Talk:Simon MacCorkindale/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 13:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'll give this article a thorough read-through and report back in due course. SuperMarioMan 13:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Having read the article, I do not feel that the concerns expressed in the GA re-assessment in March/April have been satisfactorily addressed. Although I appreciate that there has been much copy-editing in recent months, the general quality of the prose remains below that which I would expect of a Good Article, and the article's MoS compliance (particularly in terms of its structure) is questionable. These points I shall expand upon below:

Prose

• I accept SilkTork's argument that the text is often unnecessarily "gossipy" - the register and tone do not seem to be sufficiently encyclopaedic. Examples that could benefit from re-wording or re-phrasing include "moving around" (lead section), "his break" (i.e. in the sense of an actor's "big break", Early Life and the United States), "stalled" (Early Life and the United States) and "re-connected" (Personal Life). There is a tendency to quote rather excessively from the interviews that MacCorkindale has given, when it would still be reasonable to re-write the thoughts that are being expressed using original language: sentences such as A "star pupil", MacCorkindale continued to act after graduating from the Theatre of Arts "until [he] felt confident enough to" direct "a seasoned performer". (dotted with quotation marks) are not as readable as they could be.

• In addition to the above, I did not find the text in general to be particularly engaging, mainly on account of the manner in which it lists MacCorkindale's various credits. To use the first paragraph of "Early life and the United States" as an example, the frame of reference shifts from 1973 (A Bequest to the Nation, play) to 1974 (Pygmalion, play) before returning to 1973 (Hawkeye, the Pathfinder, TV). There is nothing inherently objectionable about presenting the facts in a more or less chronological order, but here the combination of documenting both TV and stage appearances and covering each medium in significant detail reduces the continuity of the text. A non-chronological order that clearly distinguishes theatrical roles from TV and film roles could improve the accessibility of the article.

• Following on from my comments regarding quotation above, it is essential that quotations, if used, are accompanied by context. In its current state, the article frequently quotes someone's words without attribution - with reference to the subsection "Early Life and the United States", one sentence runs The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) told MacCorkindale that he was not an "eight o'clock actor", meaning that "at that time of night they didn't want viewers watching someone who sounded intellectual or who had an accent that was alien to their ears and, therefore, hard work when it came to listening." Is all of this in the words of MacCorkindale himself? It is unclear who, exactly, is speaking. If statements are unsupported, the tone comes across as perhaps more autobiographical and subjective than encyclopaedic and objective.

• Some other extracts:

• He had a brother, Duncan, while his father was an RAF Group Captain station commander. I don't understand what is being conveyed in this sentence - "while his father was an RAF Group Captain station commander", MacCorkindale "had a brother, Duncan"? Unless I'm missing something, the implication here is that, at some point, Duncan somehow "stopped" being a brother.

• Although warned that it would be a "negative"... This being a "negative" according to whom? I know that the context relates to accents, and how MacCorkindale's refusal to speak like an American was considered to be something that might count against him, but it may still be better to re-write this as "Although warned that this would put him at a disadvantage" (avoiding quotation), or something to that effect.

• ...Manimal losing out to the more popular "soap". Are the quotation marks necessary? Again, it is as if the article is quoting someone's words without attribution.

• Budget cuts also contributed to the series' cancellation as it was the network's most expensive series. Awkward - I would recommend re-casting this sentence.

• MacCorkindale was "never too comfortable as a young actor" and "always felt that [his] best time in the business would be around [the age of 50]." Wanting to return to a TV acting role, he signed on for Casualty. This disrupts the flow of the paragraph to a certain extent, which up to this point has been discussing how MacCorkindale found Bristol to be a convenient filming location (hence, the focus has already moved on from the casting stage to the filming stage).

Manual of Style

• The lead section provides a good summary of the rest of the article that follows, but (in accordance with WP:LEAD), requires more to establish MacCorkindale's notability within its first few lines. At present, the reader is simply informed that MacCorkindale was an "actor, film director, writer and producer" before being presented with an overview of his general life story. It would not be violation of WP:UNDUE to mention his six-year run in Casualty at a much earlier stage in the introduction.

• While some paragraphs (such as the first in the subsection "Canada and Return to the United Kingdom") are quite long, others are as short as one line (e.g. In the mid-1980s he was considered for the role of James Bond as a possible successor to actors Sean Connery and Roger Moore, but was not cast.) This produces an unbalanced feel.

• Serious consideration should be given to the article structure. The subsections "Early life and the United States" and "Canada and return to the United Kingdom" seem inordinately long when the information is arranged chronologically rather than topically and thematically. Since almost half of the latter subsection relates strictly to Casualty, why not place this information in a subsection of its own? As much as the article provides the reader with a thorough account of MacCorkindale's acting, it is not easily navigable. Hence, besides failing 1a and 1b, I am of the opinion that the article could benefit from stronger focus, and thus fails GA criterion 3b.

Although I do not want this review to sound excessively and uncharitably harsh, I believe that the article in its current form presents fairly extensive concerns pertaining to prose quality, MoS compliance and focus. Furthermore, I believe that such problems are unlikely to be fully addressed within the typical GA "on hold" period. I am therefore failing this nomination. Before re-submission to WP:GAN, I would recommend that the article be re-written from a topical rather than chronological perspective (a Peer Review may also be useful). This article has excellent promise, but I cannot honestly state that it satisfies the GA criteria at this time. Sorry. SuperMarioMan 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)