Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy/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 18:46, 20 January 2009 [1].

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy edit

Nominator(s): Andrewlp1991 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...it's a well-sourced article that documents the heavy cultural impact of a half-second accident that occurred on national TV in 2004 and affected future broadcast law in the US for times to come. Also, I'd like to try getting this as the TFA on Feb. 1, 2009 - coincidentially this year's Super Bowl!

As for the FA criteria, so far it's been stable and of course well-sourced and very comprehensive. Since 2007 I've researched this incident for editing this article, especially with excellent source The Decency Wars by Frederick S. Lane. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded on January 15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review — issues as follows:
    • File:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg requires a stronger fair use rationale other than "to illustrate the incident, which was notable", made light by its boilerplate nature (same rationale for Janet Jackson article). Something along the line of why this image is particularly associative with the event (is this the most circulated picture in the media, why is this scene particularly poignant of the incident) should be made.
      • I am asking another editor for his opinion on the rewritten rationale. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jappalang asked me to look at this rationale. First, I think that the statement "the most searched for news item in internet history" requires a citation on the image description page. Second, assuming this is the case, were viewers searching for this image or this image? Can we find a source which specifies? I have this feeling that internet searchers were looking for the "nipple shot", but it would be best to have a source to support that feeling. If that is the case, we have to decide if we want to put that shot on the article or not. In my opinion, we should include the more graphic photograph, because that is what caused the controversy. However, this is clearly an area where we need to have a careful discussion. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See this discussion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whether the file is appropriate or not due to moral concerns is not a matter here. It is the fair use. The rationale of "most searched image" falters when brought up against the "nipple shot", which is also the "right on the moment identifying shot". Hence, a strong rationale, which would not be based on those reasons, should be written to justify the current wardrobe file as the identifying image for the article. Jappalang (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fcc complaints and fines 2001-2004.JPG requires sources for the number of complaints and amount of fines.
      • Please include the FCC page where the chart is found, so that it will be easier on the maintenance (in case they rename the path or file). Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No other image issues. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dealt with these issues by adding some more reasons for the fair use image and sourcing the FCC website for the chart. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have not spent a long time reading the article, but I see some major problems with the article content.

  • The article has no international perspective (well, a tiny bit on Canada) and is systemically biased in it's coverage and perception. The article needs to explain the reaction in liberal European and other continents, where most people were rather confused by Americans overreaction.
  • The affect on Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake needs expanding. It brings up many issues about race and gender in America. Also, there is some contradiction which needs straightening out. The article says that Jackson's first album after the Superbowl was a critical disappointment, yet it was nominated for 3 Grammys. The article says that the album had good sales, while this is true, they were definitely lower than the album she released before Nibblegate—All For You. All three of her studio albums since the Superbowl have performed progressively worse in terms of sales (irrelevant of critical reception). If you honestly believe "critical reception" is relevant to the affect on career section (I don't see the linkage myself), you should write it in terms of the content of the album reviews. For example, reviews of Damita Jo, largely commented on the Superbowl incident instead of the music. That would be an interesting point to add. Note, Discipline (Janet Jackson album), it a GA article, take any info you like from there.
    • I could go on, but there is no need. I suggest this article goes through the GA process and peer review. — Realist2 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "worldwide view": Are there any reliable sources that document how "some people" in Europe/elsewhere taunted those oversensitive Americans?
      • Yes there are, I'm not sure about "taunting Americans", unless you've heard about that. I'm talking of the reaction as being..."wtf O.0", confusion etc. It got coverage in the UK for example, journalists tried to explain the cultural divide in the US to UK citizens and characterized it as an overreaction. I'm not sure there was any "anti-American" sentiment in it.
    • Sales of Damita Jo: If it's true, I guess there'd be news reports documenting that it sold lower than All For You. Or we could just present the facts, such as the RIAA certifications of All For You and Damita Jo.
      • I'm sure you can find a reliable source for the worldwide sales of All for You (approximately 7 million) and Damita Jo (approximately 3-4 million). Just present the two sales figures. Certifications could be added, but that's not the best option, since that would be America only presumably.
    • "Issues about race and gender in America"...The section in question quotes an interview of Timberlake in which he asserts that those issues are relevant. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are some football fans who are purists and don't like the Super Bowl halftime shows. I'm one of them, and was not paying attention to my TV at the time of the incident. Another genius move by yours truly. :-) As for the article, I don't believe it's ready to be here, and I almost want to suggest withdrawal and resubmission in the future. Here are some examples of issues with the page.

  • Many problems with the references, including several unformatted references. All refs need publisher and last access date, and dates of publication are also expected here.
  • The first sentence of the lead is a borderline run-on and needs to be split up.
  • "for exactly 9/16 of a second". I don't believe slashes are encouraged in prose.
  • "by the Federal Communications Commission, as well as". Instead of "as well as", just have "and". Simple writing is usually the most effective here.
  • Please delink January 2006. What good does that link do?
  • "with CBS becoming...and MTV becoming" is an example of a "noun-plus-ing" structure, a hard-to-find writing glitch. This whole sentence seems badly outdated anyway.
  • Remove the second MTV link in the lead. Repetitive links aren't needed.
  • Something could be said about how the incident overshadowed the game, which was considered one of the best Super Bowls ever. The wording would need to be carefully done, but a sentence on that wouldn't hurt.
  • Put the one book reference after the notes.
  • "tears off part of Janet Jackson's wardrobe" in the photo caption should be changed, because the deed looks like it was done by then. Therefore, present tense shouldn't be used.

Sorry, but I agree with Realist that this isn't ready yet. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Minor comment I think there should be more templates at the bottom. BUC (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well written and comprehensive article about a very interesting subject. I made one minor copyedit after reading the entire article but I have some comments:
1)Are there any other worldwide reactions than Canada?
2)I could not figure out what these sentences were trying to say: "South Park took aim at the hysteria in its eighth season premiere, "Good Times With Weapons", on March 17 of that year when Eric Cartman sneaked across a stage in the nude and later blamed the incident on a "wardrobe malfunction." The townspeople are angered by Cartman's display, rather than feeling concern for a horribly mutilated and disoriented character (Butters) who is also present on stage, referring to the acceptance of violence and the taboo against sexual references.[28] "

NancyHeise talk 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - wouldn't the star-over-the-boob be a better case for fair use than the current picture? Sceptre (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. MoS review needed, several issues (particularly in the citations), incomplete citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to withdraw and surrender because I have now a better idea that a FAC has to be just perfect, perfect, and nothing less! Given Giants2008's comment above I think a better day for this to be Today's FA would be Sept. 22, when the FCC fined CBS over Jackson's you-know-what. I'll have to do some more research as I asserted earlier before it could even reach GA status!--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 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/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy/archive1&oldid=1088821753"