# Talk:Graham Chapman

This review is transcluded from Talk:Graham Chapman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi Ritchie333 - Just from a subjective standpoint, I think the article is in pretty good shape.  Will go through it today and tomorrow.  If I leave specific comments, and you make corrections, please "ping" me, and I'll take another look.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
Take a look at this copyvio report there are some direct cut and paste, and quite a bit of close paraphrasing.
First those are sites that have copied the Wikipedia article, not the other way round. Secondly, did you actually read the report, because having copyedited the entire article from top to bottom, diff the odds of any actual copyvios left are zero. I didn't find any in this article when working on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi.  Yes I did actually read the report.  Nothing in it to suggest that this was an instance of reverse copyvio.  The blog was posted back in 2008.  But I realized that I could check how the article looked prior to the blog post, so yes, I agree it is reverse copyvio, so I'll remove this objection.
I've copyedited some areas that report complained about. Ironically it makes the suspected copyvio score higher! The current site it's complaining about, http://reviews-and-ramblings.dreamwidth.org/3303052.html is definitely a scrape of an earlier revision of the article, as it contains the sentence "Its website is no longer online and the Internet Movie Database page has been deleted; the Graham Chapman Archive's website has disappeared as well" which I removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Nice layout, no peacock terms (except when quoting 3rd parties), nice filmography table.  The one issue I have (which wouldn't preclude me passing it) is the 2nd sentence.  It seems abrupt and awkward.  The rest of the lead reflects the article and succinct and nicely done.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
No raw links. #48 needs more information, since there is no link to it. #76 also needs more info.
B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
nice coverage, going over all of the main aspects of Chapman's life.
B. Focused (see summary style): 
Covers each topic well, without too much over-detail.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
No POV issue
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
no edit war issues
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: 
The two fair use rationales seem on topic. The other two pics are free. Would be nice if there were another pic or two, but again, that wouldn't preclude it being rated GA
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Only due to 1a, and some slight cleanup in the references.

@Helper201: Will you please stop adding "England" to the infobox parameters? It's silly and pointless. You directed me towards Template:Infobox_person#Parameters which in turn goes to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose which says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Its standard formatting to include a person's country of birth and country of death. Please see Template:Infobox person and specifically the Parameters section, under which it states for birth place section to state city, administrative region, country. Please view the table displayed there. This is clearly visible across Wikipedia and is shown that it should be included in the infobox template, which I have linked. You have given no good justification of why your niche way of doing this should justify going against what is stated should be included in the infobox template. Adding a person's country of birth and death does no harm to the infobox or page, it just gives more information that can clearly be viewed at a glance. Yes, the infobox shouldn't be overloaded. I'm not proposing we add multiple lines of address or anything like that, it’s literally one country and one new word on each line. How does this make the infobox hard to read or negatively overload it? Helper201 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the starting point of this is - are you confused which country Leicester is in? Are you confused which country Kent is in? And, as a follow up - do you realistically think anyone else would be confused. I have already read the links you put in the edit summary, and was aware of them anyway. "Adding a person's country of birth and death does no harm to the infobox or page" - it does if it's unsourced and wrong (although in this specific instance it isn't). As a quick and easy way of resolving this, I will go with whatever pigsonthewing suggests as he's probably right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I am not, but I am not everyone. Many non-British and/or non-European people may not know these places are in England, therefore it would be beneficial to them at a glance. Wikipedia is an international resource. Neither claim is wrong, so that seems a moot point. I see no justification for rejecting the standard information stated to be included in this infobox template type. Helper201 (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, and your kind words. I routinely add "England" (or equivalent) after the names of towns, cities and counties, in infoboxes, as the infobox documentation in this case recommends. I know plenty of people who - I would wager - would not know what Kent is, never mind that it is in England. Perhaps as a compromise, do so on the first occurrence (as I did on William Booth (forger), for example), and after any reference to another country?  Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay I've done that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: why include it for birth place but not death place or vice versa? If someone does not know that Leicestershire is in England there's probably about an equal chance that they also don't know that Kent is in England. I honestly see no way in which adding the country as recommend for birth place and death place negatively effects or impacts the infobox in any way, it only helps the reader by providing more information that is simple and easy to understand without being in any way being overloaded. Helper201 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, having England by Leicestershire for birth place but not England by Kent just looks very odd and inconsistent, and makes it look as if somehow Kent is upon glance not part of a country, or a country in-of-itself. Helper201 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The personal life section tells us:

Chapman and Sherlock moved to Belsize Park in 1968... In the mid-1980s, having resettled in Britain, [they] moved to Maidstone, Kent.
AFAIR, Belsize Park is in Britain. There is also no mention of them leaving the UK nor, in the body, of the home in Highgate mentioned in an adjacent image caption.
The whole narrative is very confusing (or confused). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The pertinent sentence that clarifies this (Chapman moved to Los Angeles in the late 1970s, returning to Britain in the mid 1980s) is in a different section. I've reorganised things so they make a bit more sense. He didn't live at the Highgate house until the early 1970s; he wouldn't have been able to have afforded that until Monty Python brought him fame and fortune. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that the supposed middle of name of Chapman, "Arthur", is not in any sources given in the article, nor any I could find. Significantly, the most used source, Bob McCabe's officially authorised biography, does not mention it, referring to the opening paragraph of his life as simply "Graham Chapman". I'm going to take that as definitive. (Actually, Liarappendix (talk · contribs) spotted it, I just did the fact checking).
The middle name was added here on 9 October 2008 (years before I started improving it) by 69.156.136.206 (talk · contribs), and since none of the other edits by that IP look like vandalism, I have to treat it as a good faith improvement, though not one cited by the highest quality sources.
Can anyone else back up my thoughts here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we accept britannica.com as a reliable source?:   https://www.britannica.com/biography/Graham-Chapman Hogyn Lleol (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Generally, yes, though I am still twitchy that a source described as "written with the full authorisation of Chapman's family and with extensive input from The Pythons" and citing several interviews with his brother John and David Sherlock, doesn't have it. I can't think of anything that screams out "reliable source" more than a professionally published work researched with the full co-operation of those closest to the subject. It's possible Graham just made it up one day to a journalist while he was bored, as people have a tendency to do. (cf: Ulysses Adrian Wood) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
See p23 of 'Monty Python Vs the World' by Jim Yoakum  https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CLfZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22graham+chapman%22+%22middle+name%22+arthur&source=bl&ots=3OTJvETOpa&sig=ACfU3U0LruGIuT158KoUHYO0hPDci-vbEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5w4Kh3IntAhVjQUEAHe6bApU4ChDoATACegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=%22graham%20chapman%22%20%22middle%20name%22%20arthur&f=false
Hogyn Lleol (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of ambiguity regarding his memorial service at St. Bartholomew's. In the heading of the article we have the following:
His life and legacy were commemorated at a private memorial service at St Bartholomew's with the other five Pythons two months after his death.
In the later Memorial Service section under Illness and Death, the second paragraph starts with the following:
A public memorial service for Chapman was held at St Bartholomew's on 3 December, two months after his death.
Can anyone clarify whether the service was private or public, or whether there where two separate services around the same time? I suspect there was only one public memorial service, since there's mention of the service being televised, but I figured I'd bring it up here first in case someone knew better. Warhorus (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It was "private" in the sense that people couldn't just walk in off the street, but "public" in that it was filmed and attended by many people. Anyway, I've removed "private" from the lead as it's factionally questionable and not really relevant to understanding the basics of Chapman's life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In the #Memorial service section, we write (my emphasis): Cleese delivered a eulogy to Chapman with shock humour that he believed Chapman would have appreciated and became the first person at a televised British memorial service to say "fuck". The latter half of this, without the word "televised", was added in 2009. This original version is what the source is actually saying, and what Cleese himself claimed in the TV broadcast. The qualifier "televised" was added in 2015, a week after this article received Good Article status. Unlike Cleese's original claim, which is neither verifiable nor likely to be true, this is probably  a safe claim to make; however, it's a lot weaker, and it's not what's actually in the source.
I suggest that we change it to one of these:

Cleese delivered a eulogy to Chapman with shock humour that he believed Chapman would have appreciated, and he claimed to be the first person at a British memorial service to say "fuck"., or
Cleese delivered a eulogy to Chapman with shock humour that he believed Chapman would have appreciated, and he allegedly became the first person at a British memorial service to say "fuck".
Opinions on which one is better? Renerpho (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)