Talk:Jack Buchanan

Peer review

Jack Buchanan

I have no ambitions for this article so far as FAC is concerned (too few full-length published sources available for that) but I'm thinking of putting it up for GA, and comments and suggestions for improvement will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 11:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow soon(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Buchanan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review, as a return pledge for Talk:Jim Corbett/GA1. Please consider reviewing another nomination at WP:GAN to help bring the backlog down.

Comments to follow within a few days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

Really enjoyable article to read. Just a couple of points: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• "the Ziegfeld spectaculars" is clearly referencing something, and could do with a touch of explanation.

My problem is avoiding OR. The source says, "the show successfully introduced the American public to the distinctive charms of the intimate revue as opposed to the Ziegfeld spectaculars". I could move the quotation marks to the end of the sentence if you'd prefer, but I don't feel comfortable with enlarging on what the source means by "Ziegfeld spectaculars". To me it means something such as you can see here, but I'm reluctant to put words into the biographer's mouth. I'd be happy to consider any suggestions. Tim riley talk 08:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• The quote from Macqueen-Pope in note one is quite lengthy and not all of it is really relevant to Buchanan; as it is still copyrighted, perhaps it could be trimmed a little?

Pruned the footnote. Tim riley talk 08:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure "[n 4].[50]" is correct punctuation-wise, and it looks odd anyway.

You're right. Full stop now moved to its proper home, and the footnote moved to follow the citation. Tim riley talk 08:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• "on which he, and latterly his wife, had frequently crossed the Atlantic" is "and latterly his wife" a hint at something I'm not getting?

Well, it's just that he crossed the Atlantic many times before his second marriage as well as afterwards. It wouldn't hurt to lose the four words in question, though, and I'll do so if you wish. Tim riley talk 08:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Notes four and five could be incorporated into the article body.

I could be persuaded about FN4 – though it would make the last sentence of the para rather long, and, I think, unwieldy – but I really don't think FN5 belongs in the main text, as it is essentially a side-issue, albeit, I hope, an interesting and rather charming one. Tim riley talk 08:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

citation numbers refer to this version

• 2) "He was intended for Scotland's leading private school, Fettes College" is on page 5, and the source says Fettes was Edinburgh's leading school, not Scotland's. "Eton of Scotland" probably indicates that it was, but it's not explicit. We could also mention his friendship with John Logie Baird?

Changed Scotland to Edinburgh. Baird is mentioned in FN4 and doesn't, I think, call for mention in the main text.

• 59) "best-remembered film" in the article is not necessarily the same as "the best role of their screen careers" in the source.

As to "best-remembered", I've pruned the text. (Incidentally, if you get the chance, seek out the Astaire-Buchanan duet on YouTube or suchlike – not sure if it's pukka to add a link here, but I'll chance it. I run out of superlatives to describe their duet.) Tim riley talk 08:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Eight other sources checked, all fine.

Excellent! Tomorrow is a public holiday here (August Bank Holiday) and I shall enjoy a leisurely progress through your points, above. Tim riley talk 18:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it was a brilliantly sunny bank holiday Monday for me, and I hope for you too. Happy with all the responses save the first: when even the source isn't completely clear, it seems a little unfair on the audience to have to try to figure out what "Ziegfeld spectaculars" refers to. I'd either add a note saying "Ziegfield was known for his extravagant and elaborate blah blah blah", or remove the phrase "as opposed to the Ziegfeld spectaculars". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Fine. Done. Tim riley talk 05:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of AI upscaled images

Upscaled images Files have since been replaced with original un-upscaled versions

User:Tim riley would like the use of the {{upscaled images}} template to be raised on the talk page before the template is added to the article, so here's a thread. (I tagged it today without realising I'd already tagged it back in July, and it looks like the AI imagery wasn't noticed during August's GA review.)

This article currently goes against Wikipedia's manual of style at MOS:AIUPSCALE in its use of four upscaled versions of historical images of Buchanan and his co-stars. The MOS says that Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

Is there a reason why these upscaled images are considered preferable to the original print versions? Belbury (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not Tim riley but Wikipedia who would like the use of your template to be discussed on the talk page. You might care to read the instructions on the template page. If you can point to any detail in which the present images are inferior rather than superior to the printed press versions they can be replaced. Otherwise your intervention is unhelpful. I have again removed the template defacing the article page pending consensus here. Tim riley talk 09:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

AI-upscaled "Crop of Buchanan-in-A-to-Z.jpg" File has since been reverted to the original un-upscaled version

I was going to say it was the editor who documented {{upscaled images}} who would like me to discuss this, but it turns out that that editor was me! I assume I was copying the documentation of {{AI-generated}} (which is about subjective suspicion of AI writing), but this template is phrased objectively: the images have been AI upscaled, as you accept. I'll update the documentation.

I don't think you should be removing the template, if you agree that the images are upscaled.

I can't compare the images to the originals as I can only find paywalled copies of Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News online from a quick search. But from the crop of one of the Trix sisters to the right, it's an odd look and the AI is clearly filling the eyes and teeth from its training data, rather than showing us what she would have genuinely looked like if the Illustrated News had had a higher print quality. The mix of blurriness and focus (because the AI has only been trained to enhance facial features and hair around the face, and not to modify anything else) is in general a confusing aesthetic. We shouldn't present this to the reader as an authentic 1921 magazine photo of Trix, when it's not that. --Belbury (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not know about the requirement to identify IA-enhanced images in image captions and am happy to comply. I agree that AI often mucks up people's eyes, but I don't think it does here or I'd have stuck with the grainy originals. You can see all the source newspapers via the Wikimedia library. I hope other editors will offer an opinion here. Tim riley talk 10:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The large tag at the top of the page is not a constructive step and should not be re-added. Many of the images we have on Commons have been edited, either by AI, by automated programmes, or by human intervention. Some may have been doctored by news agencies or photographers prior to publication, yet we don't downgrade other articles with such crass steps. The guideline has been noted (and it's just a guideline, not one of the ten commandments), but it's not beneficial to readers to have such a tag at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly true. The last image the wizards in our Photo Workshop improved at my request was improved, they said, with the aid of AI – shock, horror! I have no quarrel with the MoS guideline, which Belbury has quoted rather selectively: it begins "AI upscaling software should generally not be used" (my italics), and I generally don't. Let us see if any other editors have views. Tim riley talk 11:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I selected to quote the subsequent and more specific MOS statement of Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. since these are historical images. Belbury (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat. Tagging the article is not necessary or constructive and should not be re-added. I also agree that this guideline should be applied with some common sense. If you have a better image, please post it to the Talk page for discussion. All images are historical, because they were taken in the past. I believe it would be unconstructive to use the grainy newspaper originals of these images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

AI-upscaled close-up of Buchanan File has since been reverted to the original un-upscaled version

When illustrating biographies, I'd say that newspaper originals were always preferable. With a grainy newsprint photo, some information is lost, but the reader understands what they're looking at, and appreciates that it's not a perfect photo. Where that same grainy photo is AI upscaled, all of that information is still lost: the AI can't accurately bring back what somebody looked like in front of the camera that day, it can only offer best guesses based on its training data.

By smoothing out the grain, the reader is denied a clue that they're looking at a low quality image. They may think (per the image crop at right) that Wikipedia is showing them a sharp 1921 press photo showing exactly what Jack Buchanan looked like in his heyday. But it's to some extent an AI's generic rendering based on 20th century American men's eyes and mouths from its training data. --Belbury (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted, but it is a balance and personal taste: de gustibus and all that. It's still no excuse for a disruptive banner being plastered across the top of a page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As Belbury has evidently taken it upon him/herself to write the procedure without consultation with anyone else (here) I think there is room for some improvement in his/her approach. Comments there and here welcome. Tim riley talk 17:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I note Hawkeye7's comment on the tag: a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Me too. That comment is from a much respected editor. We all seem to be up against a one-person crusade here. Tim riley talk 18:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Came here because this discussion was linked to in the discussion on the template page. Would it be possible for someone who has access to the original, non-upscaled images to share a link to them here? Without the originals, we can't verify the accuracy of the upscaled versions. MOS:AIUPSCALE states that upscaled versions of historical images should never be used. It might be appropriate to make a common-sense exception to the MOS, but not without a good reason. In its current state the article is misinforming our readers as the images are captioned with captions like "Buchanan, 1929" when in fact these are not original 1929 images. If we are going to disregard the MOS here, at minimum we must accurately caption the images as upscaled and provide a means for readers to view the originals (for example by linking them in the pages for each individual image). -- LWG ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't post a link to the originals as they are behind a paywall. (I mistakenly said the source - the BNA - was accessible via the Wikimedia Library, but now I check I remember it is a personal subscription). I'd have no quarrel with adding a health warning to the image captions: better that than using the fuzzy originals, I think. Tim riley talk 16:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Since File:To-night's the night.jpg is a cover image I've been able to find the original at this britishonlinearchives.com URL.

Most of the grainy texture has been removed by the AI. James appears much the same in both pictures, although I'm not sure what's going on with her upper eyelids in either of them; in the original she has some kind of mark across both, which the AI has emphasised as if it were a sharply painted line or fold of skin. Grossmith's teeth have been enlarged and straightened by the AI. Most strikingly, though, where the original magazine cover shows Grossmith giving James a slightly shifty and leering glance (as may befit the character he is portraying here), the AI has redrawn his eyes to instead be looking past her a little glassily. Belbury (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I can upload the old press images to the existing image pages so that colleagues can then say whether they object to or approve of the enhanced images. I'll do that in the next few days. Tim riley talk 17:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Now done that for three images. If there is a consensus to keep them they can remain in place. Tim riley talk 06:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling up the originals. The embedded crops earlier in the thread are now displaying those original versions rather than the upscaled outputs, and it's clear that the details of Buchanan and Trix's eyes and mouths really aren't very discernable in the source material, and that the AI had to invent a lot of detail to fill them in. I think these originals are more appropriate images for the article. --Belbury (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, and think we would be better sticking to the enhanced versions originally in place, but of course I'll go with the consensus, and I hope the other editors who have commented here will chip in again: User:SchroCat, User:Ssilvers and User:LWG. Tim riley talk 10:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I also disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Me too. The enhanced versions are far better for illustrating the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus, shall we remove the somewhat tendentious and unhelpful tags? Tim riley talk 14:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd added the inline caption tags yesterday per your upthread comment that you had no quarrel with adding a health warning to the image captions. Did I misunderstand what you meant by a "health warning"? Belbury (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no great quarrel with it, but it seems to me heavy-handed, bureaucratic, obsessive and utterly unhelpful to our readers. What do other editors think? Tim riley talk 16:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with removing the tags per my comments and SchroCat's above, and I find them highly disruptive to the readers' experience. We don't have to be robots. Obviously, if a photo of Trump at a cabinet meeting has been altered by showing him in a diaper instead of a business suit, then it should not be used in an article about the cabinet, but if AI has instead been used as in the PD images above, we can use editorial discretion to conclude that they enhance the readers' experience, at least unless and until a better image is found to illustrate the subject. As SchroCat noted, photographers and media publishers do this routinely to make images look better, and they don't put an ugly tag at the top of every news article saying so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Very good point! Tim riley talk 18:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of the tags. Unhelpful and poor. I have no objection on a mention being made on the source page (ie at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack-buchanan-in-paris.jpg), but not on this page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems a sensible compromise. I'll remove the tags from the article and leave them in situ on the image pages. Tim riley talk 10:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Photo agencies distribute blurry images when it's all they have. Manipulated photos have been prominently retracted by AP, for less.

Beyond the AI upscaling clause of MOS:IMAGES, the MOS does make much older and more general points about how images should "not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer" and that even removing speckles and scratches manually "might be inappropriate for historical photographs". I think we're going against Wikipedia's general stance on how it uses images, if we're significantly altering historical photos without noting this up front to the reader. Belbury (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The compromise suggested above by SchroCat seems plainly sensible and I hope we can all rest content with that. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Image use policy for AI-generated image (WP:AIGI) was recently updated to also cover substantial AI edits:

Images whose details have been substantially regenerated by generative AI (e.g., in order to create a colorized or higher-resolution image) should not be used, subject to the same exceptions as apply to images fully generated by AI. Generally, the original version of the image should be used instead.

That would suggest that these AI-edited images of Buchanan and his co-stars should be replaced with the original scans, even there was a local consensus to reject the MOS view on upscaling. --Belbury (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The original scans are so inferior to the enhanced ones that I, for one, would sooner remove the images altogether to which Belbury objects. What do other editors think? Tim riley talk 10:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to replace them with the newsprint versions while waiting for that feedback? Or do you think there could be a local consensus to ignore image use policy on this article? Belbury (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

As above, the old images are so inferior that for my own part I would sooner remove them completely. If there is consensus to the contrary I shall of course respect it. Tim riley talk 10:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean a consensus to use the newsprint images, or a consensus to interpret image use policy in some way that would retain the AI-upscaled images? Belbury (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since I flagged this, so I'll revert the AI upscales to their original newsprint scans, to get the article back within WP:AIIMAGES policy.

The unmodified Grossmith and James picture is a reasonably high resolution scan and shows both of subjects clearly, so I see no reason to remove it. I'm not sure how much value there would be in keeping the Buchanan and Trix sisters photos as a visual reference for their costumes or styles of performance. The Tails Up or c. 1940 portrait would probably make a better infobox image than the current Paris one. Belbury (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for interfering. You have made the article much, much worse. Tim riley talk 13:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In your view, perhaps. But your view is at odds with Wikipedia's policy on the use of AI. Belbury (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

True. It is a pity that a clique has conspired to issue this diktat without consulting the rest of us, to make articles worse than they should be. I hope you are proud of yourself. Tim riley talk 17:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what clique you're perceiving. The current image policy at WP:AIGI has been through various public discussions and RFCs. If you think the decision was a misstep and that Wikipedia would benefit from AI-upscaling certain historical portraits, you're obviously free to start that discussion and state your case at WT:IMAGEPOL.

I do think Wikipedia has been making the right call on AI text and images, generally, and that this article is now more historically useful and honest to its readers for avoiding it. So yes, I'm proud to be a part of that. Belbury (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you are pleased with yourself. I think you have rendered our readers a nasty blow, but happy editing (though I hope we shall not encounter each other again. Tim riley talk 18:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)