Talk:Kit Harington/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put comments soon, meanwhile I'd really appreciate it if you could review this for GA. Thanks either way. NumerounovedantTalk 15:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Just letting you know if you have forgot. - AffeL (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I have been traveling all this time. I'll get to this tonight. Thanks for being patient. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your mass removal of the content below. I added those comments because they are relevant to GA review (maintenance tags were removed without the issues being addressed, and said maintenance tags would have auto-failed this GA review if they had been allowed to remain). BLP articles that contain contentious/unsourced material cannot be Good Articles. If/when the problem is addressed, the discussion below can be collapsed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life sourcing and SYNTH concerns from Hijiri88

Resolved

Not going to preemptively overhaul this review, but per this source analysis I think that the sentence about him being in a relationship with his GOT co-star needs either

(a) to be sourced to a single reliable source that explicitly supports the full claim which is not the case at the moment,
(b) to be removed, or
(c) to be rewritten to emphasize that he didn't "confirm" anything, that "an on-and-off relationship [...] since 2012" is a long-standing rumour that both Harington and Leslie formally denied a number of times, and that the only thing that happened in 2016 was that they were photographed kissing at a red carpet event.

Note that I'm not saying I agree or disagree that they are dating or anything like that. I just don't think Wikipedia should be playing the celeb gossip game, and should especially not be making double-BLP claims that are only explicitly supported by one BuzzFeed article. I am not that experienced with BLPs or celebrity gossip, so I am not actually sure if option (c) would be acceptable. Ideally, we could find a better source and go with option (a), but I suspect (b) might actually be the only viable option here if the article is to pass GA review.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read User talk:AffeL#Kit Harington. It has been confirmed by both kit and rose. As the sources I posted proves. - AffeL (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the discussion on your talk page. Your claiming, without evidence, that Leslie and Harington have both "confirmed" it does not make it so. None of the sources verify this claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do actually, See here:^[1](Min: 4.24) and ^[2]

Now who's citing bootleg YouTube videos? I'm not going to watch through the Leslie interview (which does seem to be an official source), since I deeply suspect it doesn't verify the claim you are making. The Harington interview doesn't -- saying he "fell in love" is not the same as him confirming long-standing rumours that he and Leslie are an item. You are again showing your poor understanding of reliable sourcing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not willing to check the sources I give you, then thats your problem. But heres another source that is in writing, you can read right? (Source:^[3])

If you tell me where in the interview she mentions it, I will check. I watched the first two minutes and it had nothing to do with Harington. And the HuffPost source you now link again doesn't confirm the claim made in the article. If you want, you can rewrite the sentence in the article to match the HuffPost source. Something like Harington is dating his Game of Thrones co-star Rose Leslie. -- what is your problem with that? I think it might violate BLP to talk about the 2012 rumours, but that's not for me or you to decide; you should open an RFC if you really want to add it to the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What claim does the sources below not confirm, cause I don't understand what you are getting at. Kit says on the clip that they began dating in 2012(that's when they shoot season 3 in Iceland) and the HuffPost confirmed the same thing and also that they are still a couple and even moving in togheter. About the Leslie clip, again if you are not willing to check the source you claim does not comfirm something, then thats your problem. If the problem you have is about the sentance that says they "been in an on-and-off relationship", then you can remove that, I don't care, since I did not write that. - AffeL (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What claim does [sic] the sources below not confirm, cause I don't understand what you are getting at. If you are not going to read my explanation in the WP:COMMENTs you blanked, I don't know what else to say. I don't have time to examine the new sources you have added, but can you confirm that:

they verify that he confirmed the relationship;
they verify that the confirmation came in 2016;
they verify that he confirmed that tthe relationship had been "on-and-off"; and
they verify that he confirmed that the relationship had begun in 2012?

None of the sources previously cited (including the HuffPost article you linked above) confirmed any of the above four points, so I am skeptical.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources below do confirm all of these but the third one. You can remove the "on-and-off" part, no problem. But the other ones noted have all been confirmed by HuffPost and the other two sources. And HuffPost is a reliable source btw. - AffeL (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AffeL: I fell in love in Iceland is not the same as My current significant other and I began our relationship in Iceland, let alone I have been in a relationship with her since the Iceland photography for season two wrapped or I have been in a relationship since 2012. If you could verify that the Iceland filming for season two took place entirely within 2012 (not likely), then maybe you could get as far as Kit Harington stated that he fell in love with his Game of Thrones co-star in 2012. If you could verify the date of the bootleg video upload then maybe you could add In 2016, to the start of it. The HuffPost article doesn't verify the "since 2012" part either -- it says that there were rumours. I suppose if one went by a really broad definition of "relationship", then maybe one could say that being in love with someone, regardless of whether it is requited or the other person knows about it, automatically qualifies as being in some kind of relationship, but (1) that is redundant, since by that definition "coworker" is a relationship, so his being in a "relationship" with his coworker is not noteworthy, and (2) listing off such relationships is arbitrary and argue violates BLP. The simple fact is you don't have a source that says Harington has been in a relationship with his co-star Rose Leslie since 2012, and if you can't find one you should just give up and settle on Harington is in a relationship with his co-star Rose Leslie. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with that, you can remove "2012". - AffeL (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking your permission. I don't plan on adding this page to a list of articles I brought to GA level if/when this review passes, so you should be the one to do at least some of the heavy lifting. It doesn't matter what you can go with or what you permit me to do -- what matters is what's in the sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never gave you permission, just said that I don't mind removing the year "2002". No need to be upset. - AffeL (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset. I'm just telling you that if you want this article to pass GA, you should do some of the work. The article at present contains an unsourced, contentious claim about a living person. I would remove it myself per BLP but honestly I'm getting kind of sick of editing articles related to GOT at this point, given how often my edits get auto-reverted. You should do it yourself, and if you are unwilling to work to make the article meet GA criteria, and no one else is either, then the GA review should not pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the so called "issues" you hade. - AffeL (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting scare-quotes around serious BLP concerns that have been recognized by multiple editors is not going to endear you to the community, and I now deeply suspect that some of your other past GA and FL noms should be reassessed, if you still seriously don't understand the problem with claiming someone has been in a romantic relationship for four years longer than they are willing to publicly acknowledge. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost, is their anything else? any more stuff you think needs to be fixed?, or are you just gonna write a long comment back saying basically nothing? - AffeL (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I find any more problems I'll report back. I still haven't checked the new sources (which don't appear to be the same ones you presented here) to see that they fully verify the content as it appears now. I know the HuffPost one does by itself, so I don't fully understand why five separate citations are needed. I can say for certain even without checking the details that the Hollywood Life citation from 2012 should be removed. It was just speculative rumour when it was published, and is useless for the claim that they are currently dating. Other than that, I have no specific complaints at the moment, so this section can be collapsed. When you figure out what to do with the photo, the same can be done with the section below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

For the record, I also think that the photo in the lead is the worst of our three current photos of him. Yes, it is slightly more up-to-date (three years old as opposed to four or six years old), but he's staring right into the camera and squinting, apparently because of whatever that light source is that one can see reflecting off his face. I think that it should be switched out of the lead in favour of one of the others currently further down in the article. And my thinking this is not "vandalism" either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was vandal, as you can see the user removed "| birth_name = Christopher Catesby Harington" from the infobox. But I agree that the picture should be changed. I think to "File:Kit Harington Comic-Con 2011.jpg" would be good. - AffeL (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your latest edit to my user talk page, I can accept that you now understand that accidentally, or even deliberately, removing some piece of information in good faith cannot be called "vandalism", but just to clarify: if what you were actually referring to was the removal of the redundant "birth name" parameter (as far as I can tell, he has not formally changed his name, so calling his full name his "birth name" is misleading, and removing it made sense), then your edit summary "removed vandalism" made no sense as the "vandalism" you were referring to would itself have been a removal. Anyway, it's peripheral to this GA review, but please refrain from using the words "vandal" and "vandalism" from now on. It comes across as attempting to game the system by preemptively declaring every revert you make as automatically being an exception to 3RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can dare to look at the edit history and see how often the photo is changed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the above misplaced response here from the main talk page, as it might be relevant to the stability criterion for GA, Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one else agree that "File:Kit Harington Comic-Con 2011.jpg" should be used instead? or is it just me? - AffeL (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article needs entensive expansion: The GoT role needs to have reviews for his performance, and as he has been playing the role for a long time I am sure there must be commentary and news artciles on his own expereinces. Also, other roles need similar expansion. The lead needs to be reworked to comply with the MoS. The personal life is just one sentence, is that really all there is to his life> I strongly suggest some more research and substantial expansion here. Good luck. At this point I have to Fail this. NumerounovedantTalk 10:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0YbPrLdyeg

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1t6o1IsrQ

[3] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/game-of-thrones-kit-harington-and-rose-leslie-are-moving-in-together_us_5925fc6fe4b0265790f4d476

[1]

[2]

[3]