# Talk:Tommy Villiers

@Launchballer:  you mentioned emailing with the subject and running your own website? Are you comfortable sharing what this website is? Czarking0 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The website is Launchballer.com, on which I received a single out-of-the-blue email from Villiers, which I a) declared at WP:BLPN (you've obviously seen the link so I won't bother repeating it) and b) did not reply to.--Launchballer 17:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Also, you still haven't reverted this piece of edit-warring, despite an instruction on your talk page.--Launchballer 17:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"In April 2022, Wet Leg published a music video titled Ur Mum directed by Lava La Rue. Villiers played Scotty the video's anti-hero. Villers stated that he got the job after supporting Nine8 Collective of which La Rue was a member." Is a good fix for the run on sentence In April 2022, Villiers played the anti-hero in the music video for Wet Leg's "Ur Mum", directed by Lava La Rue; in an interview in June 2023, he stated that he got the job after supporting Nine8 Collective, a group composed of Lava La Rue, Mac Wetha, Bone Slim, Biig Piig, Nayana Iz, Nige and LorenzoRSV, and after being interviewed for the role in the venue's green room by La Rue. Also the citations should be grouped at the end of the sentence unless it creates an issue with verifying the contents. This is not what WP:CLUMP is about. Also Youtube should generally not be used these claims fall squarely under promotion.
Czarking0 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"In April 2022" is not a good 'fix' because the sentences are too choppy and clumps impact readability (that page specifically suggests that four or more should be bundled, and if I had my way that would be way less). The sentence (or sentences, I removed the semicolon) should not start talking about the video without first saying what Villiers has to do with it. WP:Interviews are generally fine wherever they're published and 'musician plays gig' is not an extraordinary claim.--Launchballer 23:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
That essays not about youtube it is about interviews from reliable sources and it does not override the guideline. Also not every paragraph needs to start with the subject. Czarking0 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I've slept on this and have decided I have better uses of my time than arguing with someone who is happy to thumb their nose at WP:EW, WP:BLP, and WP:ABOUTSELF, all of which are policy. I will let an independent GA reviewer adjudicate - the competent ones give specific copyediting advice beyond 'it's bad' and will be familiar with WP:ASTONISH.--Launchballer 11:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
WP:OMG Czarking0 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe that the stated problems are actually problems. Responding to the tags that were added: Being on YouTube does not automatically make a source unreliable, that's a misunderstanding of how reliability is determined. There is no rule against putting citations in the middle of a sentence, and in many cases it may be preferable. I see no urgent copyediting concerns that warrant a tag, let alone "bad writing". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I took the tags off.--Launchballer 16:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tommy Villiers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 05:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)


### Questions
User:Czarking0 - You have tagged this article with multiple tags within the past 48 hours, including the {{unreliable sources}} tag, the {{cleanup}} tag, and the {{copyedit}} tag.  First, how many unreliable sources have you identified?  Second, the cleanup and copyedit tags seem duplicative.  Please explain what is intended by each of these tags and why they are both required.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not the venue for that but I'll respond on talk. Czarking0 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Czarking0 - The Good Article Quick Fail criteria include cleanup banners.  This Good Article assessment therefore is a valid forum.  If I am not satisfied with the explanation of the tags, I will be required to fail the GA assessment, and this is exactly where I will be required to document the pass or the fail.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
"It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" I think it is up to you to decide if these tags are "unquestionable". Czarking0 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


### On Hold
I am putting this GA assessment on hold because User:Czarking0 has put maintenance tags including {{unreliable sources}} and {{cleanup}} on it, and it doesn't appear that I can pass it while it has a cleanup tag or an unreliable sources tag.  My instructions to the author and to the tagger are to try to resolve the issues.  I am willing to provide a Third Opinion, but will only do so if requested.  I don't want to fail the Good Article assessment, but I can't pass it if there are non-trivial maintenance templates.  Please try to resolve these issues within 48 hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

He added the unreliable sources tag after he removed YouTube and ASCAP as sources, both of which are usable per WP:ABOUTSELF, without also removing the claims. He then edit-warred to remove the sources again, and those BLP violations remain in the article (see also his talk page). He then removed Promonews, again without removing the claims, which I subsequently removed. A GAN requiring copy changes and citation cleanup have never caused any of my previous GAs to be quickfailed, and quite frankly any user who thinks it acceptable to remove sourcing for BLP claims without also removing the claims should be nowhere near GA. Also, I regard the phrase "has or needs" in the good article criteria as tautologous, and am tempted to boldly trim it to 'needs'.--Launchballer 04:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Launchballer, User:Czarking0 - I am beginning the tedious part of the Good Article assessment, which is spot-checking the references.  While I am still in the process of the spot-checking, I will start a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.  Also, User:Czarking0 - Do you have any specific concerns about this article that should be addressed in the assessment process, or is there a reason why you are tagging the article, and are there any specific concerns about sources?  I am leaving the article on hold, but am spot-checking the references anyway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I am not that interested in this article so I am not going to spend much time on it. In regards to one of my tags about ref clean up: I just choose FN 48,49 at random to see if they have the citation templates filled out right. I see that neither of these have authors in the citation and both of the articles have authors in the link. If you think those are the only issues with this article then I somewhat question your judgement but ultimately you are the reviewer. Czarking0 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
This is not the venue for discussing changes to the GAC Czarking0 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Czarking0 - I did not say that the tags were the only issues with the article.  The tags are the obvious issue with the article.  Are you saying that you are aware of other issues with the article, or are you distracting from the review, or what?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
This comment is not very WP:AGF of you. Maybe you are right that I was quick to assume/ worded poorly that the tags were the only issue. I think I have laid out the case for why they think they are warranted. I don't want to distract from the review. Please take the review and tags in whatever direction you like. I only hope that you don't feel like you need to fail GAR on behalf of the tags unless you think that they are "unquestionable". Also since you responded to the wrong (or at least the comment that was not addressed to you) I just wanted to make sure you saw my other comment. Of course if you missed my other comment, then I see why you said "are you distracting from the review". Czarking0 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)


### Footnote 8
This note is followed by "29:33" which are page numbers, but are confusing and distracting.  Either remove the 29:33 or put it in footnote 8.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

29:33 is in fact a timestamp, but I agree that this could be misleading so I have removed them from the article.--Launchballer 09:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)


### Footnote 43
I have two questions about footnote 43, which appears twice.  The first is that it is followed by a 6:02 thing.  That may be a timestamp, but should be either removed or brought inside the citation.  Second, it is YouTube.  I am inferring that it is considered a reliable source in context because it is about the subject, and we already had a flap about YouTube.  Are you stating that it is reliable for its purpose?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I already removed all timestamps from the article. I believe the facts involving third parties (that La Rue directed it) are cited elsewhere, so I believe this should be fine for what it is. The contents of Nine8 were cited to a source that didn't mention Villiers, so I moved it to a note (and really must write their article!).--Launchballer 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)


### Footnote 41 or 42
When I click on footnote 41 in either of two ways, it says Error 410-API.  If I then click on a button, it shows me a list of stuff that doesn't seem to be relevant.  Has this link gotten confused?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I got redirected to https://91livingroom.com/whats-on-old/five-points-presents-dojo-dojo-ft-tommy-villiers-2/, so have corrected the link to that. Does this work for you?--Launchballer 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
What is now footnote 42 displays an Error 410-API, which is the same as what I had been seeing with footnote 41.  That looks like a ticket web site.  I think that you should either find another source, or just delete that statement and the source that doesn't successfully verify it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Can't find another source and the Internet Archive didn't have it, so cut. (I also trimmed the Dojo Dojo sentence while I was at it.)--Launchballer 00:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)


### Footnote 45
This footnote is Youtube.  Is this an About Self case where YouTube is "not unreliable"?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Footnote 45 is what was used to be footnote 43. I suggest picking a single revision and working from that.--Launchballer 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)


### Spotify
I have asked at the Good Article talk page whether Spotify can be considered a reliable source.  My thinking is that it is a reliable source about its own content, and that it is what it is being used for.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)


### An infected link
While looking at the references in this article, I have encountered a recurrent error message from Firefox saying that my computer is infected by a link to 
https://d0cgji0ko90s73bvgjb0.voksdefender.pro/w/m/b/ .  I will be requesting technical assistance in dealing with the link, and will provide more information in the near future.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not clicking that. Which other references have you looked at?--Launchballer 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I have looked at all the references, and I think that the problem was between 41 and 50.  I will be checking those references on my laptop computer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I rechecked the footnote range on my laptop computer, and did not encounter the link to the malicious web site, but I did encounter the broken link to the ticket web site.  I am satisfied that the bad ink has been fixed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)


### On hold again
I am putting this Good Article review on hold again.  I was wasting my time and that of Launchballer by trying to review the article, and in particular by trying to check the sources, while fixes were being made.  I will pick up this review in about a week unless another reviewer is ready to work on it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It's been about a week and a third, do you plan on returning to this?--Launchballer 18:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Launchballer - I will restart reviewing in maybe two or three days, after I finish with Stray Kids.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Take your time. I've got Talk:South Arcade/GA1 to finish.--Launchballer 00:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)


### Resuming Review
I am resuming this review and am working with the version of 0000, 6 May 2025.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Launchballer - Is it reasonable to assume that the footnotes are all in English?  This is a technical question because it affects what web browsers I use to view the footnotes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
All except Dansende Beren, which is in Dutch.--Launchballer 21:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)


### Finished
I think that I have over-reviewed, and will be closing this review as passed within a few hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, I have not gone through all the sources but at least the youtube sources of which there are more than one warrant attention to unreliable sources. Czarking0 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
As to why clean up and copy edit ? I had clean up for the fact that many of the citation templates should be filled out more/better/correctly and copy edit for the actual article content/sentences. The tags are watched by different people so it can be useful to have multiple even when the concerns are similar.Czarking0 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
There were two YouTube interviews used for ABOUTSELF claims. You removed one of them and an ASCAP source but left the claims intact, thereby violating WP:BLP. (ASCAP is also ABOUTSELF.)--Launchballer 01:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)