Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner edit

First of all this article fulfills all the qualities in the official article checklist and the What is a Featured Article? article. Of special note is how expansive and researched the article is, consolidating issues that have been brought up both on and offline. The references follow the new reference style extremely well. As you may know, this article was previously nominated for featured status. In that decision there were many issues pointed out, which have been addressed in the changes since the nomination and this post [1]. The article has also been nominated for deletion, after which the community overwhelming concluded that the article is encyclopedic and should be included in Wikipedia. There have been some complaints that this article is simply "too new" to be a featured article candidate, but the time the article was first published is neither Wikipedia Featured Article policy nor a logical reason for objection. The ability for information to added, changed, or removed applies to any article on Wikipedia, including featured ones. I fail to see any other objections, if you can find some, please reference it. Thank you. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - a list of quotes does not count as brilliant prose and is really not encyclopaedic. The whole of 'Audience reaction' is regurgitation of magazine articles, apart from the final sentence which is uncited. It seems way overblown to have a 35kb article on a single routine by a comedian, and I feel the sentence The New York Times[26] and the Chicago Tribune[27] both covered the dinner, but neither contained coverage of Colbert’s comic tribute backs me up on that. Also, section headings don't conform to the style guidelines. Worldtraveller 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and A DVD of the entire dinner (including Colbert's speech) is available at the C-SPAN Store is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Worldtraveller 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has improved a lot since I first objected, but now the most fundamental flaws have been dealt with, other flaws come to light:
      • There's lots here that's not really relevant to the article. For example in the intro, Before Colbert's presentation, Bush mocked himself with the help of a celebrity impersonator, Steve Bridges is a non sequitur with the previous sentence and is hardly something that needs saying in a concise overview of the article.
        • I think the information is indeed relevant to the article, as throughout the article the event is often compared to the bush vs. bush one by the media, so a little context helps here. RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still a non sequitur where it is. A bit more explanation should be given there, or better, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro but only in the main text. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bullet points in 'preformance' look bad. Why have bullet points when you can have normal paragraphs?
        • They were originally paragraphs but then were changed to bullet points, so I guess someone likes them... I guess I'll think about another shot at this... RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just adjusted this a bit more to make it definitely prose - it still looked like a list, just without the bullet points. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It looks good! RN 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • created by blogger Greg Felice (also known as grokgov) - the bracketed bit is totally irrelevant here.
        • Taken care of :) RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Early press coverage', 'Media blackout' and 'Praise and criticism' all deal with the same thing, and organisation is a problem here. You could substantially trim what's here because much of it takes the form 'On such-and-such a date, so-and-so said this'. You need to have a paragraph with an illustrative brief quote which explains the point of view behind the quote, rather than just giving a slightly random list of who said what, when.
        • One could do this, but it may be just a style change - I'm unsure if one would want to trim anything here :). RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It all feels a bit choppy at the moment, and still looks a bit like the regurgitation of quotes that I originally complained about. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • copies of a DVD of the event, priced at $24.95 - the price is irrelevant and looks like advertising. There's also still a link to the C-SPAN store. We shouldn't be promoting or advertising. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it is doing either - it is just discussing it from a numbers and historical perspective - maybe it is too specific, but some readers might find the extra valuable I guess... RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seriously, it looks like blatant advertising with a price. It also doesn't follow from the sentence before properly, and lacks a reference as well. The store like is probably OK as the text accompanying it looks less promotional now. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (A handful of bloggers suggested that Carlson's reaction was a case of sour grapes, as his famous skewering by Colbert's colleague Jon Stewart in 2004 may have a played a part in him being let go from CNN. See Crossfire.) - apart from being awfully written, the views of a 'handful' of bloggers are not really worthy of inclusion. There's also no reference for this claim. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your objection? It seems like you—on the most basic level—are objecting to citing commentary rather than having Wikipedians make it up. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Worldtraveller. Bwithh 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Your "official article checklist" is in fact an in-progress document on a user-page, and thus shouldn't be regarded as any kind of standard. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Also, Oppose - The quote section is unencyclopaedic and belongs over at Wikiquotes. I detect a bit of POV bias in the way that Fox News's reaction was presented, for instance. Furthermore, as I mentioned in the last FAC, I feel like this article is mostly about the reactions to Colbert's performance, and not so much about the performance itself (as the title indicates it should be). User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been moved to Wikiquote. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per all the above. Rlevse 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per everyone, this needs lots of work. Staxringold 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What specifically, so that this will get accepted next time? --kizzle 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As World says
  1. perhaps you could move the quotes to wikiquote, summarize them here with just a couple examples.
  2. Summarize the magazine articles in Audience reaction a bit more rather then just citing and repeating what they say

There are others as well - I will try to work on some stuff too as my time allows :). RN 05:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both of these suggestions have been addressed. Perhaps you could reconsider your oppose vote? -- noosphere 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This is more of a current events summary than an encyclopedic article. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains no information. It is simply a collection of 50 quotes from media outlets and as such it needs to go to Wikiquote. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Why is "current events" somehow in the realm which is mutually exclusive with being encyclopedic as long as it is no longer in progress? savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nobody has mentioned a single actionable objection so far. This article appears to comprehensively cover its subject. Everyking 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actionable Objections - (listed above):
      • Too many quotes, not enough brilliant prose
      • "Audience reaction" is simply a regurgitation of newspaper/magazine reviews
      • Section headings don't confirm with style guidelines
      • POV bias in presentation of the reaction of some news sources
      • Overfocus on reaction to performance/underfocus on performance itself.
Once these actionable objections have been dealt with, then we'll see. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that if we get rid of most of the quotes (done, by the way), and in addition get rid of the reaction to the performance, then how can we focus on the performance itself without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? Sources have to be cited for everything that's in the article, and the sources are either the performance itself (quotes) or the reaction to it. Also, could you specify which reactions you judge to be presented with a "POV bias"? -- noosphere 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Remove the examples of remarks, as the choice is inherently POV in this context. There's a handy WikiQuote link. Rather than quote Colbert, describe (and cite) his style, using specific examples from this event to illustrate.
    • If footnote 12 is a source for the "busiest day claim", move it to the end of the sentence. If not, provide a source for that claim.
    • Remove the external link to the "thank you" site and explain why people were thanking him.
    • The media reactions are too out of context. Explain how the media reacted, and use examples to illustrate it.
      • Not everything cited has to be a direct quote. Unless the way the opinion is expressed is itself important, restate it in your own concerns. A lot of the quotes are from editorialists for whom their distinctive style is important -- that's fine, leave that in. Restate the more mundane stuff in your own words. e.g. "According to CNET's News.com site, Colbert's speech became "one of the Internet's hottest acts", the title of Dan Froomkin's article doesn't add anything
      • "(A handful of bloggers... See Crossfire.)" This needs to be cited, parentheses removed and the "See Crossfire" should become a link to the show in the prose.
      • The Jon Stewart quote -- Colbert and Stewart's connection needs to be explained to put that in context.
    • Move external links (to the thank you site and in the see also) to an external links section
    • "Several sources... dinner’s featured entertainer." This is not clear whether "even though" applies to the sources criticizing or the press not covering.
    • I think too much of it still reads like a list of quotes turned into paragraphs, and in general, the prose needs a very thorough copyedit.
  • Tuf-Kat 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (added a few belated concerns 07:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Good job fixing the quotes!)[reply]
      • I like all your suggestions except the first. I can't see how removing all notable quotations is what we're aiming to achieve with this article. More information, not less. --kizzle 04:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Not all verifiable information is encyclopaedic, and encyclopaedic writing explains things rather than just listing them. Wikiquote exists for quote collections. Worldtraveller 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course not. But nothing in your response reasonably equates a mere selection of quotes as a "random collection of information". 10-15 quotes is too much, however, 1-3 is warranted, unlike TUF-Kat's assertion. --kizzle 15:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Really well done. Something that only Wikipedia could have a good article on. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think we've addressed most of the points that failed the last nomination. I do believe that this article has become a good example of what Wikipedia articles should be, well-referenced, containing multiple perspectives, and a clear organizational layout. --kizzle 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the quotes list has been moved to wikiquote, the article is looking much better. Raul654 18:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who did a couple very experemental edits for this and some merging of the external links - I actually expected them to be reverted - heh :). Tufkat made his criticisms after I made my changes, but I'm not sure if he was referring to an out-of-date revision... I'm undecided myself - I think it could still use some general tweaking. RN 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think this is an excellent article, and very timely. -- noosphere 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further reconsideration, and after some edits to the article, I'm changing my vote to Support. POV problems aren't as big as I'd thought they were, the quote problem has been somewhat addressed (although I'd still like to see more press descriptions of Colbert's performance, rather than their reactions to it), and the article seems comprehensive. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Just to confirm - the above comment was made by yours truly.) The Disco King 22:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - The image in the article needs a source listed. Judgesurreal777 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been sourced. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - My only problem with the article is that it only has one photo. Any possibility of adding at least one more? Other than that, I'm very impressed with the article. It has more references than your usual FA, so I cannot see how anyone would complain. ♠ SG →Talk 06:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I have been tracking all of the comments made about this article in both reviews and the changes made, and all of them have been addressed. The only ones I see left are very minor tweaks, like getting a reference that says that foxnews had a video saying he "bombed", and maybe another picture, but all other critiques have been addressed (I supported already above) Judgesurreal777 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Judge says above, it seems like all objections have been addressed, and several people who were opposed beforehand have changed their vote to support. What now? --kizzle 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that the article has undergone substantial changes, I would appreciate it if the people objecting - especially those who opposed "per above", could revisit their objections/comments. Raul654 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My second batch of objections, given at the top, haven't been dealt with so I still oppose at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I can see, each bullet point from your list has been answered by someone. --kizzle 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of my objections still stand. I don't usually quibble over prose too much, but this article needs major copyediting. Tuf-Kat 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as many of your objections are minor ones which wouldn't take but more than a minute or two to address each edit, have you tried making your suggested edits yourself? --kizzle 04:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of my objections are minor. I have an uncited claim about a website's busiest day, lack of context in the quotes, overall poor prose, unclear prose, all things I have no ability to fix. Tuf-Kat 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with your first (remaining) objection that we need a source for the claim about crooksandliars, but as for the others I think it's a ridiculous double standard. You are basically asking us to convert sourced commentary into original research. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not asking any such thing. Almost all of my objections are based on the poor quality of writing in the article, which can easily be fixed without any research of any kind. Tuf-Kat 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess we will just agree to disagree. Your proposal to replace the more "mundane" aspects with the words of Wikipedians would most assuredly warrant accusations of original research. While I would say that your approach is more appropriate of such articles as describing World War II or other historical events, where every sentence doesn't have to be cited, the mere fact that this is a piece that is indirectly about Bush means that it will become a lightning rod of edits by people who love and hate Bush. Already, we've had some descriptions that went beyond the simple media quotations that had to be removed because they were highly partisan either way. On such a possibly contentious article, I believe the density of cited claims and quotations over original sentences must be higher than other articles as to reduce the possibility for POV on either side to seep into the article. I do believe your other claims, however, such as
                • "Several sources... dinner’s featured entertainer." This is not clear whether "even though" applies to the sources criticizing or the press not covering"
                • "(A handful of bloggers... See Crossfire.)" This needs to be cited, parentheses removed and the "See Crossfire" should become a link to the show in the prose"
                • "If footnote 12 is a source for the "busiest day claim", move it to the end of the sentence. If not, provide a source for that claim."
              • are indeed minor enough that you can take charge in spearheading these changes. --kizzle 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The citations needed are all arguable claims. I don't know how and have no desire to find sources for them (the one has been fixed, but someone's added a cite needed to another claim also). The one badly worded sentence I mentioned is vague and thus I can not fix it because I don't know what is meant. Furthermore, that one is only a particularly egregious example of this article's poor prose - I am not objecting on the basis of one bad sentence, I am objecting because this article is badly written. Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the changes are mostly taken care of already - the only two left are the two unreferenced parts now tagged with "citation needed" - I've asked both of the involved editors for sources for those. Maybe tweaking the C-Span thing for being less advertisy, but we are basically just paraphrasing the article anyway. RN 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is excellently written. Shows good prose and a comprehensive coverage of a current event. Shows that wikipedia can truly be up to date and that the current events project is not frivolous. The criticisms listed above all seem to be fixed. MyNameIsNotBob 10:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The quality of the article pleasantly surprised me. Kudos to those involved in ensuring that it didn't turn into a polemical rant for or against Bush. (Let's hope we can maintain its quality to avoid a FARC some day!) Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh it's French...Bitch! Support. I enjoyed this article almost as much as I enjoyed SC's performance itself.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - full disclosure, I created the article in the first place. That said, I think it's ready now for featured status. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further opposition per above:
    • This article presents facts without enough context to make them meaningful. To wit: 24 words and a footnote about people thanking Colbert en masse without explaining why they were thanking him or what they were thanking him for.
    • This article is bloated with overuse of direct quotes from sources where they are not warranted.
      • C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." (and why give the cost?)
        • Please see above. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • why the Washington Post's article about the dinner "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say,"
        • Urm, it says right after the quote, doesn't it :)? I agree that wording needs to be tweaked slightly though :). RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Google searches for "Colbert", "Stephen Colbert", "Colbert Bush", and "Colbert dinner" don't really need to be listed -- none of those are surprising and are perfectly predictable. That doesn't give any more information than just "surge in Colbert-related searches"
        • I lightly disagree with this - we're trying to show it was an "internet sensation" and this helps it - just saying that cspan hits went up probably isn't enough. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many paragraphs are longer than they need to be. e.g. Time columnist Ana Marie Cox called.... Neither of those quotes are particularly useful in and of themselves. That could easily be trimmed without losing anything: "Cox called the allegations of a deliberate blackout a "fake controversy" because Colbert's performance got coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major wire services. Fellow commentator Kurtz concurred, noting that he had played two clips on his own CNN show, and the video was carried on CSpan and available online." (not meant to be an exact suggestion) This does not lose any information, presents and connects all the relevant opinions, without original research.
      • While you are right that it doesn't lose much information - I don't really see it as improving anything. Rather, it seems like a change from a more immediate direct quoting style to a more passive one. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many sections of the article read like random jumbles of facts.
      • Chicago Sun-Times TV Critic Doug Elfman... exclusive rights to retransmit the video. (these two sentences share a paragraph despite a lack of any explicit connection between them, AFAICT)
        • You appear to be correct here - I'll try to tweak it :) RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the lead, there is virtually no introductory text. The sections are largely laundry lists of direct quotes, and are not in WP:SS. This objection is actionable and is fixable without including original research. For example, take "Allegations of a media blackout".
      • Take one paragraph to summarize who alleged a media blackout, and why they believed it. This would not be original research because is merely restating the cited opinions expressed by others.
      • Take another paragraph to explain the opinions of those who deny the media blackout.
      • Create a section for the allegations and one for the denial. In each, restate briefly at the beginning why people believe what they do. Then give the details of who exactly believes what and why.
  • Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner_1&oldid=1050333627"