Talk:Dave Chappelle/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Disambig links:No issues
Reference check: 1 issue

The sixth man (info) [avclub.com] 404

Comments: This article has a lot of issues. The lead does not summarize the article. It has a contentious claim cited to a press release of dubious claim stating it is the #1 best selling TV series of all time. This is a major and contentious claim, and some press release stating this without hard evidence is completely unreasonable here. *"Unlike domestic box-office grosses, which are announced every week, there is no uniform and public DVD reporting. Some studios say accurate industrywide DVD sales numbers cannot be generated because Wal-Mart, which typically accounts for more than a third of all DVDs sold, does not make public its sales data." If the data is not public and it cannot be verified and the industry has a severe issue that can only turn up in court data, then the publication which has no sales or records need substantial proof and not some promotional claim which is self-serving. I do not think the website which only hosts it is reliable and I have several other issues that tie into this - it should not be used unless proven by and independent third party in a reliable source.

Done Okay, taken out.--Aichik (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything on the "early career" needs inline citations. I'm not kidding. Many of the sources are to Boxoffice mojo and are used to back sales, but nothing more. This is placing an undue emphasis on the value of the film and not Chappelle's role in it. I simply think this needs to be rewritten and given proper details on his roles if possible. Claims and comments by Chappelle need to be cited, even in paraphrasing, with inline citations. Season Three contains 2 quotes which are just not neutral and serve to demean Chappelle. Remove it, because it is not neutral or proper for an encyclopedia to have a minor issue be so promient. Chappelle's "idols" is contentious and I don't think "where they performed" is relevant. Remove that too. The Block Party section is could be expanded and needs two inline citations. 2007-present is also needing citations for its specific claims. The entire article needs a copyedit as well.

Reference 5, as noted above, is a problem, I do not think it is a reliable source as it is self-serving and is contentious and not widely reported or independently verified. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. It does not meet that burden.

Done Okay, taken out.--Aichik (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 21 is IMDB.
Ref 28 is IMDB
Ref 41 is youtube
Ref 56 is a personal website
Done Okay, deleted.--Aichik (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Ref 62 is a blog and is bare[reply]
Ref 65 which is used over 30 times is NYTimes filmography which is likely scrapped from another website. The details state: "© 2010 Baseline, All rights reserved. © 2010 All Media Guide, LLC Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide ®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC" it is not written by the NYTimes and the website takes user submissions.[1]

I think you're being nitpicky here. The New York Times signs off on these, so it should be good enough.--Aichik (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a complete overhaul as a result. I'll place it on hold, but I do not think this will be an easy fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a pain. Adds to Talk:Dave Chappelle/GA1 don't automatically transfer here. Where would you guys want changes? Not doing both, no time. thanks--Aichik (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am still seeing IMDB and Youtube. Still broken references like http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=611&category=educationMakers and ones like http://www.blackcelebkids.com/2007/12/05/dave-chappellewifeand-kids/ is not adding anything to the article. I am going to fail this. It needs so much basic work. The tone issues are not resolved, still missing numerous citations and I don't think user generated content regardless of where it is mirrored is accurate. The issues are so basic and so numerous that the article needs a lot of work to meet the GA criteria. Even the images have issues with conflicting tags like at File:Broken_Angel_House.jpg - which are not simple things to resolve. I'm going to fail this as it needs too much and even a month would be too short to fix all the issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a large amount of new content, and resolved all the outstanding reference issues noted here. For example, all "references" to youtube, amazon and bestbuy are gone. References to fourth-tier blogs like box office mojo and history makers are gone. At this time there are only I believe one or to "citation needed" points in the article which are mostly irrelevant - the content can be completely removed if necessary. A bunch of new sources added - ABC news, huffington, NY Times, Ebony, The Believer, NY Post, a book and a college thesis, among others. New content expands shows he walked out on, rumours surrounding his contract dispute, craziness of tabloid coverage, and an incident involving his private jet being forced to land because he became a "safety issue". Coverage is skeptical of claims made in tabloid coverage, gives equal weight to Chappelle's people. IMO biggest project at this point is ref naming and consolidating citations in a ref list to make adds and edits less crazy (Ive made a good deal of headway with this). Also fixed visual citation issues, like using the same citation 30 times for the filmography - now it is used once, at the relevant heading, with different inlines used under the heading online when needed. Jay Dubya (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to objective feed-back and critique as time permits. Jay Dubya (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nvm, I see in comment above its failed. Fail wasn't carried over to the talk page or clearly illustrated here so I didn't see. Jay Dubya (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it, but its just been almost two months. The work is appreciated though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]