Talk:Stephen Tompkinson

Not even close to being neutral

This whole article reads like a puff piece, as though it was written by his agent or something. CBA editing the whole thing down so someone else can have that task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.15.94 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Above Comment

I am the author of this article. I do not know and have never met Stephen Tompkinson and I am in no way whatsoever affiliated with his agent. I merely admire his work and was disappointed to discover that the earlier Wikipedia article about his career was several years out of date, contained incorrect information, and was woefully inadequate to describe his varied and successful career. I devoted about 100 hours to finding and collecting information from reputable, previously published, verifiable sources. I then attempted to write an up-to-date biography -- in an easily readable style -- wherever possible quoting directly Mr. Tompkinson's own words, and quoting or paraphrasing as closely as reasonably possible the words others have used to describe his life and work or their experience working with him. If one takes the time to read the 175+ rigourously cited references, this will become obvious.

It's regrettable that the article has been flagged because of one reader's obviously biased opinion -- especially an anonymous reader who 'can't be arsed (CBA)' to state any specific objections or make any effort to contribute, and who didn't even sign his/her own comment. I respectfully request that the flag be removed and let the article stand on its own richly cited merits. To the best of my knowledge I have adhered to all stated Wikipedia guidelines in writing the article, and it has been a pleasure to actively contribute. On an additional note, the page view statistics indicate that the page has been visited several thousand times over the past few weeks, particularly on the weekends. This is probably because BBC Radio reprised a couple of Mr. Tompkinson's past radio dramas, and listeners likely came to Wikipedia to learn more about him. None of those people complained. Again, the rigorous attention to reputable source material entirely legitimizes this content.

I would also like to know how the article's "C" rating can be reevaluated. It was given that rating long ago, when it consisted of only a handful of superficially written paragraphs, with only a couple citations. Ellietr (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No - I stand by my assertion.

You make the mistake of thinking I have an axe to grind with this actor - I do not. I merely contend that the article as it stands is far too partisan and full of adjectives such as 'prolific' and 'delightful'. Therefore I reject the accusation of bias and accuse you of the same - biased TOWARDS the actor as a self-confessed 'admirer' of his work. I maintain that the article as written is about as neutral as a bucket of vinegar. ('Stephen' throughout, for instance?) However, the reason that I 'CBA' editing it is simply because if I were to spend several hours of my time going through the whole thing, correcting as necessary, the chances are it is only going to be reverted by a fan, leading to yet another tedious edit war. I've had quite enough of those. So save your disappointment since unless somebody else with more time than I have agrees with me then it's probably going to stay in its present, distinctly partisan state.