Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:Karanacs 18:35, 14 November 2008 [1].

Mark Speight[edit]

Nominator(s): User:How do you turn this on

Failed FAC about 3 weeks ago. Had a peer review, where I got some more advice. Still no free picture, though I am waiting for one from the Speight Foundation.Now has a free picture. Thanks for your comments. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Much improved article. Kudos to HDYTTO for sticking with it and getting it to such a high quality. Best of all, has avoided hagiography. --Dweller (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images I am assuming that a different image than Image:SeeitSawitBBC.jpg will be used for free use, or is this the same image that you are waiting on permission for? If so then you can remove the nonfree image. What's the status on the Speight Foundation? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article. I'm now waiting for permissions-otrs to confirm. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it checks out so far... I have no idea how long it takes to verify permissions on OTRS, but just note here when it goes through and I can check it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know someone who has access that can verify this? – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have OTRS permissions access. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Can you see if you can find the image. My email should be quite obvious. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... it might help if you gave me the URL... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mark_Speight.jpg – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found the ticket and verified. Images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record. Giggy (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources were good at the last FAC, and still look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Speight regularly toured with Speight of the Art, a series of art workshops he ran for children. He was involved in charity work; he became President of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign's Young Pavement Artists Competition, originally a one-off year-long project that lasted eight years, and a spokesperson for ChildLine;[2][10] for Comic Relief in 2007, he hosted the Müller Big Art Project in Trafalgar Square." The second line here, is extremely long and has several comma splices and misused [;]-signs. Also the first sentence seems disjointed from the rest, if those workshops were charity, I would start with the first part of the second sentence, if not, I would put the info about the workshops in another paragraph. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better? – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still had too many commas trying to run too many subjects together in one sentences. How about my rewrite? - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He was a spokesperson for ChildLine; and for Comic Relief in 2007 and he hosted the Müller Big Art Project in Trafalgar Square." That doesn't make sense now. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? He presented Comic Relief? With the way you worded it previously I had no idea that is what you meant. Still, I can't find which of your references backs that up. Which one is it? - Mgm|(talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any better? – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It took a while, but I think we finally got it right. - Mgm|(talk) 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for prose. Examples:
  • Opening sentence is clumsy with its use of "among other programmes" - would it be better to cut that and just say "best known for presenting etc"?
  • "Growing up in Tettenhall, Wolverhampton, he left school at the age of 16 to become a cartoonist" - why the strange tense in the first half? "the age of" is redundant.
  • "He subsequently gained a degree" - "subsequently" is unnecessary, he obviously didn't do it beforehand. "gained a degree" sounds odd to me.
  • Last sentence of paragraphs uses "presenters" and "presented" next to each other - bit jarring.
  • Not prose, but is the pantomime notable enough to be in the lead (don't know enough about him to judge)?
  • "he was initially arrested" - "initially" is redundant
  • "from a stroke allegedly" - "allegedly" is a weasel word - who is alleging this?
Trebor (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these points. I couldn't think of a better way to reword the last sentence of the first paragraph though. It sounds fine to me though. The allegedly was claimed by the family of Speight, if I recall that's what the reference says. If you have any other points, please bring them up. Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Lovely prose. I'll tune it up as best I can, even further. — Ceran → (Talk) (email) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I don't agree with Trebor on all points. Sometimes readability is more important than cutting as many words as possible. In particular: "In January 2008, Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat and he was arrested on suspicion of her murder. Ultimately he was not charged with any offence." These lines are disjointed and by removing the word 'initially' we have no idea when he was arrested or after how much investigation. On the other hand, is there another way to charge someone? I think we could possibly drop "with any offence", but I'm not sure about that. - Mgm|(talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion "In January 2008, Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat. Initially, he was arrested on suspicion of her murder, but ultimately he was not charged (with any offence)." - Mgm|(talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes readability is more important than cutting as many words as possible" - it's rare that cutting out redundant words will not improve readability. "with any offence" is debatable - if you don't put it in, you are explicitly saying only that he wasn't charged with murder (but he still may have been charged with something else), however it's probably still quite implicit. With use of "initially", what is the difference in meaning between the following sentences?
  • "Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat and was initially arrested on suspicion of her murder"
  • "Speight found the body of his fiancée in the bath of their London flat and was arrested on suspicion of her murder"
The use of "initially" doesn't give any further idea of when he was arrested or after how much investigation. "Initially" just means first (before something else) but the only thing that happened after was his not being charged, and that clearly couldn't have happened before. Unrelatedly, does anyone know if "Collins's" should be changed to "Collins'" (I'm not sure)? Trebor (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed that sentence, at least the "he" to "was", but as for the rest of the sentence I don't think it really matters whether initially is in there, but I'd prefer it not. — Ceran → (Talk) (email) 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Collins's - this was discussed on the peer review. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the new version better? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellant work by HDYTTO. My only gripe is that "Speight" should probably be used less often. I think it should be replaced by "the presenter" or something along those lines. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly among our best work. Congrats ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Variation is a good thing, but "the presenter" is even more clunky. A few well-placed 'he's would work even better. - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - much improved from previous FAC. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thought I'd already done this. The three red links should probably be removed though, I don't see much chance of them being notable enough for a page. Gran2 13:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Müller Big Art Project can probably expanded upon in the relevant Comic Relief article, but I don't see why the other two couldn't have a page. Whoever wrote it was clearly selective about the programs to link, so History Busters is probably viable. As for MacMillan House; I linked that. I doubt it would be explicitly named in the sources if it wasn't notable for something else. - Mgm|(talk) 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I suppose, but then perhaps, if they are notable, articles should be created for them. Gran2 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll consider creating blue links for them. I only linked to History Busters because it was an award-winning show, so should be notable enough. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous FAC. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 20:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per 2b. Does not have "a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". I'm gonna expand on the FAC Talk page. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel this article fails both criteria 1b for comprehensiveness and criteria 4 for lack of sufficient summary style. If the subject is actually well known for the show mentioned in the header, there should be far more information on his role in that show, but all we have is one small paragraph. The rest of his career is relegated to another short paragraph. Furthermore, there are no secondary sources (contemporary newspaper articles are primary sources) referenced in this article. As a result, there is not enough material to sustain a featured article, which I believe requires a great deal more engagement with the subject. As for criteria 4, when we come to his death, we have the exact opposite situation. A blow-by-blow account of his last day alive is excessive detail for an individual whose final moments do not actually appear to carry any signifigance in the world at large. If the career section cannot be expanded with relevent information and the last two sections are not combined and greatly shortened, then I do not see this as a worthy FA. Indrian (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1b. The last five months of his life is the majority of the article. The rather small career section (where he was a public television figure), covers thirteen years of his life. And unfortunately, it is basically a list of what shows he appeared in. I also agree with Indrian that substantial secondary sources should be used. The sources of most of his life are from obituaries. There should be sources on the subject not just on the defining event. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. Overall, I felt that the article did not give a very good idea of who Speight was or why he was important. There is not enough information about what he actually did in his career (I don't follow British TV at all, and what was in the article did not have enough context for me to figure out why he was important). There is also too much detail on later events in his life. I think the prose is okay - a little room for improvement, but it's satisfactory.

  • Every sentence of the second paragraph of the lead begins with "Speight" or "He". Perhaps this could be changed up a bit so it will flow a bit better?
  • There doesn't need to be a "Biography" heading since that is pretty much all that is in the article; just move the four subheadings up to the higher heading level.
  • Each sentence that has a quotation needs to have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means the same cite is used in subsequent sentences.
  • We need a bit more context in the career section. I've never heard of SMart, and since that was his first television role it would be good to explain more about what it is. (same with the other shows mentioned)
  • If there any information about why he chose not to become a cartoonist?
  • Which particular BAFTAs was the Scratchy and Co show nominated for? Did any of them reflect his involvement?
  • Did any critics speak of his work on television? We have no idea from the text whether he did a good job or a bad job or if no one really noticed him
  • The paragraph in career section that begins "Speight worked on numerous other shows" sounds like a list that has just been dragged into prose format. Also, the info about Collins seems tacked on; perhaps that should be its own paragraph
  • Was Collins a regular on See It Saw It or just guesting? What was her role?
  • "In 2004, Speight participated in Rolf Harris's Rolf on Art," - how did he participate? What did he do?
  • Same with the next sentence - what exactly did he do in 2005 in the Hans Holbein thing?
  • I think we need more information on what exactly Speight of the Art was. How much was he involved with the planning, etc? More details about what he actually did.
  • how did his "one-off year-long project .. end...up lasting eight years"?
  • Do we need all the details of Collins' death? That seems not to belong in this article. Perhaps stop after the second sentence of that paragraph.
  • "Speight missed an appointment with a counsellor, but this was because of confusion over dates" - whose confusion? And is this really an important fact for this article? Seems like trivia to me.
  • Where did the police officers talk to him?
  • Do we really need all the details about his funeral? That seems a bit trivia-y to me.

Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per 2a and 2b. Also, I agree with Ling.Nut's comments and the examples presented by Karanacs. This article should be entitled "Death of Mark Speight" as that seems the main focus of the article. What is a "presenter"? Is Speight important enough that we need to know so much about his death? In many articles on people, such a death would be dealt with in a few sentences.

  • Statements in the lead are not substantially elaborated upon in the article body. Example, in the lead: "Speight was also a presenter on See It Saw It, where he met his future fiancée Natasha Collins." The body of the article does not elaborate on his involvement with See It Saw It other than to say, "Speight also played the king on children's programme See It Saw It, where he met Natasha Collins."
  • The article has one main heading, "Biography". The subheadings are all equal heading 2s. I do not interpret this as "hierarchical" for the purposes of FAC.
  • Organization seems poor. Under "Early life, it is mentioned that "Jacqueline died on 5 September 2008, aged 62, from a stroke allegedly brought on by the stress of her son's death." Why is this sentence not down with the rest of the discussion of events surrounding his death? And "allegedly" is rather weaselly.
  • The girlfriend's death and Speight's subsequent suicide seem rather ordinary as crimes go. The article seems to be comprised mostly of mundane speculation by the press. We do not get a sense of Speight's personality. It is not clear what the reader is left with after a recitation of these events. Are we to think he killed himself because he was "distraught" or in addition, did he supply the girlfriend with the drugs and felt responsible for her death? Does it matter?

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I disagree with some of the comments on the talk page. FACs are on prose, not the table of contents. The clause was introduced not to take it literally, but to make sure balanced sectioning was adequately carried out. I'm going to evaluate on each of the featured article criteria:

1a: Negative: per Karnacs
1b: Neutral Strongly disagree that length (lack of it) is always a cause for oppose. The nominator has to justify that A> Additional reliable secondary sources are unavailable B> Primary sources are not available. Primary sources (such as personal details) can be considered reliable on biographies on topics such as early education, date of birth and so on depending on the context.
1c: Neutral: As the person worked with BBC, I would like to see more neutral sources.
1d: Passes though is related to 1c.
1e: Passes
2a: Passes
2b: Passes
2c: Passes
3 : Passes
4 : Passes
=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. This hasn't got a chance now that Ling.nut has posted links to this in prominent places, basically saying how rubbish it is. I think I'll focus my efforts elsewhere from now on. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:48, 14 November 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/archive2&oldid=1226257072"