Talk:David Tapp

Article rationale

I wanted to put this little bit here just so that this article wouldn't get deleted. This is a deserving article not because Tapp was in Saw, but because he was the player character and protagonist of Saw: The Video Game. Most major video games have pages of their own for their player characters/protagonists. This is simply what this article is. The fact that Tapp was in the first film and Saw V is just extraneous information that supplements the article.

So, this is not like the articles for Kerry, Rigg, Adam, Gordon, etc that just are trying to make minor film characters have their own page. If Tapp wasn't the entire center of the game, he would not even come close to earning his own article. Basically, this is a good article with enough info to sustain itself with more info to come (like an interview from Danny Glover or Earl Alexander, development of Tapp, reception, more on characterization, more appearances if he appears in other material, etc). GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Danny Glover interview

I found a link for an interview with Danny Glover on Saw/Tapp HERE and I was wondering if since I can't do it, if anyone could view and put down key quotes and paraphrase his interview parts concerning Tapp into a "Danny Glover" section of this article similar to the Shawnee Smith section of the Amanda Young article? Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. GroundZ3R0 002 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Tapp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MoS issues

• The lead is a tad too short. I would recommend either adding several more sentences to that paragraph or, alternatively, expand to two paragraphs.
• The first sentence in the lead should be present tense, i.e. David Tapp is a fictional character...

Prose issues

• In the Saw subsection, As Jigsaw was able to hide his identity when his lair was raided, Tapp is still convinced that Lawrence is Jigsaw, unknowing that Lawrence had been abducted and is currently in a trap of his own. → So Tapp is convinced that Lawrence is Jigsaw because Jigsaw was able to hide his identity. The logic flow doesn't make sense. Two other things: (I think you may also have this problem throughout the rest of the article.) try to stay consistent with your verb tense (it tends to go from past to present or vice-versa), and split that passage into two sentences as it seems to drone on.
• Same subsection: Tapp and Sing find Jigsaw in his lair, but fail to arrest him due to Jigsaw non-fatally slashing Tapp's neck and Sing falling victim to one of Jigsaw's traps. → Again, the logical flow doesn't seem to make sense. So they fail to arrest him because Jigsaw slashes Tapp's neck and because Sing falls into one of Jigsaw's traps? I'm not even sure if you need to mention the fact that they failed to arrest him. You may need to rewrite that sentence so it makes more sense.
• In the Saw: The Video Game subsection, Upon Tapp finding and saving her, Melissa leaves Tapp to deal with his other tests. → I don't know if it's the usage of the word upon here, but it seems like when I read this and the previous sentence or two that I'm missing something. Can you tweak this sentence or add something additional in there so it makes more sense?
• In the same subsection, Jigsaw informs her that Tapp had ignored ... which was the reason Steven was killed. → I think you're implying that Tapp's failure to call for backup was why Steven was killed, not necessarily getting a search warrant. If I'm incorrect in that premise, then disregard this. Otherwise, tweak that sentence so it makes more sense.
• In that same subsection, ... she stages her kidnapping ... and Tapp moves to the next test. → It drones on a bit and sounds a bit wordy.
• In the Comparison to other Saw characters subsection, Eric eventually beat Jigsaw, who was arrested earlier, against the rules of his test instead of waiting for the SWAT team to trace the location of his son's test. → Did Eric beat Jigsaw against the rules, or did he arrest Jigsaw against the rules? Reword that sentence and clarify.
• In that same subsection, This same flaw is also shown ... currently in Jigsaw's test at the time. → That sentence is too long and drawn out and needs to be split up. I recommend splitting after the word "procedure".
• In the last part of the second paragraph in that same subsection, resulted in him being killed ... due to being framed. → I'm not quite understanding. He's killed and then left as a suspect?
• In the last paragraph in that same subsection, This same flaw ... Jigsaw's test at the time. and Eric eventually beat Jigsaw ... of his son's test. → Both these sentence are a bit long and wordy and needs to be chopped up and made more concise. Stick with one complete thought per sentence in order to keep readers focused.
• Quite a few instances you use the phrase "Upon ...". Try to change those instances so that the "upon" is removed and that you're not using an "-ing" word as a result.
• In many places in the article you all of a sudden switch from present to past tense. Unless you're talking about fictional events that happened in the past, keep it in present tense. That means you have to change the verb tense in some of them to present.

Verifability issues

(This is the deal-breaker here)

• Over 3/4 of the sources are primary sources. To have a good article on a fictional character, you're going to need more reviews and coverage from reliable secondary sources.
• While I'll let Internet Movie Database slide here as that reference is only used for actor identification, your last reference (from MobyGames) is not reliable since reviews from that site are user-generated.
• The "Comparison to other Saw characters" I'm afraid is particularly problematic, as you're relying almost completely from primary sources (either from the films themselves or from the official website) to compare without any backing from secondary sources. This is considered original research.

Coverage issues

• The article seriously lacks critical coverage of the character. In order to have a complete, neutral article about Tapp, you're going to need some coverage in reliable sources.

Image issues

• The fair-use rationale behind File:David Tap Saw The Game.jpg is not strong enough and likely does not meet the WP:NFCC. Remember that non-free images are only supposed to be used if not having them will greatly limit readers' understanding of the article.
• I don't think you need both File:David Tapp in Saw (Danny Glover).jpg and File:Detective-tapp.jpg (that is, they both convey the same thing to readers, and per the NFCC, you should only have one of them). I would get rid of one of them, and the one you keep should be the one you use in the infobox.

Conclusions

• Review is still underway, but I have to leave all of a sudden. –MuZemike 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not passed – I'm sorry, but I cannot pass this article for GA at this time due to the significant issues in which I have listed above. While the prose and MoS issues can certainly be overcome, (I've given you a head start on prose.) the other issues are too pressing, which you have to work on yourself (i.e. I cannot help you on that). Here are my suggestions for you to help improve the article and hopefully get it up to GA someday:

• Find more coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic; that is, sources besides the films themselves, the official website, directory listings, or other unreliable sources such as user-generated content, blogs, or Internet forums. This will also help you expand those sections which may be under-developed as well as establish a "Reception" section for the character.

• Go over these two extremely helpful writing guides, "How to improve your writing" and "Noun plus '-ing'". Both of those essay will help your writing in future articles as well as this one.

• When you felt that you've made enough improvements on the article, submit the article for a peer review first. That helps you in that a different set of eyes will be looking at the article and will be able to pinpoint issues and problems that you may not have seen yourself.

When you feel that you have made the above improvements and think the article is good enough for another GAN, feel free to re-submit it. –MuZemike 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)