Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner/archive1

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:40, 18 May 2010 [1].

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

Review commentary edit

Featured article review/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner/archive1

Notified: NickCatal, Brian.fsm, Kizzle, Reaverdrop, WikiProject Comedy

I am nominating this featured article for review because its cites are getting invalid (2c). This article was a labor of love and rushed through in 2006 but the subject is a rather ephemeral media/political comedy event and its cites have suffered heavy linkrot.Plotfeat (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all the dead links that the toolbox found. I also removed some YouTube and Google Video links from personal accounts, as well as some information about a non-notable blog with only one entry that was being used as a primary source. Overall, the large number of dead links is troubling. There are also some issues with the prose and constant use of "however." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Brian.fsm stopped editing in 2007 and Kizzle and Reaverdrop have only one edit each since 11/09. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At risk of pointing out the obvious, but while deadlinks are bad, they are no more invalid for source material than inaccessible offline material. Wikipedia:Linkrot notes "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." Don't get me wrong, archive copy links should be found if available, but we can safely assume that the referenced were used originally by the authors of the article and the FAC, and thus the article theoretically shouldn't have to change at all? Are there any other issues with it? SnowFire (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the sources, I see many issues with the prose. Colloquialisms and original research abound; to give just one example with the offending words bolded -- "Colbert received a chilly reception from the audience. His jokes were often met with silence and muttering, apart from the enthusiastic laughter of a few in the audience, such as Antonin Scalia's hearty laughter as Colbert teased him. This was in stark contrast to the warm reception that Bush received at the event for his skit with impersonator Steve Bridges, which immediately preceded Colbert's monologue." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If supported by sources I don't see a problem with the adjectives. Lambanog (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note, WP:Linkrot isn't a part of MOS, it's more of a descriptive essay, which means that FAs are not bound by it. Also, if the links are basically convenience links to information that was also distributed in-print (for example, the dead link to TIME and some of the newspaper articles) then it is correct that the links do not need to be fixed, and can simply be removed. However, if they went to completely online sources that were never distributed in any other place and that have been completely removed from the web, then there is no way to verify the information and a new reference needs to be found. Dana boomer (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist because of the high linkrot and because of the prose issues I pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, please read the comments above about linkrot. These "auto delists" are not helpful for article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not seeing sufficient rationale anywhere on this FAR page for removing FA status. Linkrot does not really seem that significant, presumably it is quite likely that WP:V is still able to be confirmed via other aspects of verification techniques. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I'm not convinced by this article. There are still many dead links,[2] which means that signifcant parts are effectively uncited. That would not be acceptable at FAC and it ought not to be acceptable here. I'm also concerned that it has not aged well, as evidenced by "It continued to be a top download at iTunes for the next five months and remains a top-selling audiobook on the service", from the Internet popularity section, cited to a newspaper report from 2006. Is it still a "top-selling" audiobook? I'm also concerned about some of the writing, which seems a little breathless, and not altogether consistent. For instance we have "Much of the initial coverage of the Correspondents Dinner contrasted the audience's very positive reaction ...", which is barely even English, and contrasts rather vividly with Colbert's own assessment: "Colbert joked that the unenthusiastic reception was actually "very respectful silence". "They contrasted the critical reaction to Colbert ...", should obviously be "compared the critical reaction ...". Why is "Presidential comic routine" capitalised? "Subsequent coverage has seen commentators debate the stand-alone humor content of Colbert's performance" is just media-babble. There are too many problems with this article IMO, another of which is the choppy nature of the Praise and criticism for Colbert section, with its sequence of short paragraphs. There is no way this article is an FA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Malleus. That is exactly what I was trying to say; I knew there were some issues with the tone but I had a hard time articulating them. There are short paragraphs everywhere and lots of media babble. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm unconvinced the prose and citation issues are a serious problem. Also not eager to demote an article that to my mind plays to and is illustrative of Wikipedia's strengths. I'm wondering is there an article like this in Encyclopaedia Britannica? I'm thinking possibly not, yet it is one that in my view seems to have its pulse on cultural events with pivotal impact. An article like this is what makes Wikipedia a potentially better source of information on certain subjects than other conventional sources. Keep if at all possible. Lambanog (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's on a subject you consider to be of "pivotal impact" has no bearing on whether or not this article meets the FA criteria. I am in no doubt that it does not. Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is criteria and there is criteria. If it fails the stated FA criteria, I trust that will be determined by those more familiar with what consensus on that is. Overall, however, I am judging whether keeping or removing this article's FA status improves or diminishes Wikipedia. From what I can tell this may be the best article on this subject anywhere. If so it sets Wikipedia apart. Rarity adds value. Importance of subject adds value. Rarity on an important subject? Now one may dispute if this article is rare or important if one wishes or take the position rarity and importance don't matter—bottom line is that would be your opinion not mine. I think it would worsen Wikipedia to remove this article's FA status. Lambanog (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your argument makes very little sense to me. You might as well argue that any other article you consider to be "pivotal" ought to be promoted to FA without the inconvenience of having to go through FAC. Further, whether the article has a little bronze star or not has absolutely zero impact on wikipedia or its readers; this isn't a discussion on whether or not the article should exist, simply whether or not it meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - FA articles I would imagine are supposed to showcase what Wikipedia has to offer. A bunch of articles that are well-written but which in essence simply mimic what can be found elsewhere do not make a case for why Wikipedia is special. An article like this one in my view does. If you are suggesting the bronze star doesn't make a difference let's simply abolish the FA process and save people the time and effort writing and reviewing FAs. As for what I consider pivotal or not and the inconvenience of going through FAC—this article has already been vetted by going through FAC previously so that argument is academic. I am likely just reaffirming the value in the article I presume other reviewers saw. Lambanog (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem determined to be particularly obtuse, but that is of course your prerogative. I have nothing further to add. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.