Talk:Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

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.
- Considered it but I really prefer "claim". The point is to cast doubt. It doesn't make sense if you take his words literally. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he abruptly changes tact – Is this the right word?
- Good point: the right phrase is "changes tack". — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
walk on eggshells around him – Idiom.
- Hard to find a synonym but gone with "act nervously around him". — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- Now: However, he permits himself one joke about Atkinson having a chicken on his head, justified by Atkinson saying it is unnecessary to apologise for funny jokes in the context of a comment Boris Johnson made. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- What a performance that would have been! Reworded. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily – Editorializing.
- Now "However" (but "Luckily" is Acaster's framing). — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Touring:

as it felt less exposed to say personal things – Awkward wording.
- Now: He preferred performing in larger venues, saying they made him feel less exposed when sharing his personal life. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, he did not say he had 'quit'. – This seems random and doesn't really fit with the sentence before it.
- Well, the point is that the media widely and wrongly reported that Acaster 'quit comedy' at that time, but to explain further is getting into original research. I've taken the sentence out. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and announced a tour in the US – If this tour has taken place, then this could be updated.
- It's still in progress (touring in the UK currently but who's to say whether it's finished in the US or not). — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filming and release:

released permanently on Vimeo – "permanently" probably isn't necessary.
- Removed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
- Agreed. That fact comes from Chortle (However, he will not be at the festival [i.e. the Fringe] this year), which is also cited at the end of the paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    - Yeah, this makes sense. I've kept a mention of Make a New Tomorrow in the "Filming and release" paragraph and moved the rest to "Make a New Tomorrow". — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth recounting the story about the cold lasagne in more detail.
- I don't see what more story there is to it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This occurred to me because I watched this video that's used as a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still don't understand what details you mean. The story description is currently 50 words. I don't think mentioning Queer Eye or describing a blow-by-blow of Acaster first eating the lasagne sober and returning later drunk is due weight. I've re-read the paragraph and it makes sense to me without further context. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- Now: Preceding Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999 was Repertoire (2018)—a four-part Netflix special combining his three previous stand-up tours. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reworded the Discman caption. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Thebiguglyalien. This was a spin-off project while I was redoing James Acaster, which was so much bigger than I imagined. In time I might take some related articles to GA. I've made changes in response to most of your points and pushed back on a few. Let me know what remains to be done, if anything. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilorv I've replied to four of your comments above. Everything else looks like it was either fixed or justified. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thebiguglyalien: another four responses. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.