Jump to content

Talk:Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 02:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


James Acaster has been one of my all time favorite comedians since I first saw him on Taskmaster. I'll look forward to this one. Before I forget, I'm the main author of James Acaster: Repertoire, so if you wanted to "create" that article, then I don't mind if you totally rework or just scrap what I wrote; it was one of the first articles I ever wrote, and I didn't really know what I was doing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, I've reviewed the article. Overall it's pretty good, just a handful of things that need fixing. I'd pay special attention to the synopsis, where it might benefit from some work on the wording and flow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

General:

  • It seems like everything was lumped under "background", even though most of it isn't actually background. I would combine "touring" and "filming and release" into a section and combine "Transgender segment" and "Mental health commentary" into a section.
    • Makes sense—I've moved the two "Background" paragraphs to the beginning and merged as suggested with "Performances" and "Themes" as the section headers. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis:

  • There's some choppiness throughout the article, and at certain points it abruptly jumps from one idea to another. For the most part this doesn't seriously affect readability, but it's particularly important for "synopsis", where some form of cohesive narrative is necessary for the reader to follow along and have a reasonable understanding of the work's main ideas.
  • Claiming to notice that he is losing his audience – Even though this isn't the usual "claim" issue, might be better just to say that he says he's losing it or that he's worrying he's losing it.
  • he abruptly changes tact – Is this the right word?
  • walk on eggshells around him – Idiom.
  • The synopsis should describe what's happening on screen. Plain statements like The best year of Acaster's life was 1999 should be avoided when possible.
  • While describing a solar eclipse on a family holiday – This makes it sound like he was doing the describing during the holiday. Maybe "while describing a solar eclipse he saw on a family holiday" or "while describing a family holiday in which he saw a solar eclipse".
    • Some tense changes throughout address the reason why the "Plain statements" are coming across wrong, I think. On the specific examples: I've reworded both. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he permits himself one joke about Atkinson having a chicken on his head. – I think the context of why he allowed the joke is important here.
  • Acaster ruined everything as a prank. – This is confusing until after reading the next few sentences. Is there a way to make it clear what this means right away?
    • It's not immediately clear in the special—here there's the phrase According to his agent for clarify. This joke is needed to establish to the reader (at the top of the paragraph) that Acaster is not earnestly/accurately describing his agent's point of view (without going into original research). — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • thus paradoxically showing she helped him overcome rejection issues – The article doesn't make it clear why it's a paradox.
    • Now: Acaster decides to write a text terminating their sessions, thus paradoxically showing she has been effectively in helping him end unproductive relationships. The paradox should be self-explanatory. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He involuntarily defecated while at a restaurant – It should be clear he's going back to the embarrassing thing. This didn't happen because he was thrown by the audience.
  • Luckily – Editorializing.

Touring:

  • as it felt less exposed to say personal things – Awkward wording.
  • However, he did not say he had 'quit'. – This seems random and doesn't really fit with the sentence before it.
  • and announced a tour in the US – If this tour has taken place, then this could be updated.

Filming and release:

Reception:

  • I always try to remind nominators to avoid over-quoting and to avoid "Reviewer A said X, Reviewer B said Y" reception sections. I don't think it's a huge issue here, but I'll provide the obligatory link to WP:RECEPTION just in case anything stands out to you.

Transgender segment:

  • which joke about transgender people. – It should make it clear that the jokes are specifically at the expense of transgender people, if that's the case.
    • The (anti-trans newspaper) Guardian says "joke about" and HuffPost notes that the jokes contain "disparaging comments about trans women". I think to go further than "joke about transgender people" with these sources is an NPOV issue. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear reliable. Most of them are either newspapers or entertainment magazines.

Spot checks:

  • Young (2019): This source doesn't appear to support He began performing stand-up comedy in 2008, after failing to find success as a drummer. or Acaster continued writing fictional material as he had with Repertoire
    • The latter is (annotation in the original): When I originally tried to write a show that was all fictitious, it just didn’t click. You can’t really put your finger on why a lot of the time. Particularly after I filmed all those shows [his Repertoire collection on Netflix], it was hard to be enthusiastic about doing another one of those kind of shows immediately again. The former didn't quite say 2008 (it does say age 23). I've added a couple more sources (New Yorker is the 2008 claim specifically). — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mears (2021): This source doesn't seem to add anything about the origin of the title, as it doesn't support most of that paragraph. Also, is went viral in January 2020 supposed to be 2021?
    • Yes, should have been 2021. The three sources together verify the paragraph: Mears (2021) is only needed for this bit, The title, Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999, is not explained in the special itself; rather, it’s a reference to jokes that were cut before the taping, which leads to the topic sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chortle (2021): Good.
  • Lewis (2022): It doesn't seem that this source is connecting his decision to release on Vimeo with his careful wording of the script. It just says that he released it on Vimeo to maintain control, while the careful wording was to avoid out of context misinterpretations.
    • I can't say I understand. This source isn't used in the Vimeo paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what I get for referencing the article without double checking the specific wording. I meant to point out this sentence: Of the decision to release it online, Acaster said that he was "very aware" that extracts posted out of context would become many people's only experience of the material, but that his wording was as precise as possible to avoid misinterpretation. – I'm not sure if "Of the decision to release it online" is necessary here. As far as I can tell, the source doesn't directly connect the decision to release it online and the decision to be careful with the wording. The latter was about other people posting it online. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've rephrased: Acaster said that he was "very aware" that extracts posted out of context would become many people's only experience of the material. He said his wording was as precise as possible to avoid audience misinterpretation. I considered splitting the facts up but they're together in the source, it creates non sequitur elsewhere and they are both about audience disconnect with the author intent. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones (2018): This doesn't support he did not perform it at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
Broad in its coverage

Omissions:

  • A synopsis of Make a New Tomorrow could be included.
    • I'm glad you suggested this as I was on the fence when creating the article. I think it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia and it's material that was cut along the way of Cold Lasagne so the existing Reception section effectively already incorporates feedback to it. I've done a 400 word summary: not sure where to place it but I've gone with just above Reception. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The placement is good, but it might be confusing to the reader what that section is about if they hadn't closely read the "filming and release" section. Maybe the release information about Make a New Tomorrow should be in the "Make a New Tomorrow" section rather than "filming and release". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth recounting the story about the cold lasagne in more detail.
  • A little more detail about the main points he makes in the transgender segment and the mental health commentary would be helpful for context.
    • The Samaritans and therapy stories make up a good proportion of the synopsis. The trans bit is about 2.5 minutes in a 125 minute special, already overrepresented in the word count, and I'm not sure what more there is to it other than three repetitions of "That's my job ... Too challenging for you?" It doesn't strictly apply but I think the 700 word limit of other media is the best fit here and it's 20 words over. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There should be room in the "themes" section for this. That's where my concern really is, because right now the reader might not understand exactly what they're referring to. The "Mental health commentary" section especially stands out, because it jumps straight into how the mental health commentary was handled without actually mentioning what the mental health commentary actually was. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added two topic sentences on "Mental health commentary": Mental health is a theme in Acaster's stories, including his experience in therapy and a call to the Samaritans. He describes how a relationship ending and issues with his agent led to suicidal thoughts. On "Transgender segment": In one clip from the show, Acaster is critical of transphobic comedy and mentions Ricky Gervais by name. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope:

  • Background probably doesn't need to explain the format of Repertoire. Just mentioning that it exists should be sufficient.
Neutral

The article gives a fair description of the work and its reception, and it does not give undue weight to any ideas. I sampled some critics' reviews, and none had significant negative coverage that was ignored in the article.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

Poster has a valid non-free use rationale. The other images are Creative Commons. The captions are acceptable, though I do wonder if the Discman caption suggests that it's actually Acaster's personal Discman in the image.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_Lasagne_Hate_Myself_1999&oldid=1242355148"