Wikipedia:Peer review/Ken Barlow/archive1

Ken Barlow

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we want to nominate it for FA status. I guess it needs an eager eye and someone familiar with FA requirements.

Thanks, RaintheOne ^BAM 22:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I have never seen Coronation Street, so not sure if that makes me the ideal reviewer or not. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on fictional characters at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - for example Bart Simpson, Bernard Quatermass, Homer Simpson, Jabba the Hutt, Jack Sparrow, and Jason Voorhees are all FAs and may be useful models.
There is a toolbox on this PR page which finds 4 dead external links here - note that newspaper and print media refs do not have to have a link as the print version is accessible in theory (at a library or archive)

Added Archive URL's to these four refs.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tool also finds that there is one link in the article that is a redirect that points back to the same article (circular link) - see here
~~Since he has been on the show for over 50 years, I would give the year of the image in the infobox.~~

Year and caption included GunGagdin^Moan 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I am not sure the lead follows WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of Mike Baldwin in the lead, for example.

His various wives and the women in his life that each get their own section may be covered by the blanket statement that he has been married several times and had many lovers. However, I think some sort of more detailed summary statement (he has been married five times to four women, has fathered X children, and has Y grandchildren) would help. Not sure if each wife should be named in the lead - probably.
Biggest concern for an article of this kind is to avoid writing from an in-universe perspective. See WP:IN-U
I thought the article did a good job of referring to the character as Ken, and the actor as Roache. About the only place I noticed that did not do this was In early 2009 the character was reported to media regulator Ofcom after a series of derogatory comments about Christianity, which also sparked a number of complaints to broadcaster ITV.

I have reworded this to make it more Out of universe.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is about making sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed. One little thing is that refs should be in numerical order, so fix things like Roache was initially offered the role of Ken on a thirteen-episode, six-week contract.[9][6]

I've put the refs in the correct order.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations need to follow WP:LQ - basically punctuation goes outside the quotation marks unless a (nearly) complete sentence is being quoted. So quotes like this will need to be fixed The Guardian columnist Nancy Banks-Smith spoke highly of Ken's affair with Martha Fraser in 2009, calling it "a muted, ingenious storyline."[134]
Another thing when writing about fiction is to make sure and provide context to the reader. I have never seen the show, and was not sure where it was set (Manchester). Although there is an early reference to Ken attending Manchester University, the fact that Coronation Street is set in Manchester is not explictly stated until the reception section. *Similarly, the Old Trafford scoreboard story makes more sense if it is somehow made clear that this is also in Manchester.
Avoid needless repetition - the Old Trafford story in in the article three times (in the text of the section on Deirdre, in a photo caption in the feud with Mike, and in the In popular culture section). I think the first two are fine, although the caption is detailed enough to need a ref. The last mention is not needed.

Last mention removed GunGagdin^Moan 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "In popular culture" section needs to go. Such sections are not popular with FAC reviewers and given the subject matter, isn't the whole article "In popular culture"? I would remove the duplicate Old Trafford item, and move the rest to elsewhere in the article. Most of it could probably go to Reception. Perhaps the gift wrap and cards could go to appearances in other media?

Pop culture removed, info merged into other sections GunGagdin^Moan 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has never seen the show, I was confused in the Storylines section as to what his profession(s) are - these are mentioned in passing in the article, but should probably be made clearer here.
Similarly for a man who has had 4 wives, a sentence like Ken had a slight antagonistic relationship with his "acid-tongued" mother-in-law Blanche. leaves me more confused than enlightened.
Is there ever any mention made of his age in the show? Some television shows have the characters age more slowly than real life, others are more realistic. Within the context of the show is he in his 70s now (as the actor who protrays him is)?
Language is the most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet. The prose is decent, but could use a copy edit to smooth out some rough spots.
Might want to read User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing and look for examples
There are a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which interrupt the narrative flow. Where possible, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
Probably good to get someone familair with the show / character to read this - they would catch any omissions or WP:WEIGHT issues.
Refs look OK.
Images are OK- fair use rationales seem reasonable. Not sure if the infobox image needs the exact episode it is taken from or not.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]