Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [1].

Mark Speight edit

Nominator(s): -- how do you turn this on


I have been working on this article for a while, and following a short peer review, I now believe it meets all the FA criteria. One thing that does bother me about this article though, that I can't really fix, is there's no free picture of Mark available. It would certainly improve the article. If anyone knows where a free pic of him could be obtained, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent article. Thanks for any comments. -- how do you turn this on 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is the only Flickr image [2], perhaps you could ask the uploader to allow its use on here? Gran2 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but note they have been asked already (see the bottom comment). I guess asking again couldn't hurt, if they realize it could vastly improve a (potential) FA, and (possibly) appear on the main page. I don't, however, have a flickr account, and am unfamiliar with how it works. -- how do you turn this on 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that twice, I remembered I asked him a few days after Mark died. I doubt it'd do much good if I asked again, so perhaps you could contact someone with more image related experiance? I don't know anyone off hand, so let's just wait and see if anyone else could come up with some suggestions. The rest of the article looks pretty good. Gran2 17:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have asked the owner again here. Let's see what he says. -- how do you turn this on 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has said no. Oh well, it was worth a try. -- how do you turn this on 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Death and legacy" section needs to be broken up into multiple paragraphs. Long blocks of text hurt my eyes. I'll try to give a bit more thorough review than at the PR, and add info where necessary. Cheers. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- how do you turn this on 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images - There are excessive non free images, one should be removed (WP:NFCC#3). What efforts were made to obtain freely licenced pictures? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. -- how do you turn this on 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 2 is lacking a publisher
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a publisher. -- how do you turn this on 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have more references for the fact that the newsround broadcast made some children upset? It is briefly mentioned in the reference you have, but a BBC reference would clarify the situation at their end in some depth. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added another reference, and expanded a bit. -- how do you turn this on 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments—I can't comment on the prose, but it seems as if you have solved all the issues raised currently. This is quite an interesting article, and I admit that I didn't know who Mark Speight was before reading this—a sad story. In any case, I believe that this meets the FA class requirements, especially since the image issue seems to be largely resolved and everything to do with the references has been fixed, as well. Good luck! JonCatalán(Talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undistinguished prose: Oppose. Tony (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's saveable, but needs attention from a new collaborator. Here are examples of what I mean, at random.[reply]

  • "art related"—strange and coy epithet. And there's something missing, anyway.
  • We have "16" and then "fourteen". Where's your boundary? Please see MOSNUM.
  • Clunky and over-long sentence: "Speight was a presenter on See It Saw It, where he met his future fiancée Natasha Collins, and took part in live events, such as Rolf on Art and his own Speight of the Art workshops for children." The wife thing doesn't quite fit in unless you break after it.
  • "He attended"—what, his father?
  • Second sentence in "Career": "He" to avoid repeating the surname. Tony (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the above points. -- how do you turn this on 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they were merely examples from the top. What about the rest? I took a random look-see: "He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of murder and of supplying class A drugs,[14] but he was released on bail until the first week of February." Remove second "he"; the "but" is not logical. I see the Jbmurray was scolded for helping. Tony (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I read the whole thing last night. A well-written biography from what I can see. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this could have been an over the top tribute piece, but it appears very factual, neutral and is engagingly written. No disambiguation problems etc.--Tufacave (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm leaning support, but this is one of the few cases that I actually agree with Tony about the prose. My main beef is with the sentences which continually start with "He.... He...." Mix it up! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a few issues for me...

  • "He gained an art degree, and heard of auditions..." - this flows badly for me.
Fixed I think. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speight was a presenter.." - was also a presenter as he did it simultaneously SMart didn't he?
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What made Rolf on Art any more a "live event" than any of the other shows he recorded?
SMart, See It Saw It, and basically everything else were pre-recorded. Rolf on Art took place in real time. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childline should be ChildLine.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was not ultimately charged" - "was ultimately not charged"?
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allegedly from the stress of Speight's" - I don't think you can die from stress - physiologically it was alleged she had suffered a stroke brought on by the stress of the loss.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He said he did "very badly" at school due to bullying" - "...at school as he was a victim of bullying..." makes it unambiguous.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Bilston art school the official name of the place? Should it be Art School? Or was it simply an art school in Bilston?
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link Bilston twice isn such quick succession.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its first edition" - certainly a personal opinion but since this is Brit Eng, we very very rarely refer to the first episode of a series as the "first edition".
What is it referred to as then? Episode is for a sequencial series, such as a soap. A series that doesn't have any continuity doesn't have episodes. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect Burridge's quote should be specifically cited.
It is, at the end. It would seem to me to be unnecessary to have it twice. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Josie D'Arby then Kirsten O'Brien in 1999." - both in 1999? That's how it reads, so just checking..
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's ITV?
A British television network. Linked. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should make a clearer distinction between the children and adult shows he was involved in - right now you start with working with Mallett, followed by History Busters (which I'm surprised is redlinked) and then onto See It Saw It. It's a bit muddled and for non-UK-TV readers is confusing.
Well, I have to disagree. I've ordered them from less important to more important. I ended with See It Saw It so I could move on to Collins without the subject changing dramatically. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He began dating her after she was involved in a car accident..." - reads strangely again. Chronologically I suspect you're spot on but the way it's written implies a causal relationship between her car accident and them dating. Is that so?
I've tried to reword it. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speight also had a regular slot on This Morning, The Heaven and Earth Show,[1] The Big Breakfast[4] and was a contestant in ITV's Celebrity Wrestling.[8]" is oddly positioned, after the brief description about he and Collins. I'd move it to the rear end of the discussion over the other shows he was in. It's probably the "also..." bit I didn't like.
Fixed, I think. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " involving going to Borneo in March 2008 and training" - ...ing ...ing ...ing... reads poorly.
Only one now. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "originally a one-off one year project that lasted eight years" - confused.
How so? -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he usually became involved in" - too many words for something so simple - and then you provide a single example of his "usual involvement".
Removed "usually". -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "questioned by police, since he was the" - no comma and replace since with as.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some chronological disorder in the Arrest section, Jan, Feb, Jan, Mar, Feb, Apr....
It only mentions February the first time because that's when he was bailed till. I fixed the other instance. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two police officers also spoke to him, as he appeared "vacant", but he refused their help." - what were the circumstances under which the police decided to talk to him?
I don't know why they did, but they did. Added some other adjectives which hopefully clarifies. I think they were concerned about him. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link Wood Green tube but not Queen's Park. Why?
No reason. Linked. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was reported missing the following day by family and friends..." really? Not by one person?
Yes, really, see the source. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and legacy section has two very short paras - merge or expand.
Done. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resumed inquest " - you didn't say the inquest had been adjourned..
Added. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says two suicide notes, but "suicide notes had been found in his left pocket, and one addressed to his parents in his diary at his home" implies more than two..
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it made children watching it cry" upset children viewers?
Yes. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 2008" vs "In May, 2008" - comma consistency please.
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the above issues, except where I have noted otherwise. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - it seems reasonable. Could you any more additional references? Such as books or televised broadcastings? The BBC site is particularly useful for linking it to videos. Other than this I can it is acceptable. You've got my vote. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for books on him, but nothing seems to have been written about him. I will of course look for broadcasts of him. Are there any particular that you think I should look for? -- how do you turn this on 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that offers what the article already has stated or more. It's more relevant that way. Such as his appearances on television shows. Interviews. And more importantly his death. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to a photo gallery. -- how do you turn this on 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find any videos? Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are various YouTube videos showing the report of his death (the Newsround one is there). I'm not sure how suitable YouTube would be though. -- how do you turn this on 11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be acceptable. For example if it does say BBC or similar in the video then it should be appropriate to use in an article. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the link I added OK? -- how do you turn this on 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems not. -- how do you turn this on 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but remove Jay Burridge dead-link or, even better, create the article. Dalejenkins | 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created a very tiny unreferenced stub... -- how do you turn this on 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think a few other knowledgeable editors should go over it. The word 'councellor' doesn't inspire confidence; I presume it should be 'counsellor', but equally 'councillor' might be intended. --79.75.111.140 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Numerous prose issues. I started to do some copy-editing, which can give an indication of the kind of work necessary, but was asked to stop. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked you to stop. I asked you to stop adding hidden comments that I won't see, and instead bring them here like everyone else has where I will see. -- how do you turn this on 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And would it be too much to ask what the issues are now? Or am I supposed to be able to read minds? I fixed all the issues you "raised" on the article itself. If you'd list your issues here (where I'll see them) I'd be extremely grateful. -- how do you turn this on 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those were sample edits. Reviewers are not required to list every single problem with an article, merely to indicate actionable issues with reference to WP:WIAFA. The issue is prose, as per criterion 1a. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't, but if they're going to claim there's an issue, it's helpful to actually bring it up. How do you suppose I go fixing a problem I know nothing about? -- how do you turn this on 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've brought up the issues: prose, plagiarism, MOS. I don't have to point to every instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I fixed them all to the best of my ability. Please help me with this, instead of trying to make enemies. -- how do you turn this on 13:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also plagiarism. The line "They planned a fancy dress wedding, and Collins joked with friends that Speight wanted the venue filled with monkeys, his favourite animal." is taken more or less word for word (and was even more so before I raised a query) from the Guardian obituary. That's simply the first source I checked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that's the one it's cited to, no surprise there. Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not fixed. You've simply added new problems. Your edit adds a brand-new grammatical mistake, and distorts the meaning of the source. I'm changing now to a strong oppose. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you didn't bother to fix this, I went ahead. But I think all the quotations should be checked, so I'm not withdrawing the issue of potential plagiarism and/or distortion. The two that I looked at (this one, and one from the Telegraph regarding the Newsround controversy) were either plagiarized or distorted. According to the accessdates, the vast majority of the references were last looked at long before you even arrived at Wikipedia. You should have checked them before taking this to FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As you didn't bother to fix this" Why are you being so aggressive and nasty about this? Have I irritated you enough? I checked all the references; I wasn't aware it was a rule they needed updating. As you've finally given me an actual issue with the article, instead of vague unhelpful comments and assumptions of bad faith, I can get on with improving Wikipedia. -- how do you turn this on 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing to strong oppose because I made a grammatical error? Good grief. And you can't even have the decency to tell me how to fix it. We aren't all brilliant article writers. -- how do you turn this on 13:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not changing to strong oppose because of a grammatical error. The distortion of the source is much more serious. More importantly, is the fact that rather than rework the article as a whole, you simply want to look for quick fixes based on the sample instances I provide. This is what wastes reviewer time. This is the last comment I'm making on this FAC until you have gone through (or, probably better, persuaded others to help you go through) the article thoroughly, in which case you should feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors have already gone through it. Most were gracious enough to tell me what to fix. Others like yourself weren't. If there are issues, please bring them up, and stop having me play guessing games with you. If this wastes your time, don't comment in the first place. I'm trying to improve an article here. You're just standing on the side criticising it, and at the same time, refusing to either fix it yourself, or give me examples of what's wrong. I've already been through the article thoroughly - I've edited nearly 200 times. -- how do you turn this on 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And could we have the references consistent and accurately formatted? These two both come from the same publication, but it's hardly obvious:
    • Armstrong, Stephen (2008-04-14). "Mark Speight". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-09-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Ryan, Rosalind (2008-01-07). "Postmortem on Speight's fiancee inconclusive'". Guardian Unlimited. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 2008-01-07.
  • Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. You changed the one example I gave, but didn't fix the general problem. Sometimes you give us the newspaper title as the publisher (inaccurate, with the case of the Guardian, who last I remember were published by the Scott Trust), sometimes not. Again, the two instances above were samples. You need to go through the entire article on this and on the other issues I've raised. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth it? Surely all the other mistakes I've made that you won't tell me about are still going to make you be strongly opposed to this? -- how do you turn this on 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all these issues. -- how do you turn this on 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a few people to copy-edit through. However, I've fixed everything Jbmurray has brought up (to the best of my ability), so I don't think anything in this oppose is actionable now. It's far too vague currently for me personally to fix. "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a because... blah" is so much more helpful that "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how it doesn't". -- how do you turn this on 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more advice, for someone new at FAC: don't annoy reviewers by consistently distorting what they say. I didn't not say "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how it doesn't." I referred you to a whole series of sample issues. The only difference between my approach and that of some others, is that I dig in and fix those sample issues where I can. This saves both you and me time, freeing you up to go through the rest of the article and look for similar problems. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't constantly distorted what you said. You've done it to me, mind. Claiming I asked you to stop editing the article, how completely ridiculous. I did ask you to stop adding fact tags and hidden comments, and instead put your issues here, like most people would, but I have no issue whatsoever if you wish to improve the article in some way. And I asked you countless times for help, and you refused to give it (I don't consider "I gave you examples" to be helpful). -- how do you turn this on 00:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're getting annoyed, try and be a little more co-operative in your editing style. A smile once in a while really helps. -- how do you turn this on 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who worked on the long-running BBC children's art programme SMart, among many other television shows" - could probably be reworded; I'd just have an "amongst others" after SMart, or something like that
Fixed - changed to "amongst other shows" (to make it clear it wasn't other art shows)
  • Tough to read when every sentence (or so it feels in paragraph 1) starts with He.
Attempted a change.
  • "he often took part in pantomime, and played a part in Cinderella in 2007." - first part of sentence is far too vague, second almost certainly links to the wrong article
Reworded completely.
  • What does the image in the Career section add to the article?
I assume you mean, what does it add - well, it's an example of his work.
Oops, typo fixed. Does it meet all the WP:NFCC criteria? Giggy (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. No free equivelent? No, it's a publicity photo. I very much doubt the kids were allowed to take a camera in to the studio either.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities? It's a tiny image used to show an example of his work.
3a. Minimal usage? One image shows him "normal" and the other playing the king on a TV show. Both are very different, and both are useful.
3b. Yes, it's small low quality.
4. Yes, it's from a news site.
5. I believe this is encyclopedic.
6. Yes, I think it meets this.
7. Well it's used here, and the article for See It Saw It.
8. Significance? It's showing him as an example of some of the work he did. I do believe it adds to the article.
9. Yes, it's only used in articles.
10. Image description page? All covered.
-- how do you turn this on 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight is the issue; what does this image add to the article that no text could replace? (ie. what is so notable about what the image portrays that you couldn't just write about it?) Giggy (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so important it's kept. It's otherwise "prettying" the article a bit... -- how do you turn this on 08:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to self; track this.
Oops - I already asked him the other day and he said no! :-( I have emailed www.speightoftheart.org to see if they'd like to donate a free picture.
  • "create all of the art content for each edition of the show" - would "create all of the art content for the show" work?
Yes, fixed.
  • "had spent the previous evening "partying"" - why is this a quote?
It's what the source called it. Don't want to get accused of plagiarism... -- how do you turn this on 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Giggy (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. -- how do you turn this on 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I got in contact with the editor and did a line by line walk through of the page and I believe that there are no serious problems left in the prose at this time. I could be wrong, but that's just what I determined over the past hour working on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please make sure all the references are formatted properly? I wouldn't want this to fail over something as small as that. Thank you! -- how do you turn this on 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and fixed the two that you missed. Though NB that you don't need to have publishers for newspaper reports; also there's rather horrendous overlinking, making the references section a sea of blue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. -- how do you turn this on 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? A lot of the stuff was written in his obituaries, so that was obviously after both had died. He wasn't written about an awful lot (and where he has been, it's duplicated in the later references, so there's no need for even more). Was there anything specific you think needs better sourcing on? -- how do you turn this on 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naw - it's just that I think a bit more can be written. However, I'm willing to support this. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Jbmurray, and especially his edits to the article. This article simply isn't there yet, especially in terms of prose. I really hope HDYTTO will not see this as a personal vendetta. It is not. It is FAC. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful. This article has had numerous edits made to it fixing up the prose over the past few hours. Please tell me exactly what's wrong with it so I can fix. "Per Jbmurray" is about as useful as saying "It's not good enough". -- how do you turn this on 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me what the issue with the prose is so I can fix it? Jbmurray thinks this article is still "seriously deficient" (and unsurprisingly, hasn't bothered to say why). What exactly does need fixing now? -- how do you turn this on 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Dweller

Sorry, but I'm just finding too many niggly problems for this to be considered Featured quality or "fixable" at FAC. Suggest third party copyedit or return to PR. Issues I uncovered during speedy review of first portion of article:

  • use of "show" instead of "programme" - article should be in English English.
  • Some MOS issues eg "fourteen"
  • "Speight took a degree in commercial and graphic art at Bilston Art School" Unsourced. Also, slightly odd topic to take a degree in. Are you sure it was a degree?
Not unsourced. See reference 2, the Guardian biography. The reference might not be right next to it, but it comes a sentence later. In the source (and others) it says a degree. -- how do you turn this on 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please connect the reference with the claim. I can currently find no such institution as Bilston Art School since long before Speight could have attended it, which undermines the RS. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -- how do you turn this on 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose issues. Here are some chunks of text I think need a review:
"who worked on the long-running BBC children's art programme SMart, amongst other shows."
"a few days later; two suicide notes were later"
"Intending to become a cartoonist, he entered into television when he took part in auditions for a new children's television programme, SMart, after hearing about it while painting the set of another television production."
"fronted the show"
  • Some refs not after punctuation

Sorry again. It's not that far off and should be fairly stable, so I look forward to seeing this pass soon. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry. Unlike Jbmurray, you've actually given me something to work with. I'll get on with it ASAP. -- how do you turn this on 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything you have mentioned, except I couldn't find any misplaced references. -- how do you turn this on 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One follows "Timmy Towers". Not sure if there are others. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right... it's not before any punctuation though. I Ctrl+F on the page with "];" "]," and "]." and found nothing. That should be some kind of indicator if there's anything misplaced. -- how do you turn this on 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Refs need to follow punctuation marks. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On an article, a reference appears like so: .[1] I assume by not after punctuation, the references would look like this: [1]. So therefore, I seached the close square bracket, plus some punctuation. I couldn't find a single instance of it. Maybe if you copy and pasted the exact problem with the Timmy Towers ref, I'd be able to see what you mean better. -- how do you turn this on 12:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He played the Abominable No Man in Timmy Mallett's Timmy Towers[2]" The reference [2] should follow a punctuation mark, but it doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no punctuation mark for it to follow. You mean, you want me to add a comma in? -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't punctuate for the sake of referencing. Punctuate naturally and place the ref after the next available punctuation mark. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that OK? -- how do you turn this on 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pedant (!) but you've inadvertently introduced an error by doing that, because the Cyborgs thingy isn't referenced in that source, but it appears from the placing that it does. Why not stick all the refs at the end of the sentence? --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's ok ;-) You're being most helpful here. Have I succeeded this time? -- how do you turn this on 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good. If you can ditch any of those refs as being covered by the others, it'd be good because the string of numbers isn't pleasant on the eye, but if they're needed, they're needed. No need to reply on that. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I have been asked for, and I haven't been able to read the above in detail; here's a start:

  • Lead
no need for comma after "presenter"
"Growing up in Tettenhall" -> He grew up in Tettenhall... and left school...
"art degree"- insufficiently precise
Second para needs punctuation to make it flow as a narrative
Third para: "Collins's" - I find this clumsy. Style opinion on how to deal with this type of plural is divided, but you have to imagine how it would sound when it is read aloud. I doubt anyone would have a real problem with it, however.
"live life" - is duplicity; "live" is enough here. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDYTTO, you have a great start here and a lot of good info to help towards the final tweaks of the article. Four opposes this far in to a FAC can be hard to overcome, and opposers have opined that the work is too much to accomplish in the tenure of a FAC. Working on the issues raised and re-approaching FAC in a few weeks will give this article the best shot at a successful FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mark_Speight/archive1&oldid=1138134177"