to work on the article, when I do have everything that can be put in here, I'll simply bypass the biased GA process and go straight to FAC. - That, or I'll just challenge the review and bring in additional opinion, because I feel like you're asking for FA standard for a GA article that IS broad. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is getting silly. Surely there are reviews of Welling's performance in various episodes, and reviews of episodes themselves with commentary on the character and the character's development, commentary and discussion by television reviewers on if they appreciate when a particular power was revealed and when and how it was discovered, Clark's family as depicted in the program as compared to other series, etc. I would be absolutely shocked if this sort of information was not out there in abundance in secondary sources over the years. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- His family would have nothing to do with this page. As far as episodes go, have you noticed that there aren't a lot of individual episode articles for Smallville? There are two currently, and there isn't a lot of potential for too many more based on my searches. Again, I don't believe in fluff. Go read some of those TV character articles a little more closely and you'll find things like, "IGN loved character X in this episode." And then that's where it ends. THAT is not encyclopedic, in the least. I don't do that, and refuse to put that in any article. If that's what you're looking for, then fail this page now. I've seen editors take something like this "Interestingly enough, Smallville has added a spunky Lois Lane, who happens to be Chloe’s cousin, to the equation. Poor Chloe" - and turn it into, "Star-Ecentral felt that Smallville's Lois Lane as "spunky". Really? I mean, really? What does that have to do with anything if you have no idea why they think that? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is getting silly. Surely there are reviews of Welling's performance in various episodes, and reviews of episodes themselves with commentary on the character and the character's development, commentary and discussion by television reviewers on if they appreciate when a particular power was revealed and when and how it was discovered, Clark's family as depicted in the program as compared to other series, etc. I would be absolutely shocked if this sort of information was not out there in abundance in secondary sources over the years. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, since you seem to think that there is this abundance of information of that sort out there, then please, show me, because I have been searching for it. And please don't give me some Google results, because, as I explained above, that means nothing when it comes to what is actually written in the articles. There is a difference between a film article that was theatrically released (virtually guaranteeing coverage from secondary sources), and a television character (who only garners 4 million viewers a night, which, if it wasn't on the CW, would have killed the show a long time ago). If that's your decision then fine. I do continue to work on the article, when I do have everything that can be put in here, I'll simply bypass the biased GA process and go straight to FAC. - That, or I'll just challenge the review and bring in additional opinion, because I feel like you're asking for FA standard for a GA article that IS broad. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll leave you with the full allotted standard GA Hold amount of time to see if you can find some info/commentary/analysis/discussion in secondary sources as requested in my above comments. After the 7 days let me know if you would like more time. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Difference between "Broad coverage" and "Comprehensive". What you are asking for is comprehensiveness. Per the GAC, "it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." I agree it should be there, but I'm still in the process of finding that information, at which time it will be a comprehensive article, whereas now it is merely broad in its coverage.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Talk page collaboration appears congenial, and apart from a few IP edits to watch out for in the future, edit history checks out as well.
- 6. Images?: Only one image - Image:ClarkCommencement.jpg, with appropriate fair use rationale on image page. Passes here, but would be nice if there were ideally some free-use images relating to production, or even just one or two free-use images of Welling.
- Free images of Welling himself are useless, because they would still add nothing to the article. We have a non-free image that takes care of what Welling looks like, but, and more importantly, is an image of him in "character" (as cheap as that sounds, since he's just wearing a blue shirt...but there is information about the color theme for the character so it makes better sense to use that image). As for free images related to production....there isn't a lot of "production" info on Clark Kent. It isn't like the show. He's a character, and an image cannot illustrate how they write a character. Maybe if I discover some themes running in the character from reliable sources then maybe some visual imagery, but again, that falls on the idea of expanding the article to comprehensiveness. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is just a suggestion and not a requirement for GA Status. Specifically, what I meant was production stills of Tom Welling in the character of Clark Kent, working on the set. I do think free-use images of Tom Welling himself would also help to complement the article, if possible. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There don't really seem to be free images of Tom Welling, which is probably why his own Wiki page doesn't even have an image. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, something you may wish to try to address in the future. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wish I could, but I don't live in Vancouver. :D Plus, I don't trust a lot of those images are ... whatever that website is called that has people's uploaded images... because I see people uploading screencaptures and claiming they are free. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- You could always try posting to the WikiProjects of areas like WP:WikiProject Vancouver, WP:WikiProject Canada, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wish I could, but I don't live in Vancouver. :D Plus, I don't trust a lot of those images are ... whatever that website is called that has people's uploaded images... because I see people uploading screencaptures and claiming they are free. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, something you may wish to try to address in the future. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There don't really seem to be free images of Tom Welling, which is probably why his own Wiki page doesn't even have an image. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is just a suggestion and not a requirement for GA Status. Specifically, what I meant was production stills of Tom Welling in the character of Clark Kent, working on the set. I do think free-use images of Tom Welling himself would also help to complement the article, if possible. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Free images of Welling himself are useless, because they would still add nothing to the article. We have a non-free image that takes care of what Welling looks like, but, and more importantly, is an image of him in "character" (as cheap as that sounds, since he's just wearing a blue shirt...but there is information about the color theme for the character so it makes better sense to use that image). As for free images related to production....there isn't a lot of "production" info on Clark Kent. It isn't like the show. He's a character, and an image cannot illustrate how they write a character. Maybe if I discover some themes running in the character from reliable sources then maybe some visual imagery, but again, that falls on the idea of expanding the article to comprehensiveness. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I have responded to some of your issues. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have responded, yes, but not actually addressed the points themselves. The article is still deficient in one big area. See above. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hope you haven't forgotten about us. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have responded, yes, but not actually addressed the points themselves. The article is still deficient in one big area. See above. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Passed as GA
editThank you for trying to address my above points. Hopefully in the future there may be some available free-use images, and it would be nice to see the Reception section expand a bit further as well. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)