Jump to content

Talk:David Fisher (Six Feet Under)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDavid Fisher (Six Feet Under) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

MERGE

[edit]

(X-post) Wikipedia policies require the inclusion of real-world information to establish notability (see WP:N and WP:FICT and WP:WAF). As a result., the individual articles need to reflect real-world notability (e.g. the character is a demonstrable cultural meme or icon, a la Sherlock Holmes or Hamlet or Mickey Mouse, or else has attracted significant out-of-universe commentary and critical reaction. Please note that notability is not inherited: as a result, incidental "real-world" information (e.g. character portrayed by Actor X) does not currently satisfy our notability criteria. To comment on this question, interested editors should respond to the discussion at WP:FICT or raise the issue at WP:N since, per Wikipedia consensus policy, local opinion never outweighs community-wide opinion and these standards have been asserted at a global level. Additionally, any emendation to the character articles that serve to bring them up to notability standards would be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Roseanne had a legal gay marriage. Leon and Patrick are said to be legally married. 138.192.78.134 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Leon and Scott? This isn't described that well at Roseanne (TV series) but [1] mentions it briefly but doesn't describe it as a legal marriage (nor Six Feet Under). Since Roseanne was set in the present day AFAIK it would seem a bit odd to me that this were a legal marriage (as opposed to say being considered a marriage or wedding but in reality they couple were only legally recognised as civil parners or something of that sort) but I don't know much about the show. The first legal marriage to be featured on an American television series bit is not reference so feel free to remove it if you are sure of your claims Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.237.205 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

[edit]

"sister-in-law" is vague, it is not clear that it is Brenda. Rico's name pops out of no where and you have not mentioned his partnership at all. I think it should be mentioned somewhere that David picked up his first sister-in-law from coroner and the drama that evolved. Overall, you have done a great job. Some grammar issues but no big deal. I have to go back and review some episodes after this first quick run- through. Looking forward to coming back to this article. I can appreciate the enormous amount of work done here! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the peer review and support, and I plan to address the issues you have mentioned. I look forward to more suggestions!--137.198.30.156 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YW! Am thinking that as this iS an encyclopedia, "blowjob" should be replaced with fellactio. (?) BBL....DocOfSoc (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good subtle changes! Article becoming more interesting. Do we still have one blowjob too many? LOL.. Leave it and let me check with MY mentor! Well done! Namaste... DocOfSoc (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my mentor: "I think "peforms fellatio" is a bit more, encylopedic, depending on how many times it is used in a given article (and I can't imagine that more than a few mentions in a character's article doesn't cross into titillation... The exception would be if it is used in a quote, then you are pretty much stuck with it. Wikipedia is uncensored, but it doesn't have to be unnecessarily graphic or crude." I agree and I hope you do. Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm a team player :) This show was nothing if not sexual, but I'll try to keep it from being 'titillating' -- LOL!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:David Fisher (Six Feet Under)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 09:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Have worked on language, vocabulary and article flow. Will continue reviewing when I have watched portions of the series yet again. I own all the seasons, need to review a few aspects.[reply]

Found this: [2] interesting. In reading the above redirect, this is going to be a hard sell and they may push for a merge. Your thoughts? More links: notability= [3]

LGBT: [4]

Peter Krause, who plays Nate Fisher, mentions a quote attributed to Henry David Thoreau: "One world at a time." Says Krause: "That makes the best sense of anything to bring away from Six Feet Under. Whatever happens next will be as big a surprise as a human life." [5]

Comment: It seems like you were asking for my comment, but there is no doubt that David Fisher was a huge character and had real societal impact (as much as a fictional TV characer can) by kind of opening the door for a dramatic gay lead who wasn't just "the gay one". And realistically. He is (indisputable) a first. Thanks for the references, but I think they are all already in the article :) --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has progressed very nicely! I hope you get your GA status but have a concern about a merge. Best of Luck! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support.. As far as the merge notice, it is from three years ago. I really don't think it is a problem. DocofSoc, are you even still reviewing the article? I don't think it's clear if you are or not, and it might be keeping someone else from passing or failing it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as per your request "Hello and thanks for your continued input in the David Fisher article. May you please remove the  Doing... template from the David Fisher peer review? As this article is already under GA review, I would prefer for the peer review to be closed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)" I removed the "doing," so the first reviewer could go forward with your recommendation. I am under the impression that this removed me from the reviewers and the article could move forward. If there is anything else I could do to help achieve your status, please let me know. Best Wishes DocOfSoc (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the confusion. Previously, you had volunteered as both a peer reviewer and GA reviewer for this article. I asked you to remove {{doing}} from the peer review so the peer review could be closed, and we could focus on the GA review. But currently, you are still the GA reviewer for this article, if no more than because you began it. If you feel you've done all you can for this article, can you please ask for a second opinion on the GA nominiations page so another reviewer can take a stab at it? If you still would like to access it's GA status, can you please do so? Thank you!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will get more assistance of this. meanwhile, these suggestions were generated:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.DocOfSoc (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: There are way too many non-free images for this article. The infobox pic is probably fine, but not the others. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Text can easily replace those pics. Ωphois 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot-related section is also way too long. It's twice the size of the out-of-universe sections. Ωphois 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... where are we on this review? I honestly can't tell. Is a new reviewer needed? With the way GA is bot run now that's extremely hard to get. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full review of this article over the next couple days, seeing as how no one's actually reviewing it, technically. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found with the article:

  • "Nate, Claire and David" First mention of Nate and Claire, so last names needed, with links if applicable in the conception section.
  • Ironically, Nate and Claire are written and linked in in the progression section; can be unlinked since they'll be linked above.
  • "David bonds with Keith's young niece Taylor of whom Keith gets custody after Taylor's mother is incarcerated" feels run-on-ish. Perhaps 'Taylor, whom Keith gets custody of..'
  • The image File:Six Feet Under 'All Alone'.jpg is much to big to be fair use, and that image needs a much stronger fair use rationale, else it should be deleted. Same for File:New Picture (12).png and File:David and Keith's wedding (SFU - Everybody's Waiting 5X12).png.
  • "an affirming but alternative version of image of non-traditional families and couples," This doesn't sound grammatically correct (version of image?); can you double check the quote?

I'll part the article on hold, and will either pass it or fail it by October 4. No extensions, this has gone on too long as it is. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, change of plans. I just noticed that the primary contributor's been gone the past month, and the image issues were brought up two months ago and never dealt with. As a result I'm just failing this now. It was 98% there, but it's gotta be at 100%. When it is, it can be renominated. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Fisher (Six Feet Under). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Fisher_(Six_Feet_Under)&oldid=1207238030"