Talk:David Mitchell (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article David Mitchell (actor) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Contacts

according to reference number [3], he wears contacts having used to wear glasses. Worth a mention?

If you can fit it in without recreating the trivia section, then sure, seems like something good to put in. Gran2 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Year

IMDB lists his birth year as 1973, but Mr Mitchell himself categoraically stated his age as 31 years when he and Robert Webb (whose imdb birthdate is also wrong!) appeared on the Jonathan Ross Radio 2 show (March 11 2006), so I've changed the date on here to 1974. I'm fed up with people taking imdb's word for everything, like wikipedia it is a work-in-progress site which uses info largely submitted by the general internet public, so there is MUCH room for error (I've already sent them a correction, by the way). Crisso 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Crisso, the problem with your radio source is that it is not verifiable. If there is a written source for 1973, and you heard 1974 on the radio, the general approach is to still write 1973. A good example is found on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page: A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Hope that helps. Remy B 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm a wikipedia user and I can certainly verify it (as could any other wikipedians who heard the interview and remember). I don't really see the point of having Wikipedia if unreliable written sources take precedence over the words of the artists concerned. Talk about red tape. Crisso 15:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed the definition of verifiable, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The very first line of the verifiability guideline is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.. Your point about precedence isnt so simple, because there is no way for you to prove that the artist really said that (although thats not to say I dont personally believe you). If you had an online transcript of that interview, for example, it would certainly take precedence over IMDB. I realise it seems quite anal to be so strict about verifiability, but Wikipedia really wouldnt be much good if people could make whatever claims they wanted without something concrete to back it up. A minority would exploit it and knowingly put in false information, and then there really would be no point to Wikipedia because you wouldnt be able to question information without having evidence that it was wrong. Remy B 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article [[1]] says that Mitchell was a year behind Webb at Cambridge. As Webb was born September 1972, then this would point to a 1974 birthdate for Mitchell (taking into account he was born in July and was footlights president from 95-96). Crisso 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
At last complete and total proof for his birth being 1974.[2] Gran2 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likes Wikipedia

According to an interview at [3], his favourite website is Wikipedia. I've added this to the article in its own little Trivia section. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, and it could probably be better integrated.boffy_b 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That means the sad prat will read this...let him sort out his own article..then we learn his username. RuthieK 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC) That was a joke, David !!! (Just in case David Mitchell aka Bentley Banana reads this) RuthieK 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I pretty sure Bentley Banana isn't David Mitchell, I mean the birthdate on BB's page is different from Mitchell's one (assuming we have the right one). But I don't know, he could be, but if Mitchell does have an account, if he edited his own page it would most likely defy a policy which name escapes me (its something about not editing yur own article). And this isn't really the best place for speculating, although I couldn't suggest an appropriate forum. Gran2 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no rule against editing your own article:) Though it's usually best avoided just because people would tend to get upset and things. And of course it'd be harder for you to stay NPOV. But I don't think David's done this anyway:)Merkinsmum 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Unbelievable Truth

It says 'citation needed' - here's the BBC homepage - is that enough?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/unbelievabletruth/

Peter 81.99.41.208 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Gran2 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

My problem with an otherwise fine article is the "Personal life" section, which needs some paragraphing and rewriting. We can combine a paragraph on his relationships, what he enjoys, a paragraph on his favourite films and TV shows (if The Simpsons is his favourite, mention it first). Alientraveller 08:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've split it into two paragraphs, and put The Simpsons first. Gran2 08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It still reads messily. If I were to rewrite it, which I can't being the reviewer, I'd start with him being OCD, where he lives before moving on to anything related to his relationships. Then we can go into his interests in history and then sport. Start a new paragraph on movies and TV. He described The Simpsons as the "best programme ever" is a good way of writing it, before going onto his other favourites. With actors, start with Alec Guinness before his comedy idols. Being an article on a comedian, let's have his uncaring attitude to music as a punchline. Alientraveller 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've done pretty much what you've said. Any better now? Gran2 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentence break needed regarding his influences, which aren't the same as idols. I think being Webb's best man can go next to his uneventful relationships, and going back to Stonehenge can go next to his interest in history. Being unable to drive can go next to OCD and where he lives. Alientraveller 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gran2 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Passed. A tip for the article as the peer review is stagnant: does Mitchell's OCD influence his comic style in any way? Worth looking up. Alientraveller 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Rather unflattering, no?

Not really. Gran2 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly, surely a better photo can be found for such a great comedian 86.16.138.134 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What? There's nothing wrong with the image, especially as its the only free use one in existence. Gran2 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The ONLY free one in existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.115.145 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm yes, that is what I said... Gran2 18:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denies being English

Claimed on QI BBC2 2007-10-19T22:00 (previously shown 2007-10-12T22:30 BBC4) not to be English. If his birthplace from the written interview is confirmed, he could be claiming inherited nationality, I guess. Unverifiable, possibly a bad joke. 86.53.37.59 —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he was joking, that's what it seemed like to be me. He was definitly born in England. Gran2 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] narrating work

i think i've heard him narrating a small segment on Animal Planet about weird animals can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must adequately summarize every major point/heading made in the body of the article. Currently, there is nothing on the "Early life," "Awards" or "Personal life" sections.
  2. "noting in an advert for Channel 4 that "the first album I ever bought was "...But Seriously", by Phil Collins. And if there's a better reason for never buying another album, I'd like to hear it."" (Personal life) Direct quotes require direct citation
  3. I don't think Reference #5 goes where you want it to go. This should be fixed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Cheers, CP 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a slight adjustment, but otherwise it appears that the changes have been made and my concerns addressed, so the article will remain a Good Article. I have updated the old id to reflect this. Thank you again for the hard work. Cheers, CP 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)