# Talk:Richard Madden

Reliable sourcing shows Madden and Coleman started a relationship in 2012. If anyone has reliable sourcing to show that this relationship has ended please add and modify the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:
Your edit summary: If by content you mean this image, then I should probably remind you that it's a duplicate of the one used in the infobox, as they're both from the same event. Perhaps you should find another photo for the body of the article
Yes, I meant the image in the Career section, which I added on 26 October 2018 and as no-one objected at the time, it has been part of the stable version of the article ever since.
This image is not in fact a duplicate of the one used in the infobox even though it is from the same event. The 1st image shows Madden smiling and the 2nd image shows him speaking. Please show me where it says in the MOS that you may not use more than one image from the same event. If you can't do that, then the onus is on you to choose a different image that you think is more appropriate and explain why. It is not up to me to do so, as I am quite happy with the one that's been there since October!
I should probably remind you that by removing the image twice you are in danger of entering into an edit war which I must advise against. Especially as you made no attempt to provide an explanation by means of an edit summary the first time you removed it, which might have been a more straightforward way of doing things.
If anyone else wants to pitch in with an opinion, then I may defer. But no-one else has objected up until now. This article needs more than just a couple of paltry illustrations. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Just because no-one objected you in the first place doesn't mean that nobody has the right to question your edit now.
Thank you for your reminder, but I'm very well-aware of the policies, and although MOS doesn't specifically say that it's not right to have two pictures of the same event in the article, I've rarely (not never) seen two similar images being included on one specific page. I'm glad that you're happy with your choice, but I believe a different image should have been included in the career section, as the current one has no encyclopedic purposes.
I would pretty much love to see what the other users think about this issue. Keivan.fTalk 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. That could easily have been done in an edit summary when you first deleted the image. I'm particularly keen on edit summaries because without them an edit appears random and it's sometimes impossible to tell the difference between good faith and vandalism. That aside, I think the main problem that's going on here is that there's a paucity of available images to choose from in the Commons repository, which is kind of why I chose this image file in the first place, knowing full well that it was similar (but not identical) to the one in the infobox. The latter should really just be for identifying the person who is the subject of the BLP. Any others in the article should be encyclopaedic. With that in mind, I might suggest using this one in the infobox instead, as it's neatly cropped and wouldn't be immediately recognisable as being from the 2013 Comic-Con event. I wonder if it would be possible to obtain any more recent fair use images? Not something I've ever done so I wouldn't know. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I do believe that better pictures add to the quality of articles in general . Ive browsed many articles prior to  joining wiki and have always wondered why such poor quality pictures are used . Futher more articles should reflect new imagery were applicable. Newer better pictures indicate that Wikipedia is mostly updated to recent happenings/ sitautions etc.  Ive decided to change certain pictures yet some  people have a problem with this too . I dont truly understand why its wrong . Ive explained my reasoning and id urge editors to support changes to pictures especially of living people . Hpdh4 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)  

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Madden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 17:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Opening sentence is a little short, could be expanded to say what kind of actor perhaps?
 Done. KyleJoantalk
"debut as a child actor and stage debut " not keen on the quick repetition of debut.
I replaced stage debut with later began performing on stage. KyleJoantalk  06:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"his shyness.[8][6] " ref order.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
"Iain Banks's Complicity.[9] which was released in 2000,[10]" punctuation fail.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
"Royal Conservatoire of Scotland," you referred to it by its other name in the lead.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
"While at the Royal Conservatoire ..." this sentence is confusing and has too many run-on clauses.
I think I fixed it. I split the information into two separate sentences. KyleJoantalk  06:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Citizens' Theatre our article has no apostrophe.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
"Worried About the Boy " small the.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
Banks's vs Mendes'...
 Done. I went with Banks' and Mendes'. KyleJoantalk
"recognized" British English -> recognised.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
No need to link London or Los Angeles, they are well known.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
"Citizen's Theatre" another variant not the same as our own article.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
Be Near Me so good it got referenced twice.
Ha! Sorry about that!  Done. KyleJoantalk
Check online refs have accessdates/publication dates/both where appropriate.
 Done per this edit. KyleJoantalk  06:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Be consistent with linking things like The Guardian in the refs.  Either always, never or just once on the first instance.  I prefer always.
 Done per this edit. I agree with preferring to always link, so I added links to all of the refs. KyleJoantalk
Spaced hyphens in the ref titles should be en-dashes.
 Done. KyleJoantalk
That's all I have for now, so it's on hold.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe I made all of the suggested changes, The Rambling Man. Please let me know if there are any others you would like made. Thank you very much! KyleJoantalk  06:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
KyleJoan thanks for all those updates.  Just one more thing: while I very much appreciate the accessibility applied to the tables, I think the row scopes should be on the film/television series/etc rather than the year?  It's not essential and not part of GA criteria so I'm passing this anyway, just if you could find time to move those scopes it would be brilliant.  Good work.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thank you very much again, The Rambling Man! KyleJoantalk  13:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello all! I wanted to inquire about the main section of this page, specifically the lack of the Time 100 in main. I took a quick look at the other Time 100 selections for 2019 in the artists category and the majority of their pages have the 100 distinction in main. In my opinion it seems like a justifiable bit of information to add to the leading section, given it's exclusivity and significance. 
I was thinking that it could be added after "...for which he won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Television Series Drama." Something along the lines of "...Series Drama. In the following year, Time magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world."
What do others think? I am newer to editing on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate input from the more seasoned contributors on here! Thanks. 
--MGLalitha (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, MGLalitha! I hope you like it here. Regarding the Time 100 list, I'm not sure including it in the lede would adhere to Wikipedia's policy on due weight. The list is undisputedly renowned, but it is not essential to his notability as an actor. Now, if he has been listed multiple times across multiple years, then I believe it would be more appropriate to note. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 05:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much KyleJoan. I just figured that since it is featured on a large number or actors/celebrities main sections it would be relevant enough to be on Richard's page. But, I understand your reasoning and appreciate your insight. Thanks again! --MGLalitha (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all! Hope everyone is doing well. I was considering adding an awards/nominations section to Richard's article. I feel that he since he has received recognition from some major associations and the occasional festival, such a section would be warranted. I would like to hear from others on whether or not a section for awards is necessary before I make a table. Thanks!--MGLalitha (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)