Talk:Frank Underwood (House of Cards)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Done Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis (MOS:INTRO). The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body. Major Point 1: "Underwood was born ..." (Background of Underwood, not covered in the body) Major Point 2: "During season 1, he is a Democrat ..." (should be a summary of section Season 1) Major Point 3: "In season 2, he is ..." (not covered in the body) Major Point 4: "... narrative technique that breaks the fourth wall ..." (not covered in the body, the term fourth wall appears only in the lead) Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK) Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response (not covered in the lead) Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done As above. Check for Relative emphasis:  Done As above. Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications: None Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT: NA Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world): NA Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): NA Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): NA

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):  Done Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):  Done

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: good

WP:RS:

Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Blake, Meredith (Los Angeles Times) Cornet, Roth (IGN) Bennett, Laura (New Republic) Hughes, Sarah (The Independent) Stelter, Brian (The New York Times) Poniewozik, James (Time) Itskoff, Dave (The New York Times) Kaplan, Don (New York Daily News) Wiegand, David (San Francisco Chronicle) Lacob, Jace (The Daily Beast) deWolf Smith, Nancy (The Wall Street Journal) Alter, Charlotte and Eliana Dockterman (Time) TVLine Stelter, Brian (The New York Times) Riley, Jenelle (Back Stage) Los Angeles Times Farley, Christopher John (The Wall Street Journal) The Denver Post Stanley, Alessandra (The New York Times) Stuever, Hank (The Washington Post) Leopold, Todd (CNN) Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: Yes (for major sources) What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Los Angeles Times IGN New Republic The Independent The New York Times Time The New York Times New York Daily News San Francisco Chronicle The Daily Beast The Wall Street Journal Time TVLine The New York Times Back Stage Los Angeles Times The Wall Street Journal The Denver Post The New York Times The Washington Post CNN Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):  Done

WP:MINREF:

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done "When Urquhart addressed the audience, it was partly in the spirit of conspiratorial fun. His asides sparked with wit. He wasn't just ruthlessly striving, he was amusing himself, mocking the ridiculousness of his milieu. There is no impishness about Spacey’s Frank Underwood, just numb, machine-like ambition. Even his affection for his wife is a calculation."[3] (Check on source 3, partly successful, "The British “House of Cards,” which aired on the BBC in 1990 and inspired this new version, had a different protagonist in Ian Richardson’s Francis Urquhart. When Urquhart addressed the audience, it was partly in the spirit of conspiratorial fun. His asides sparked with wit. He wasn’t just ruthlessly striving, he was amusing himself, mocking the ridiculousness of his milieu. There is no impishness about Spacey’s Frank Underwood, just numb, machine-like ambition.", Even his affection for his wife is a calculation is not in source 3) "I love that woman, I love her more than sharks love blood."[3] (Check on source 3, unsuccessful, it should actually be cited to source 11 which has ""I love that woman," Francis Underwood says to the camera at one point about his wife. "I love her more than sharks love blood."") "remorselessly self- interested, desiring power for power's sake". [4] (Check on source 4, successful, ""That's not to say he's a good person, obviously like Francis Urquhart before him he's remorselessly self- interested, desiring power for power's sake, but the question posed is: is that so bad if he gets things done?") "menacing" character, "hiding his rage behind Southern charm and old-fashioned courtesy,"[4] (Check on source 4, successful, "Certainly Spacey swiftly manages to banish memories of Richardson's wicked twinkle, presenting us instead with a more quietly menacing man, hiding his rage behind Southern charm and old-fashioned courtesy.") "Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value." — Underwood[5] (Check on source 5, successful, "EARLY in the new Netflix series “House of Cards” the narrator and card player Representative Francis Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, looks straight into the camera and tells viewers: “Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.”") "…is on a quest for power that’s just as suspenseful as anything on television."[5] (Check on source 5, successful, "Underwood, having been spurned in his bid to become secretary of state, is on a quest for power that’s just as suspenseful as anything on television.") "I’m feelin’ hungry today!" ... [6] (Check on source 6, successful, "he has a Washington BBQ joint open early to serve him a celebratory rack of ribs, because “I’m feelin’ hungry today!”") "She’s as tough as a two-dollar steak." ... [6] (Check on source 6, successful, "He describes the White House Chief of Staff with grudging admiration: “She’s as tough as a two-dollar steak.”") "you devour a whale. One bite at a time." ... [6] (Check on source 6, successful, "He plans to destroy an enemy the way “you devour a whale. One bite at a time.”") "[imagining] their lightly salted faces frying in a skillet."[6] (Check on source 6, successful, "And he endures a tedious weekly meeting with House leaders, he tells us, by “[imagining] their lightly salted faces frying in a skillet.”") "Spacey gives Underwood a silky Southern accent you could pour over crushed ice and sip with a sprig of mint on Derby Day."[6] (Check on source 6, successful, "He makes you feel–as Underwood must everyone he wheedles and lobbies–like the only person in the room not beneath his contempt. And Spacey gives Underwood a silky Southern accent you could pour over crushed ice and sip with a sprig of mint on Derby Day.") "scheming politician" who does "some of the most evil and underhanded things imaginable".[7] (Check on source 7, successful, "As Underwood, even in the first season, you’ve gotten to do some of the most evil and underhanded things imaginable. Where can he go in Season 2?") "…conniving Congressman Frank Underwood, is easily one of the most complex antiheroes on TV — except he’s not on TV".[8] (Check on source 8, successful, "Spacey’s character, conniving Congressman Frank Underwood, is easily one of the most complex antiheroes on TV — except he’s not on TV.") "all but salivates over the chance to use his considerable power to gain more power, especially if it involves pulling the rug out from under some colleagues and the wool over the eyes of others."[9] (Check on source 9, successful, "Spacey, digging into his overstuffed trunk to dust off the Southern cad he played in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," all but salivates over the chance to use his considerable power to gain more power, especially if it involves pulling the rug out from under some colleagues and the wool over the eyes of others.") "Machiavelli taking you under his wing and walking you through the corridors of power, explaining the totally mundane and crass on a mechanical level to the most grotesque manipulations of a system that is set up to have all these checks and balances".[10] (Check on source 10, successful, "“The idea of Machiavelli taking you under his wing and walking you through the corridors of power, explaining the totally mundane and crass on a mechanical level to the most grotesque manipulations of a system that is set up to have all these checks and balances was just too delicious,” said Fincher.") "charm" ... [10] (Check on source 10, successful, "“Where [the U.S. version] falls down is that the leading character doesn’t have the charm.") "Dickensian" ... [10] (Check on source 10, successful, "Willimon felt that Frank Underwood as a name “felt Dickensian and more legitimately American” than Francis Urquhart. ") "more legitimately American" ... [10] (Check on source 10, successful, as above) "mild but sometimes missing Carolina accent".[11] (Check on source 11, successful, "Some of those things, like Mr. Spacey's mild but sometimes missing Carolina accent, don't matter. ") "scheming" [14] (Check on source 14, successful, "Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, who portray the scheming husband and wife at the center of “House of Cards,” were also nominated as lead actor and actress.") "My husband doesn’t apologize...even to me."[19] (Check on source 19, successful, "Claire applauds all his vices except weakness. “My husband doesn’t apologize,” she tells him, “even to me.”") "ask any questions" ... [19] (Check on source 19, successful, "She begs Francis to be her source and promises not only to protect his identity but also to print whatever he tells her and not to “ask any questions.”") "Fairfax County Council" beat to covering "'what's behind the veil' of power in the Capitol hallways."[20] (Check on source 20, successful, "who works at a Washington Post-like newspaper and who would do anything to cover “what’s behind the veil” of power in the Capitol hallways and get herself off what she erroneously calls the “Fairfax County Council” beat. (From which she has filed copy about jogging trails in Rock Creek Park. Girl gets around.)") Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done (cited well) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  Done

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:  Done Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:  Done Check for Out of scope:  Done Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:  Done Check for All material that is notable is covered:  Done Check for All material that is referenced is covered:  Done Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:  Done Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:  Done Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

 Done

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):  Done Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):  Done

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Image (Frank Underwood - House of Cards.jpg): This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Check for copyright status:  Done (Non-free content) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done (Yes) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done (valid) Source (WP:NFCC#4): http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/House_of_Cards/70178217 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7): Frank Underwood (House of Cards) Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8): For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3): Low resolution 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Relevant to the article Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Appropriate & Representative Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done Caption - "Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood." (succinct and informative)

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

• "When Urquhart ... machine-like ambition. Even his affection for his wife is a calculation."[3] (Check on source 3, partly successful, "The British ... machine-like ambition.", Even his affection for his wife is a calculation is not in source 3)
• "I love that woman, I love her more than sharks love blood."[3] (Check on source 3, unsuccessful, it should actually be cited to source 11 which has ""I love that woman," Francis Underwood says to the camera at one point about his wife. "I love her more than sharks love blood."")
  • Refs swapped.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis (MOS:INTRO). The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
  • Major Point 1: "Underwood was born ..." (Background of Underwood, not covered in the body)
    • I can only source hometown.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Major Point 2: "During season 1, he is a Democrat ..." (should be a summary of section Season 1)
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Major Point 3: "In season 2, he is ..." (not covered in the body)
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Major Point 4: "... narrative technique that breaks the fourth wall ..." (not covered in the body, the term fourth wall appears only in the lead)
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK)
  • Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response (not covered in the lead)
    • I think I got this now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm glad to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Refer here. The difference between the two revisions is the addition of two sentences in the lead. They are: "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise." and "The character has also been Golden Globe Award- and SAG Award-nominated.". The latter sentence belongs to the Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK), which was never an issue. The former sentence belongs to the Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response for which the lead still does not provide an accessible overview and does not give Relative emphasis. Please compare the due weight given to these two points in the body and the lead. In fact, you've hardly addressed any issues raised in the review since the article is on hold. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version (after last edit at 05:04, 18 January 2014‎) of the article is here. On applying the above checklist to the latest version, the issues identified are:

• Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
  • Major Point 1: Background and description "Underwood is from Gaffney … speaks in a southern dialect." (not a concise summary of the Background and description section)
  • Major Point 1.1: Underwood vs. Urquhart "" (not in the lead)
  • Major Point 2: Season 1 "During season 1, he is a … " (not a concise summary of the Season 1 section)
  • Major Point 3: Season 2 "In season 2, he is the … " (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 4: Critical response "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise … vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." (not a concise summary of the Critical response section)
  • Major Point 4.1: Awards and nominations "" (summarised well in the lead)
• Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
  • Major Point 1: Background and description "Underwood is from Gaffney … speaks in a southern dialect." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
  • Major Point 1.1: Underwood vs. Urquhart "" (not in the lead)
  • Major Point 2: Season 1 "During season 1, he is a … " (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
  • Major Point 3: Season 2 "In season 2, he is the … " (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
  • Major Point 4: Critical response "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise … vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
  • Major Point 4.1: Awards and nominations "" (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
• Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  • Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. (WP:BETTER).
  • Section Season 2 needs to be fixed.
  • Short paragraphs need to be fixed.

This nomination has been on hold for 7 days. I'm going to fail this nomination due to above issues. If you resolve the above issues at a later date, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted my review closure as per discussions in the GA forum. However, I'd like to resign from this review. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note to any new reviewer: I believe I have addressed the concerns above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside comment: This article bases all its information on what has been revealed in Season 1 of House of Cards. In 3 weeks (on February 14), all of Season 2 will be released, doubling the amount of information on Frank's character, background, actions, etc. It's unavoidable that the article will change a great deal quite rapidly at this point. I think this may introduce stability concerns, per criterion 5. If it were just season 4 or 5 that were about to be released, I wouldn't think the amount of new information would be enough to create a problem. And in an ordinary TV show, where new episodes are released once each week, this might not be a problem. But the amount of new information that will be released, combined with the fact that it will be released all at once, combined with the nearness of the release date—put together, that makes me think that a GAN really shouldn't pass until after season 2 is out (and after critics have had time to give sourceable analysis). – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• The content won't nearly double. Maybe it will expand 20%. Most of the content will be unchanged. It is not like he will become a new character with a new background, style and history. He is not going to switch parties, change accents, get a new wife, recognize a new hometown or stop breaking the fourth wall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right that much of Frank's personality and background is likely to remain stable, but I'm not sure if we can know how much or how little his character will change. If he were to, for instance, become President of the U.S. (mere speculation, but not impossible), then that fact would belong in the lead sentence. Chapter 8 of Season 1 abruptly showed that Frank was secretly gay, or at least had a homosexual relationship in college, which was totally unexpected; I think it possible that further unexpected and character-changing revelations will occur in Season 2. (I'm not taking over and failing the GAN for criteria 5 concerns; I'm merely raising the issue so that whoever takes over this review can take it into account.)

Speaking of which, why is Frank's former homosexual relationship not mentioned? Reliable sources at Slate, AVClub, and a NYT blog mention it. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it or seen mention of it before you pointed this out. I will add it now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)