Talk:Alvin Kersh/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eshlare (talk · contribs) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. Eshlare (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Image:

I think a closer crop would look better. Or perhaps this image from the same source. A full body shot doesn't add anything, and doesn't look as tidy, especially since the costume isn't notable. That's just a personal aesthetic view and not a criticism.

I've removed the image for now as I'm not entirely sure it's necessary; I can add a different one if you think an image of some sort is necessary though. GRAPPLE X 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Mention who portrays him in the first sentence. The image is after all the first thing someone coming to the article will see.
"ad later being promoted to the post of deputy director" -> "and is later promoted to the post of deputy director"
"an antagonist, bureaucratically preventing" -> "an antagonist who bureaucratically prevents"
When you state first appeared in series six and then "returning as a recurring character" does this infer a change in cast status between appearances? You might want to specify "Kersh first appeared as a guest character in several episodes".
I think the second paragraph needs expansion. As an overview, some production information is needed: maybe gloss that the character was introduced because the production team wanted a character to put pressure on others and that they returned because they liked Kersh as an actor.
Flesh out the critical response. The impression I got was that Pickens Jr's performances/presence in the series was more favourably recieved than the use of his character later on.
End with his award nomination. Specify that it was for being part of an ensemble too-the current wording is slightly misleading.
Done. GRAPPLE X 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character Arc

Rename Appearances.
This section needs re-writing and restructuring as it's slightly too in-universe.
- Everything needs to be put in order of when it is revealed to the audience, not its in-universe timeline.If an episode reveals something about his childhood/education war experience it should not be mentioned at the start of the section if it was not in the first episode. As it stands the first sentence should be later in the section, as it is not the first information the audience recieves about the character. See Jack Harkness#Television, which is a good example of an Appearances section.
- Mention the episode title and year of his first episode.
- Link big events for the character to the episodes in which they occurred.
- For a character who spans 3+ series of a show, a good structure is one paragraph per series.

To be honest, I would disagree with this approach; the section is intended to be a brief character biography rather than a recap of episode events as they're seen. I can rewrite it to include more real-world reference to events occurring in episodes as opposed to just occurring in a timeline; but I think it would flow poorly if it took asides here and there to explain backstory in the middle of plotline events—the military history stuff is gotten out of the way chronologically so it doesn't distract from what happens in the relatively briefer timeframe of the rest of the section. GRAPPLE X 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE Appearances: there was a basic outline of what a fictional character outline should look like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide, which supports that the section should be titled Appearances unless the character is confined to a single book/film. Character biographies are also discouraged in MOSF#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective. It's particularly noticeable in Star Wars articles like Jabba the Hut and Palpatine where chronologically "earlier" appearances are described later as they were released later. To use the title "character arc" suggests to me a storytelling arc rather than an overview of his narrative role. The problem with the character biography approach is that it assumes that the character was always a military man, when that could have been something the writers thought up years after his first appearance. A biographical article is also impossible for some characters such as "Homer Simpson". The three articles I've linked to are Featured Articles.

From looking at the episode reference for the Navy information you've provided it seems that his Navy background became emphasised after Doggett joined the series. Was it mentioned in his series six appearances? If the Navy information does not seem integral to a specific storyline I suggest moving it to the conceptual history section, where it would compliment Patrick's comment on the Doggett/Kersh comparison. That way the appearances section maintains narrative order and you don't need to worry about the character "background" disrupting the flow. I'm happy with everything else in the Appearances section now, with the exception of the first two sentences. Everything else looks great too. Eshlare (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, limited internet time and I was putting some priority to an FAC in progress, but I should be able to finish things up here now. I've moved the Navy stuff down to the production section, trimming it down to be an aside after the mention of Patrick's comparison of his character and Kersh. The rest of the section is now in broadcast order, and has had a few inclusions of terms like episode names and season numbers here and there to maintain more of a real-world stance. I would, though, prefer to keep the "Character arc" heading rather than appearances as it would maintain consistency with other character articles in the project (X (The X-Files), Marita Covarrubias, Deep Throat (The X-Files), etc, use this heading and I'm eventually gearing towards a GTC with them so internal consistency would be nice but it's not essential if you do insist on changing it). GRAPPLE X 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It look fine. The section name isn't too big an issue compared to the structure of the section. Kurt Hummel and Susan Mayer are examples of articles where the heading is different to conform to their respective wikiprojects. (Although again, the out of-universe chronology is stressed). I'm still not sure if character arc is the best banner title as to me it suggests a consciously plotted arc for the character from the beginning rather than storylines that are subject to other developments within the series, but it's a minor quibble. Eshlare (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Who's Frank Spotnitz?
"When casting" -> "Reflecting on the casting of"
"for this role" is redundant.
Merge paragraphs three and four.
A bit more on the writing/character direction, especially in series eight and nine, would be beneficial (Why did the writers have the character behave in the way he did?), if a source exists. Not essential though.
I'll see if there's anything else I can dig out but I've addressed the first four points here. GRAPPLE X 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Mention who protrayed Scott Blevins.
What year and what series was "Via Negativa" broadcast?
Link Robert Shearman and Lars Pearson.
Refs 18 & 19 are thrity pages apart. I don't have the source text but a more logical approach would seem to be to add a full stop before #18, and introduce the following sentence as a seperate concern of the writers.
Done. GRAPPLE X 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold

Aside from the concerns raised, this article is adequately written and has the required layout, format and structure of an article about an element of fiction. It's on hold for seven days, which I am happy to extend if progress is being made. Eshlare (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything now. Thanks for taking the time to review this one for me. I really do need to get back and review a few articles myself so feel free to bombard me with requests. GRAPPLE X 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pass this article, it meets the Manual of Style requirements and is a good example of a well-written article about an element of fiction. It provides a comprehensive enough overview of the subject and is both of sound quality and accessible to those without a detailed knowledge of the series.

Pass

Eshlare (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]