Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C-SPAN/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

C-SPAN edit

C-SPAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets and exceeds the FA criteria: it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched and neutral. While edits of a copy-editing nature are made occasionally, there has been no substantial disagreement about the article's content for a very long time, and vandalism is likewise very low. I believe readers will find that it follows Wikipedia's style guidelines very closely, including a well-considered structure and extremely careful sourcing throughout. It includes numerous freely-licensed images, and its length reflects the breadth and depth of information about C-SPAN available in third-party sources over its thirty-plus years in existence.

It is also important to mention here that, as the primary contributor to this article, I am also a consultant to C-SPAN. I have been involved with this article for a couple of years, however I have made no direct edits since late 2011; these days I refrain from all direct edits to the mainspace when I have a financial COI, following Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ. I realize that this may introduce added complexity to this process; when editors ask that changes be made, I feel I should not be the one to implement them. For this reason, I would like to suggest that reviewing editors be willing to make changes that are agreed upon. However, I also can find additional assistance to implement changes if necessary. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the process. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain
  • Comment as I don't think you've made it exactly clear: Although you haven't made "direct edits since late 2011", you are indeed responsible for the content in the article today, per User:WWB Too/C-SPAN (2013 revision). Am I correct? The reason I want to underscore this is because normally editors ought not nominate articles at FAC when they haven't been substantially involved, and I don't want anyone to think that's the case here. Additionally, I really don't think anyone will have a problem with your making superficial edits to the article in response to FAC comments. If substantive changes are needed, maybe you should find a co-nominator who's willing to take responsibility. --Laser brain (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sorry, Laser brain, I should have been more clear. Although I have not made direct edits to the article since that time, I am still responsible for nearly all of the current article. My process included writing drafts in my userspace (this one in 2011 when I was going for GA, and this one in 2013 while planning for FA). I then submitted these for review at Talk:C-SPAN, whereupon the arrival of consensus, volunteer editors made the direct changes. I really have not made a single direct edit to a client article since the end of 2011, because of Jimbo's advisory, so I'd probably want to see if his thinking is the same or different here. I'm open to asking the question, though I expect he'd say "no, you're a paid advocate, you should stick to Talk pages". I realize that's not quite what WP:COI says, but I always want to be as careful as I can, because there are very widely diverging views on COI at Wikipedia. Does that help clarify? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it occurs to me that I could, again, edit a version of the article in my userspace before it is moved back to the mainspace upon final approval. I think that's what we did when I was involved in FAC on Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which was a little over a year ago now. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KConWiki
  • Question: Regarding this statement and citation, the article cited is from 2004, so how could it be used as a citation for what happened through 2011? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1979 and May 2011, the network televised more than 24,246 hours of floor action.[1]

  • Reply: Good catch. I looked at the source, which is behind Nexis' paywall, and it looks like the date in the Wikipedia article is simply wrong. The text in The Washington Post article reads as follows:
24,246 —The number of hours of floor action the channel has broadcast from the House of Representatives since 1979.
It seems like "May 2011" should be replaced with "March 2004", which is the article's date of publication. —WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding this statement:

C-SPAN has occasionally produced spinoff programs from Booknotes focusing on specific topics. In 1994, Booknotes collaborated with Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer to produce a re-creation of the seven Lincoln–Douglas debates.[72]

I don't think I have access to the full article used as a citation, so I can't be sure what it says. However, it had previously been established at The Lincoln–Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments)#Background that the seven individual cities in Illinois that hosted the debates produced the debates with their own resources, and that C-SPAN helped facilitate this and aired the results (with help and guidance from Holzer and others). So, I can rewrite that sentence if appropriate, but I want to throw it out there to see if anyone else has suggested verbiage. Also, it wasn't really Booknotes that would have collaborated, but C-SPAN as a whole. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have also been unable to locate the full article and, as it is not on Nexis, which I often use, I'm fairly confident that this isn't something I contributed in the first place. I see that The Lincoln–Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments) article is something you created so you're probably the most knowledgeable about this topic. I'm perfectly OK with you rewriting this information as you see fit. Do you have a good clear source in mind that explains the origins of the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will work on editing the above-noted excerpts, as well as a few other things I noted (i.e., potentially excessive use of the word "initiated") over the course of the next few days. KConWiki (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria

Image review - images themselves are fine, but captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: I assume you're referring to the image of the C-SPAN Digital Bus? The other image captions either appear to me to be full sentences or do not end with a period, however please correct me if I'm wrong. If you would be willing to make this change I'd really appreciate it. As my disclosure above explains, I'd like to avoid all direct edits to the article, even for simple edits like this. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but how are you thinking you'll get through FAC without needing to edit the article at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've just answered the same question on your user Talk, but I'll copy it here for others' benefit: the way I've handled more substantial updates so far is to edit a version of the article in my userspace and keep it current to the existing article, with changes. Then, I've found volunteer editors to review, approve and move over the latest version from my userspace, once there is consensus. I admit, it's a clunky process, but I'm not sure how to stay on the right side of Jimbo's advice otherwise. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Awardgive

Comments - I'll be looking at sources, mainly where they are needed, how they are used, and if they are reliable. (Note: I am not doing spotchecks)

  • Lead: First off, the "Citation needed" needs to be resolved right away. Generally, footnotes aren't included in the lead unless info not presented anywhere else in the article is present. If this is the case, then they can stay, but can footnote 3 be moved to the end of the sentence, because, as far as I've seen, footnotes aren't usually located in the middle of a sentence.
  • The "Citation needed" tag can simply be removed. This was very recently added by an editor and is not needed. This same information is presented in the Audience section where it is supported by a source. I have followed up with the editor who made this change (see here) and am waiting on his reply. If someone else feels comfortable removing it that would be great.
As for footnote 3, this could also be removed since this same information is covered and cited in the Organization and operations section. This would resolve the problem of the mid-sentence citation.
The only citation in the introduction that is currently necessary is the one at the end of the first paragraph. This information is not repeated in the body of the article, but could be added to the Radio broadcasts section and the citation moved there. Making this change would then leave the introduction without any citations. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awardgive has removed the "Citation needed" tag and the unneeded reference. There is still one remaining footnote in the introduction, though Ruhrfisch has pointed this out in their feedback below. I'll also follow up with that editor about this. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development: Paragraph 1: Again, footnotes generally are placed after a comma or period, so for the last sentence, can the footnotes be moved. Also, is the last part of that sentence sourced to footnotes 5 or 10, or does it need to be sourced? Paragraph 2: Can footnote 16 be moved to the end of the sentence? Otherwise, this paragraph is fine. Paragraphs 3&4: Both of these are fine, sourcing-wise.
  • Paragraph 1: I see no reason why the references cannot be moved to the end of the sentence. As for the end of that sentence that currently appears to be unsupported. The Columbia College Today source includes the following:
No one was interested. Except Rosencrans. He wrote the first check ($25,000), and then rallied the cable industry for support… The idea was met with resistance by broadcast and local channels, which held tremendous influence in Congress and the FCC, but meetings with the House leadership, including legendary Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.), at which Rosencrans and Lamb pledged that the new network would be non-political, paved the way for its inception.
and
A self-described political junkie, Rosencrans serves on the network’s board as chairman emeritus.
I feel that this supports the statement that "other cable-television executives followed suit", but doesn't seem to specifically support the statement about the board of directors so it would perhaps be best to trim the final clause of the sentence.
Paragraph 2: I agree footnote 16 could be moved to the end of the sentence. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these issues are now resolved. Thanks, Awardgive. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anniversaries and Scope and limitations of coverage: Both look fine, sourcing-wise.
  • Expansion and technology: Last sentence of the first paragraph needs a source. Section is otherwise fine.
  • Let me look around at the sources in the article and see if I can find one that supports this statement. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again, I've looked around at the current sources and haven't found one that addresses the unsupported information you pointed out. However, I've looked at the C-SPAN website and I think I've located a good source to use. If you look at the Viewer FAQs page of the C-SPAN website you'll see that the answer to the first question verifies the unsupported information. The page says:
When the House and Senate are out of session, we carry LIVE or taped events on our networks ranging from Press Briefings to Congressional Hearings to Speeches and News Conferences related to public affairs.
I've prepped a reference that matches the style used throughout the article:
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.c-span.org/About/The-Company/Viewer-FAQ/ |title=Viewer FAQs |date= |work=c-span.org |publisher=C-SPAN |accessdate=September 27, 2013}}</ref>
Would you be able to add this in for me? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awardgive has added in this new reference so the information is no longer unsupported. Thanks again. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can do tonight. More later, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about taking so long. I've been overwhelmed by schoolwork, but I now have some time. Review continuing:
  • Programming: Most of this section looks good. I made a small tweak in "Senate and House of Representatives", hope that's okay. My one concern in the entire section comes in third paragraph of the "Public affairs" section, where four sources are used to source one statement. I don't know about other people, but I would consider this citation overkill. Is there a way to fix this.
  • Hi Awardgive, as soon I read this comment I knew exactly the sentence you meant, and I agree that four citations in a row is usually not a great sign. This was the compromise result based on feedback I received during the Peer review process. Previously, the section (see this older version for the full section) read as follows:
After the deaths of Ronald Reagan in 2004, Rosa Parks in 2005 and Gerald Ford in 2006, C-SPAN featured live, uninterrupted coverage of the visitors who came to the Capitol Rotunda to pay their final respects and the funeral services.[41] The network also broadcast Lady Bird Johnson's funeral in Stonewall, Texas.[42]
To prevent this section from growing too list-y, as C-SPAN will undoubtedly cover similar events in the future, and to avoid arbitrary decisions about whom to list or not, I agreed to rewrite it as it appears now.
In revising this I kept the two original sources, this Iowa State Daily source and this San Diego Union-Tribune (Nexis link) source. However, when looking closely at these two sources a few months ago I noticed that neither one mentioned Rosa Parks or Gerald Ford. For that reason I added in this Spokesman-Review source that discusses Nixon's funeral proceedings and this Fishbowl DC source about Ford's funeral. My thinking was that to justify the use of "former presidents" (plural) we would need sources that mention C-SPAN covering more than one former president's funeral proceedings and I wasn't easily able to find this in one source. Unfortunately, I was never able to find the source where the information about Rosa Parks originally came from, however you'll see that the section does also mention "other notable individuals", again plural. Do you think this is OK, though we just have the source about Lady Bird?
Apologies for the lengthy explanation, though I hope that helps. What do you think should be done? Also, I see you mentioned making an edit to the Senate and House of Representatives section. By all means feel free to make edits here, however I don't see this edit in the revision history, perhaps it didn't get saved? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I have reviewed parts of this article and made some edits to it on WWB's behalf. As requested, I will review it here.

  • Lead - my understanding of the article lead is that it can either 1) have almost no citations (except for direct quotes and per haps extraordinary claims) since it is a summary and everything in it will also appear in and be cited in the body of the article OR 2) it can be cited just like anything else. The current lead has one ref, and does not fall into either camp. I also note that the ref in the lead is not cited anywhere else in the article, which seems to imply the lead is not a summary. I will come back to the lead after reading the rest of the article carefully - it seems to me that the lead could use a little copyediting, but I want to make sure.
  • Good catch, and you're right—I don't think it is repeated in the body of the article (though I believe everything else is). Actually, Awardgive brought up this same issue above and I suggested that this information could be added to the Radio broadcasts section and the citation moved there. Do you agree? Would you be willing to make this change?
If you believe there is other information in the introduction that is not also included in the body of the article, please let me know. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the ref to the Radio section and added the apps for BlackBerry and Android devices there. I think everything else in the sentence that used the ref in the lead is in the Radio section now. I will check the lead last (once I've read all the article carefully). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development - I would briefly identify who John D. Evans is in Lamb shared his idea with John D. Evans in 1977... (Telecom executive?)
You know, this is not material that I added, so I'd like to take a closer look at it. I feel like "who with a number of others helped to co-found the network" is somewhat vague. I'll follow up on this one soon. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anniversaries - is "facilitated" the best word here The 15th anniversary was commemorated in a more unusual manner; the network facilitated a series of re-enactments of the seven historic Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858..." Would sponsored or commissioned or produced be better / more accurate?
  • This sentence was recently changed from "initiated" to "facilitated" by User:KConWiki, who is very knowledgeable about C-SPAN. You can see the diff here. He has addressed this issue up above on this page (see the second top-level bullet point under KConWiki's feedback). I'm inclined to defer to his knowledge on this matter, but let me know what you think. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all - I went through the article and got rid of some of the uses of the word "initiated", of which there were several instances. In this case though, the C-SPANners have gone to trouble to point out that the debate reenactments were organized and run by the local communities. This is one of the links used as a citation at The Lincoln–Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments). Here is an excerpt: "Spurred on by its own 15th anniversary, C-Span officials approached the mayors of all seven cities last year. Re-create your debates, they said, using local talent and local money, and we'll come in and broadcast them, as though we'd been there in 1858. All seven mayors agreed, the state of Illinois chipped in $20,000 for each site and C-Span spent $300,000 to $500,000 promoting the debates, providing staff people to coordinate the coverage and putting together educational materials. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were on their way back to center stage." So, that's why I wanted to move away from initiated. (Even though they planted the seed of the idea of the debates in the minds of the individual cities, and that could be considered "initiating", I think that "facilitated" works better.) Any thoughts on this? KConWiki (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reasoning makes sense to me; I think "facilitated" is most appropriate in this situation. KConWiki, were you planning on adding this source into the C-SPAN article? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think facilitated is fine here - thanks for the explanation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope and limitations of coverage - should there be a link to the Affordable Care Act in In December 2009, Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate, requesting that negotiations for health care reform be televised by C-SPAN.[25]

In the same section, I looked at all the refs cited and none mention the Supreme Court, so a ref is needed for that part of C-SPAN continues to expand its coverage of government proceedings, with a history of requests to government officials for greater access, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ruhrfisch, thanks for your comment on my Talk page. You're right, I did overlook this comment, sorry about that.
I've done some looking around and I found this short Los Angeles Times article that supports the statement that C-SPAN has repeatedly sought permission to air the Supreme Court's proceedings.
Here is a formatted reference for the source as well. <ref name=Savage>{{cite news |title=C-SPAN seeks to air Supreme Court healthcare arguments |author=David G. Savage |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/news/la-pn-cspan-healthcare-20111115 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=October 7, 2013}}</ref>
As for the portion about "requests to government officials", I've also looked around for sources, but haven't found one that I feel directly supports "requests to government officials". I assume that this was originally added to serve as an introduction to the paragraph, but without a source mentioning "government officials" maybe it would be best to simply shorten the sentence to "with a history of requests for greater access, espicially to the U.S. Supreme Court." What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Supreme Court ref. Since the paragraph is now all about requests to government officials (SCOTS, Speakers of the House), I am OK with keeping that phrase in (as part of a topic sentence for the paragraph). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion and technology - since this is the first mention of "Washington Journal", should there be a brief description of the program here?
  • Sure. Perhaps something short like "C-SPAN's morning call-in show" that wouldn't disrupt the flow of the sentence too much? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. I am glad to make edits based on these comments, as needed (just say so) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing some copyediting as I read on, usually to tighten the text somewhat. If this is a problem, please let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits to the Senate and House of Representatives section and they all look good to me, however I just noticed—and this isn't the result of your changes—that the section links to the article on the United States House of Representatives, but not to the United States Senate article. What do you think about adding in this wikilink? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public affairs - should the parliaments be linked in Occasionally, proceedings of the Parliament of Australia, Parliament of Canada, Parliament of the United Kingdom ...
I see no reason why these wikilinks shouldn't be added. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I renamed the "Other C-SPAN services" to just "Other services" per WP:HEADER
  • This needs a ref "C-SPAN has also equipped three Local Content Vehicles (LCVs) to travel the country and record unique political and historical stories, with each vehicle containing production and web-based technologies to produce on-the-spot content."
I have a couple of recent sources that discuss the Local Content Vehicles program. There is this one from Business Fleet and this one from FishbowlDC. I've prepped references for both of these sources if you want to add one or both of them in.
<ref name=Tucker>{{cite news |title=How C-SPAN Manages A Cross-Country Fleet |author=Joanne Tucker |url=http://www.businessfleet.com/article/story/2013/07/how-c-span-manages-a-cross-country-fleet.aspx?prestitial=1 |newspaper=[[Business Fleet]] |date=July 2013 |accessdate=October 7, 2013}}</ref>
<ref name=Rothstein13>{{cite web |url=http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/c-span-second-fleet-local-content-vehicles_b98692 |title=C-SPAN Rolls Out Second Fleet of Tricked Out Vehicles |author=Betsy Rothstein |date=March 12, 2013 |work=mediabistro.com |publisher=Mediabistro.com |accessdate=October 7, 2013}}</ref>
That sentence should also be updated to note that there are now six vehicles in the program, which is covered in both of these sources. Lastly, the LCV program is covered within the C-SPAN Bus program article: C-SPAN_Bus_program#Local_Content_Vehicles. What do you think about linking to this? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added both refs and updated the number of LCVs. I also added a {{Main}} hatnote at the top of the section to C-SPAN Bus program, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to re-read the lead and the whole article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, thanks for your continued help here. I really appreciate all the time you've put into this and your feedback and edits throughout have been very helpful. Let me know if you have any comments about my replies above. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference TWP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/C-SPAN/archive1&oldid=1088824039"