Jump to content

Talk:Frank Underwood (House of Cards)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Figureskatingfan (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 28 March 2014 (GA pass). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 24, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
February 19, 2014Good article reassessmentKept

GA1

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Underwood (House of Cards)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


1: Well-written

 Done
  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis (MOS:INTRO). The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
      • Major Point 1: "Underwood was born ..." (Background of Underwood, not covered in the body)
      • Major Point 2: "During season 1, he is a Democrat ..." (should be a summary of section Season 1)
      • Major Point 3: "In season 2, he is ..." (not covered in the body)
      • Major Point 4: "... narrative technique that breaks the fourth wall ..." (not covered in the body, the term fourth wall appears only in the lead)
      • Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK)
      • Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response (not covered in the lead)
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
      • As above.
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
      • As above.
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
  4. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  5. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  6. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications: None
    • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None
    • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
    • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None
    • Check for Links to sister projects: None
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA):  Done
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT: NA

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world): NA
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): NA
    • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): NA
 Done


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done
  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):  Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
    • "When Urquhart addressed the audience, it was partly in the spirit of conspiratorial fun. His asides sparked with wit. He wasn't just ruthlessly striving, he was amusing himself, mocking the ridiculousness of his milieu. There is no impishness about Spacey’s Frank Underwood, just numb, machine-like ambition. Even his affection for his wife is a calculation."[3] (Check on source 3, partly successful, "The British “House of Cards,” which aired on the BBC in 1990 and inspired this new version, had a different protagonist in Ian Richardson’s Francis Urquhart. When Urquhart addressed the audience, it was partly in the spirit of conspiratorial fun. His asides sparked with wit. He wasn’t just ruthlessly striving, he was amusing himself, mocking the ridiculousness of his milieu. There is no impishness about Spacey’s Frank Underwood, just numb, machine-like ambition.", Even his affection for his wife is a calculation is not in source 3)
    • "I love that woman, I love her more than sharks love blood."[3] (Check on source 3, unsuccessful, it should actually be cited to source 11 which has ""I love that woman," Francis Underwood says to the camera at one point about his wife. "I love her more than sharks love blood."")
    • "remorselessly self- interested, desiring power for power's sake". [4] (Check on source 4, successful, ""That's not to say he's a good person, obviously like Francis Urquhart before him he's remorselessly self- interested, desiring power for power's sake, but the question posed is: is that so bad if he gets things done?")
    • "menacing" character, "hiding his rage behind Southern charm and old-fashioned courtesy,"[4] (Check on source 4, successful, "Certainly Spacey swiftly manages to banish memories of Richardson's wicked twinkle, presenting us instead with a more quietly menacing man, hiding his rage behind Southern charm and old-fashioned courtesy.")
    • "Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value." — Underwood[5] (Check on source 5, successful, "EARLY in the new Netflix series “House of Cards” the narrator and card player Representative Francis Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, looks straight into the camera and tells viewers: “Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.”")
    • "…is on a quest for power that’s just as suspenseful as anything on television."[5] (Check on source 5, successful, "Underwood, having been spurned in his bid to become secretary of state, is on a quest for power that’s just as suspenseful as anything on television.")
    • "I’m feelin’ hungry today!" ... [6] (Check on source 6, successful, "he has a Washington BBQ joint open early to serve him a celebratory rack of ribs, because “I’m feelin’ hungry today!”")
    • "She’s as tough as a two-dollar steak." ... [6] (Check on source 6, successful, "He describes the White House Chief of Staff with grudging admiration: “She’s as tough as a two-dollar steak.”")
    • "you devour a whale. One bite at a time." ... [6] (Check on source 6, successful, "He plans to destroy an enemy the way “you devour a whale. One bite at a time.”")
    • "[imagining] their lightly salted faces frying in a skillet."[6] (Check on source 6, successful, "And he endures a tedious weekly meeting with House leaders, he tells us, by “[imagining] their lightly salted faces frying in a skillet.”")
    • "Spacey gives Underwood a silky Southern accent you could pour over crushed ice and sip with a sprig of mint on Derby Day."[6] (Check on source 6, successful, "He makes you feel–as Underwood must everyone he wheedles and lobbies–like the only person in the room not beneath his contempt. And Spacey gives Underwood a silky Southern accent you could pour over crushed ice and sip with a sprig of mint on Derby Day.")
    • "scheming politician" who does "some of the most evil and underhanded things imaginable".[7] (Check on source 7, successful, "As Underwood, even in the first season, you’ve gotten to do some of the most evil and underhanded things imaginable. Where can he go in Season 2?")
    • "…conniving Congressman Frank Underwood, is easily one of the most complex antiheroes on TV — except he’s not on TV".[8] (Check on source 8, successful, "Spacey’s character, conniving Congressman Frank Underwood, is easily one of the most complex antiheroes on TV — except he’s not on TV.")
    • "all but salivates over the chance to use his considerable power to gain more power, especially if it involves pulling the rug out from under some colleagues and the wool over the eyes of others."[9] (Check on source 9, successful, "Spacey, digging into his overstuffed trunk to dust off the Southern cad he played in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," all but salivates over the chance to use his considerable power to gain more power, especially if it involves pulling the rug out from under some colleagues and the wool over the eyes of others.")
    • "Machiavelli taking you under his wing and walking you through the corridors of power, explaining the totally mundane and crass on a mechanical level to the most grotesque manipulations of a system that is set up to have all these checks and balances".[10] (Check on source 10, successful, "“The idea of Machiavelli taking you under his wing and walking you through the corridors of power, explaining the totally mundane and crass on a mechanical level to the most grotesque manipulations of a system that is set up to have all these checks and balances was just too delicious,” said Fincher.")
    • "charm" ... [10] (Check on source 10, successful, "“Where [the U.S. version] falls down is that the leading character doesn’t have the charm.")
    • "Dickensian" ... [10] (Check on source 10, successful, "Willimon felt that Frank Underwood as a name “felt Dickensian and more legitimately American” than Francis Urquhart. ")
    • "more legitimately American" ... [10] (Check on source 10, successful, as above)
    • "mild but sometimes missing Carolina accent".[11] (Check on source 11, successful, "Some of those things, like Mr. Spacey's mild but sometimes missing Carolina accent, don't matter. ")
    • "scheming" [14] (Check on source 14, successful, "Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, who portray the scheming husband and wife at the center of “House of Cards,” were also nominated as lead actor and actress.")
    • "My husband doesn’t apologize...even to me."[19] (Check on source 19, successful, "Claire applauds all his vices except weakness. “My husband doesn’t apologize,” she tells him, “even to me.”")
    • "ask any questions" ... [19] (Check on source 19, successful, "She begs Francis to be her source and promises not only to protect his identity but also to print whatever he tells her and not to “ask any questions.”")
    • "Fairfax County Council" beat to covering "'what's behind the veil' of power in the Capitol hallways."[20] (Check on source 20, successful, "who works at a Washington Post-like newspaper and who would do anything to cover “what’s behind the veil” of power in the Capitol hallways and get herself off what she erroneously calls the “Fairfax County Council” beat. (From which she has filed copy about jogging trails in Rock Creek Park. Girl gets around.)")
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done (cited well)
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  Done
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:  Done
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:  Done
    2. Check for Out of scope:  Done
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:  Done
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:  Done
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:  Done
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:  Done
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:  Done
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

 Done

b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):  Done
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):  Done


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR)

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
    • Image (Frank Underwood - House of Cards.jpg): This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done (Non-free content)
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done (Yes)
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done (valid)
    • Source (WP:NFCC#4): http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/House_of_Cards/70178217
    • Use in article (WP:NFCC#7): Frank Underwood (House of Cards)
    • Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8): For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work.
    • Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3): Low resolution

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
    • Relevant to the article
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
    • Appropriate & Representative
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done
    • Caption - "Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood." (succinct and informative)

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm glad to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refer here. The difference between the two revisions is the addition of two sentences in the lead. They are: "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise." and "The character has also been Golden Globe Award- and SAG Award-nominated.". The latter sentence belongs to the Major Point 5: Awards and nominations (OK), which was never an issue. The former sentence belongs to the Major Point 6 (Body): Critical response for which the lead still does not provide an accessible overview and does not give Relative emphasis. Please compare the due weight given to these two points in the body and the lead. In fact, you've hardly addressed any issues raised in the review since the article is on hold. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current version (after last edit at 05:04, 18 January 2014‎) of the article is here. On applying the above checklist to the latest version, the issues identified are:

  • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
    • Major Point 1: Background and description "Underwood is from Gaffney … speaks in a southern dialect." (not a concise summary of the Background and description section)
    • Major Point 1.1: Underwood vs. Urquhart "" (not in the lead)
    • Major Point 2: Season 1 "During season 1, he is a … " (not a concise summary of the Season 1 section)
    • Major Point 3: Season 2 "In season 2, he is the … " (summarised well in the lead)
    • Major Point 4: Critical response "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise … vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." (not a concise summary of the Critical response section)
    • Major Point 4.1: Awards and nominations "" (summarised well in the lead)
  • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
    • Major Point 1: Background and description "Underwood is from Gaffney … speaks in a southern dialect." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
    • Major Point 1.1: Underwood vs. Urquhart "" (not in the lead)
    • Major Point 2: Season 1 "During season 1, he is a … " (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
    • Major Point 3: Season 2 "In season 2, he is the … " (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
    • Major Point 4: Critical response "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise … vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
    • Major Point 4.1: Awards and nominations "" (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
  • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
    • Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. (WP:BETTER).
    • Section Season 2 needs to be fixed.
    • Short paragraphs need to be fixed.

This nomination has been on hold for 7 days. I'm going to fail this nomination due to above issues. If you resolve the above issues at a later date, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my review closure as per discussions in the GA forum. However, I'd like to resign from this review. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment: This article bases all its information on what has been revealed in Season 1 of House of Cards. In 3 weeks (on February 14), all of Season 2 will be released, doubling the amount of information on Frank's character, background, actions, etc. It's unavoidable that the article will change a great deal quite rapidly at this point. I think this may introduce stability concerns, per criterion 5. If it were just season 4 or 5 that were about to be released, I wouldn't think the amount of new information would be enough to create a problem. And in an ordinary TV show, where new episodes are released once each week, this might not be a problem. But the amount of new information that will be released, combined with the fact that it will be released all at once, combined with the nearness of the release date—put together, that makes me think that a GAN really shouldn't pass until after season 2 is out (and after critics have had time to give sourceable analysis). – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The content won't nearly double. Maybe it will expand 20%. Most of the content will be unchanged. It is not like he will become a new character with a new background, style and history. He is not going to switch parties, change accents, get a new wife, recognize a new hometown or stop breaking the fourth wall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that much of Frank's personality and background is likely to remain stable, but I'm not sure if we can know how much or how little his character will change. If he were to, for instance, become President of the U.S. (mere speculation, but not impossible), then that fact would belong in the lead sentence. Chapter 8 of Season 1 abruptly showed that Frank was secretly gay, or at least had a homosexual relationship in college, which was totally unexpected; I think it possible that further unexpected and character-changing revelations will occur in Season 2. (I'm not taking over and failing the GAN for criteria 5 concerns; I'm merely raising the issue so that whoever takes over this review can take it into account.)
Speaking of which, why is Frank's former homosexual relationship not mentioned? Reliable sources at Slate, AVClub, and a NYT blog mention it. – Quadell (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of it or seen mention of it before you pointed this out. I will add it now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: RESULT - withdrawn by nom. Nom following consensus below also moved English folk musician out of the primary slot to Frank Underwood (English musician) and requested admin Anthony Appleyard to move dab into primary slot. All good. (non-admin closure) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Underwood (House of Cards) → Frank Underwood – This article is by far the most popular usage of Frank Underwood. The page that occupies that namespace at the moment, Frank Underwood, is a very short article about a blues musician. In contrast, this article about the House of Cards protagonist is very clearly the primary topic for the name, and is even being considered for categorization as a Good Article. Page view statistics show that this article has had 51,930 views this month, while the article currently occupying the primary topic title has had only 1384 views this month, the chart indicating that the vast, vast majority of even these are as a result of confusion between it and this article. I am aware and sensitive to the fact that this may be confused with recentism, but the other article is about an elderly blues musician with little information, unlikely to be increasing in popularity. There is no doubt that this particular character's article is the primary topic and should be moved as such. There are no other articles about people named Frank Underwood other than this and the one currently occupying the primary topic title. Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Underwood (House of Cards)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. As per my practice, I fill out the template and then conduct a prose and source review. Tony already knows that I tend to be thorough (and picky), so I won't make that disclaimer. ;) Don't watch the show, so I'm interested in the introduction. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Strong article, close to passing to GA. It looks like there was some good work done on the previous unfinished GAC, but there are still some minor issues to address.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Minor issues; see below for prose review.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I'm not so sure about how this article is structured. I've never liked "Relationships" sections in articles about fictional characters; very few of FAs and the best GAs have them. Plus, the sub-sections "Bisexuality" and "Ancestry" don't fit there. I suggest removing those sections and folding in the content into other sections. See below for my ideas about how to do that.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    This, unlike many character articles, doesn't have anything about casting. I'd think that with all the information about the series out there, that they'd be stuff about why Spacey was chosen to play Frank (other than he's awesome, ya know). I also think that the comparison between Underwood and Urquhart should be presented differently; see below for more detail.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There seems to be some reversions of unsourced information by IPs, and more-than-usual amount of collaboration here (mind you, that's not a bad thing), but it seems to be under control.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Currently, there are no images, just quoteboxes. Couldn't you include images of the cast, at least Spacey, Wright, or Mara? I would also think that you could also get away with a screenshot.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Nothing to access here.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Not ready yet. Good luck, see below for a more thorough prose and source review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

As I state above, I'm not sure about the format of this article. I think that you could do without the "Relationships" section, and fold the content into other sections. I would re-name the first section "Background", and keep the comparison between Underwood and Urquhart there. If you can find any information about "Casting", and how Spacey was chosen, this would be where I'd put it, although that's just a suggestion, and not a requirement for this article to pass to GA. (Although if you want to go further, you'd need it.) Then I'd fold the content in the "Relationships" section in here; I'll let you decide how to do that. I also wonder if you should put the "Underwood vs. Urquhart" section first, before you start talking about Underwood, since it feels more chronological. I especially like how you've avoided a "Storylines" section, which I personally strongly dislike, and that you've divided up "Critical response" into seasons.

Background

  • I think that this would be the place to fold in the content from the later "Ancestry" section, about Frank's ancestor, at the end of this section's 1st paragraph. It fits, since you mention Frank's military background with his attendance at the Sentinel.
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: As much as I love serialized commas, this is where they get us in trouble. The current version of this sentence makes it sound like each item in the list are schools, even though common sense tells us they aren't. One way to fix that is to put the description of the Sentinel is parenthesis and then remove the commas.
  • Spacey's prior role to Underwood had been in Shakespeare's Richard III as the classic fourth wall breaching Richard III of England, a character that serves as a partial basis for both Urquhart and Underwood. If you had info about casting here, this might better go here. As it is, it feels out of place to me; at the very least, it needs a stronger transition. Before I make a suggestion, I have a question: did Richard III inspire the writers of House of Cards to break the fourth wall? If so, you could change the wording to reflect that, and then connect Spacey with both roles. Also, did the producers pick Spacey because of his experience as Richard, or was it coincidental?
  • The character speaks in a southern dialect. This feels out of place here. You could either put it with the sentence in the first paragraph about his hometown, or in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, like this: "Much of Underwood's dialogue, spoken in his characteristic southern dialect..." (You don't need "throughout the series"; I think that's self-evident.)
  • Outside of politics and time smoking and scheming with his wife, one of his few vices is video games. Doesn't make sense: "politics and time smoking and scheming"?
  • Why did the poor guy have to give up video games; does it have anything to do with his role as VP?
  • Spacey viewed continuing to portray Underwood for a second season as a continuing learning process. "Continuing" is repetitive. I think you could just omit the first one and then omit "to" and change "portray" to a present participle ("-ing").
  • Spacey's quote is too long; I think you should paraphrase at least some of it.

Underwood vs. Urquhart

  • I think that you switch tenses too much in this section; many of my suggestions try and correct for that.
  • I think you could combine the 1st two sentences, like this, which would also do away with the repetition: "Underwood is an Americanized version of the original BBC character Francis Urquhart, a Machiavellian post-Margaret Thatcher chief whip of the Conservative Party." You should also link "Machiavellian".
  • Next sentence: Change "he employed" to "he employs".
  • According to series producer Willimon, the name change stemmed from the "Dickensian" feeling and "more legitimately American" sounding resonance of the name Underwood. This is the first time you mention Willimon, so you should cite his full name and link it. Was Willimon the one who changed the character's name? If so, I have a suggestion, but I need to hear your answer first. Also, the Dickens reference confuses me; it's strikes me as odd that the American version would be "Dickensian", unless you mean that Urquhart's name is that way, and not Underwood's.
  • Urquhart was one of television's first antiheros, whereas Underwood follows the more recent Tony Soprano, Walter White, and Dexter Morgan. This is a little confusing to me. First off, you state that Uruhart was an antihero, but infer that Underwood and the list of American characters are not. I think that perhaps you're comparing UK TV and American TV, that in the UK, antiheroes aren't as common as they are in the U.S. If so, you should reword this sentence to reflect that. Also, although you link the characters' names, I think that you should identify (and link) their shows.
  • ...creator and showrunner Beau Willimon said he drew regular inspiration from Lyndon B. Johnson as a repeated source for themes and issues. How about this, to tighten the prose a bit: "...creator and showrunner Beau Willimon said he was often inspired by Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a source for themes and issues addressed in House of Cards."

Season 1

  • How does Frank ensure that Walker becomes president?
  • He is informed of this by Presidential Chief of Staff Linda Vasquez (Sakina Jaffrey) prior to the January 2013 United States presidential inauguration, which provokes him to hatch a plan. Passive voice; how about: "Presidential Chief of Staff Linda Vasquez (Sakina Jaffrey) gives him this news prior to the January 2013 inauguration, which provokes him to hatch a plan."
    • I made the change but kept the full inauguration link. Did you want me to pipe that?--22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Time television critic James Poniewozik notes that by the end of the first episode, Frank establishes that his metaphor of choice is meat because both literally and figuratively it is his preference. Could be tighter; how about: "According to Time television critic James Poniewozik, by the end of the first episode, it becomes clear that Underwood both literally and figuratively uses meat as his metaphor of choice."
  • Next sentence: too long. How about: "He may begin a day with a celebratory rack of ribs, because "I’m feelin’ hungry today!", but he depicts his life with meat metaphors. For example, he describes the White House Chief of Staff with grudging admiration: "She’s as tough as a two-dollar steak", and plans to destroy an enemy the way "you devour a whale. One bite at a time." He also endures a tedious weekly meeting with House leaders, as he tells the audience, by "[imagining] their lightly salted faces frying in a skillet."

I'll stop here, and try to get to more in a couple of days. Should keep you busy for now. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2

Critical response

  • I don't have much to review here, since the majority of the prose are quotes. I highly recommend that you go through and paraphrase many (if not most) of them.

Awards and nominations

  • Among those nominations was Spacey's portrayal of Frank Underwood... I think that this sentence is too long and a little confusing. How about this: "For the first time, three Primetime Emmy nominations for lead roles were from web television series: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series to Spacey for his portrayal of Frank Underwood, Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series to Wright for her portrayal of Claire Underwood, and Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series for his portrayal of Michael Bluth in Arrested Development."
  • The role has also earned Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Television Series Drama and Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series nominations. A role can't earn anything, so how about: "Spacey also earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor in a Television Series Drama and a Screen Actors Guild nomination for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series nominations."

Relationships

  • Even though I think that the content here should be folded into other parts of the article, I'll look at the prose here and then make suggestions for where they should go.

Claire

Zoe

Bisexuality

  • The article by David Carr and Ashley Parker points out that although it is not clear what the revelation of this semester tells us about his choices, we never see Frank and Claire have sex in season 1. I think this could be tighter; how about: "According to David Carr and Ashley Parker, although it is unclear how the experience influenced his choices, we never see Frank and Claire have sex in season 1."
  • Suggestion: After thinking about it for a bit, I think that the "Relationships" section, with the subsections about Claire and Zoe, should be moved to the "Background" section. Then you should remove the "Bisexuality" section and fold the content into "Background", with the transitional sentence, "Underwood's sexuality is unclear throughout much of the first two seasons." Then in the 2nd sentence, you'd change "Francis" to "his".

Ancestry

  • This section should be removed, and then the content folded in the 1st paragraph of the "Background" section, after the 1st sentence.
  • The fictional universe tone breaks down here; I think you should add the word "fictional" before naming the corporal. This is what I'd do with these sentences: "Underwood's great-great-great grandfather was Corporal Augustus Elijah Underwood, who died at the age of 24 serving the 12th Regiment of McGowan's Brigade at the Bloody Angle engagement in the American Civil War. Underwood's great-great grandfather was 2 when his father was killed."

Lead

  • I tend to review the lead last, after I'm familiar with the rest of the article.
  • Same problem with Underwood's school list as mentioned above.
  • The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise. He is one of the several 21st century antiheros that have appeared on television to much critical acclaim. A little repetitive. How about combining these ideas, like this: "The character, one of the several 21st century antiheros that have appeared on television, has been described as evil, conniving, and Machiavellian but has received significant critical praise."

I will stop here, and consider looking at the references separately. At first glance, they seem fine for GA, but I'll take a closer look in a day or so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, sorry that I dropped the ball with this review, and that I spaced it; my only excuse is that I've busy and distracted by other RL and WP projects. Tony, thanks for your patience and for pinging me. I'm satisfied with your changes, and I've done a cursory source review, and all looks good for this article to pass to GA. Thanks for your hard work and diligence, and for introducing me to this show. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Underwood_(House_of_Cards)&oldid=601581243"