Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dan Povenmire/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 SandyGeorgia 00:06, 14 December 2009 [1].

Dan Povenmire

edit
Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:

Thanks in advance, The Flash {talk} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: 1c/2c. I've walked through all the bloody citations. They are now what they claim to be. Two of them don't meet WP:RS/N, which I've noted. I'm 1c on that basis. Also a dead link needs removing. Resolved at Talk. Some other sources aren't HQRS, even if they're RS... but I don't know if HQRS have been exhausted for this. To other editors, the citations now accurately represent the sources used, good luck determining if they meet 1b/c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) citation style is consistent. 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive for Bond, Paul. (2009-06-07). "Q&A: Dan Povenmire". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. is down. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive fixed. Also, please just mention supposed unreliable sources here at the FAC in stead of just tagging it as unreliable in the page, like you did with the Toon Zone ref. It's totally reliable and has been cited in several books. Same thing with the Hop Studios thing, just put it here so we can discuss it in stead of tagging, it makes it much easier and doesn't make the page look bad as it does now. The Flash {talk} 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch the first bit (wrong archive). It's not messed up, the website just requires log-in to read it. The Flash {talk} 05:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Auntieruth55 comments and SUPPORT (see below) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17
24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several good things about this article. This is comprehensive, and reasonably well written, not brilliant, but sturdy (1a, 1b). It is neutral (1d), and seemingly stable (1e) (given the number of people telling him to change this and that, it's stable). The structure is good, lead is sufficiently "summary" style, and individual sections cover what they purport to cover (2a, 2b). The info on "personal life could probably be integrated into the rest of the material, since it is so short, but based on WP:BLPNAME, which is the Biography projects' policy on including names/info of minors and spouses, this is reasonable. Images seem to be okay now, but that is not my bailiwick, and I'm not assessing those; it is sufficient for me to see a few images, and they are distributed to break up the text, and offer me an image to illustrate some point or other. Although I would prefer an image of Phineas, for example, I suspect that falls outside "fair use." The length is good, focused on the subject, no discursiveness (crit. 4).
  • The remaining problems seem to be with reliability of the sources and citation styles (1c and 2c), which is a contention. It seems to me that the sources are reliable within the realm of current popular culture, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect a great deal of scholarly discussion of Sponge Bob Square Pants and Phineas and Ferb. One hundred years from now, possibly. But in 2009? Not so much. I've looked at the sources Flash has used. As a scholar and historian I'm not happy with them, but as a reasonable and practical person I must admit they are not only what is available, they seem to be the best of what is available. Is it reasonable to continue demanding specific kinds of sources that are not available for this topic? Flash isn't writing about Milton or Rembrandt, for whom millions of trees have been destroyed, and gallons of ink expended. So in fairness to Flash, I have to say he's met reliability requirements. He did not cite gossip columns, and in most cases, he has two or three citations for the same assertion. Although I find this particular cite style extremely difficult to follow (a b c d etc.) this is not an actionable objection, just a personal preference; others find my cites equally objectionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks you; I too believe all the sources I'm using fall as RS through some standard. Thanks for the support! :) The Flash {talk} 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples that have raised issues: The website Al.com. This website appears to contain news articles from the Mobile Press Register. It is their online presence, instead of using the newspaper name itself, which is where one goes to advertise, apply for a job, or subscribe. So this is a choice that the newspaper made on how to present its material. It is also an interactive website (hence the word "blog" I suppose). The latest trend! That is some 12-13 citations from an article on the subject. I've read the article from the paper and it is accurately presented in the wiki article. Animation World magazine, while not a scholarly journal, nor a juried one, is still a central source for information about animation. Again, see my comments above re the amount of literature available on this subject. Four different articles are cited from that. Okay, so these are not deep, intellectual stuff. But again, the material is well represented in the wiki article. The newspaper articles look fine. I've never been overly impressed with the Bergen Record, but they are reliable if not particularly inspired, and it was an interesting article. I have not got a clue what Badmouth is about, but the information in the wikiarticle does describe what is on the badmouth site (and cite). The last one is the Daily Trojan "Where are they now" list. I read what was on there, and it looks like a class notes type of thing, ex officio. The material Flash has cited is predominantly the personal information stuff--his house has a view of Mt Wilson (or ?), he married Vanessa,and his last DVD was released online. Most of this is "flavor" for the article, gives a sense of the character of the LP, but of little substance, just rounds him out. There is also a cartoon character on the site that is in the style Povenmire draws, so its quite possible that he sent the info in himself. AND wrote "over the hill" on his character's drum. Someone has a twisted sense of humor, and i like it.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Auntieruth. I believe that is what Sandy was looking for. :) The Flash {talk} 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I supported last time, I don't have the time right now but was asked to comment. As I'm writing an essay at the moment, I'll have to get back to this some other time. ceranthor 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable:

** http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html the fact that it's a news site for alabama related news is not enough to show reliablitiy

    • Once again, same as last time, look here [2] where news sources cite it for information. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      According to this they're owned by the same people and are sister sites. The Press Register site has an awkward navigational system, I couldn't search for it, but as the website is near the same as Press-Register, I think it makes it a reliable source (related to/heavily affiliated with and owned alongside a published work?) The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This can then be left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with al.com and mobile press-register sites for an article like this and for the kind of material Flash cites from it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know Flash, but I just struck it. It uses the same material that goes on the Mobile Press Reg website, just reformatted for "only" Alabama news. So it seems to me that it is a legitimate source, as good as the newspaper. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=8691491442 You need to show that Classmates.com does fact checking on the entries.
      It's Classmates.com, look at this source for all the news sources that cite it for information. I don't see how you expect me — or anyone — to know how anything does it research. Does anybody but The New York Times know how they get info? They did researched, they sourced, etc., but there's no source for almost anything to explain how anything finds it's info. The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      the first result there is talking about Classmates.com, same with the second. Third, fifth, sixth also. Seventh has a news results that says "In addition to his criminal record in Utica, Facebook and Classmates.com pages indicate that...." not exactly a uniequivical endorsement. Eighth, ninth and tenth results again are about classmates.com, not citing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot of the sources refer to its high profit margin, among several other websites. This stands for something itself right? The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem. Removed the source; it was only used to support a very brief, non-important thing, didn't really defend it that strongly. The Flash {talk} 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html Again, you need to show that it's not just affiliated with, but that it actually fact checks.
      It is created by a former Daily Trojan editor and alumni of USC himself, who is also a web designer and teacher. see here. I'm apretty sure he gathered this info through personal interviews/e-mails. I hope that covers it because, this is the only source for several bits of key personal info in his life that would probably make people oppose this article for lack of info on key topics like his personal life. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      So essentially it's self-published? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's a requirement here that sources for BLPs satisfy WP:RS, and this one is definitely iffy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I know you're not trying to be mean, lol. I'm pretty positive it is self-published, yes. The Flash {talk} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Upon further research, I can safely say this constitutes as an RS. It is written, maintained, and edited by a longtime editor and writer for both Variety magazine's website and the Los Angeles Times. Ealdgyth, if you can get back to me on this, it'd be appreciated. The Flash {talk} 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      He also actually teaches online courses at USC itself. You can read it all on the website. The Flash {talk} 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal life section is two lines. Could it be expanded, or merged elsewhere? It seems a bit short on its own. Majorly talk 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other info that was there can be seen here, but it was removed after a suggestion from the copyeditor showed how they really didn't meet WP:NOTABLE. I could add them back if you like. The only other thing I can do is merge it with early life, renaming the section "Personal life." Which one works for you? The Flash {talk} 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it in with early life and rename is the best idea. It's just two short to stand on its own. Majorly talk 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not add them back. They do not meet notability requirements in and of themselves, and the bio project's policy on this is very clear. See WP:BLPNAME. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Last time i edited this artical i said something and iam saying it again Supporrt --Pedro J. the rookie 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, involved reviewers should indicate so in their declarations; Pedro J. passed the GA on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a note for the reviewer to go back and add it into their support or just for future reference? The Flash {talk} 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Supporters need to specifically and explicitly discuss the text cited to the questioned sources above, and explain why they think the sources are reliable for that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, supporters who mention the sources and source it give their reasons specifically why they think it works. See Auntieruth's comments/supports above. The Flash {talk} 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This a BLP and reliability of sources and how they are used to support statements in the text is paramount. I think this candidature was premature, and were it not for the efforts of Ealdgyth and Fifelfoo, it would have been quickly archived. That the nominator needed to defend the sources used in the nomination from the outset, immediately raised my doubts. One of Ealdgyth's concerns remains, and I agree with her on this. I have spent an hour looking at the sources and I am left with impression that the FA standards have not been met. Graham Colm Talk 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flash, while I don't think the Hop studio cite is problematic -- the data appears to be entered by alumni about themselves -- generally, these sources are problematic. I suggest you take out the bits from Hop. They are about the man's personal life, which is not related to his notability, and I've always been uncomfortable including data on his private life. You can still include the info on his daughter sharing her name to a Phineas and Ferb character without having to cite Hop, because it's from somewhere else. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked Sandy to archive this nom, as several comments have been brought up and lead me to believe that this truly was premature. Thanks for the comments everyone. The Flash {talk} 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dan_Povenmire/archive1&oldid=1138458451"