Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Colbert Report/archive0

The Colbert Report edit

This is an exemplary example of an article for a TV show, with enough detail but not too much (linking to other articles where necessary) and an appropriate amount of references. It of course complies with Wikipedia style, is neutral, is rather stable and contains a healthy amount of images. Overall, it is comprehensive and a good read...definitely featured article material. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked through the entire article yet. But I can already say that the lead is too short. The Filmaker 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; some large portions don't have citations ("Interviews", "Robert Wexler", and paragraphs throughout), and several quotes are missing them too. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the article is comprehensive and detailed with good references and links. Jennielou 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is definitely a great article; it fits the criteria perfectly. Well written, comprehensive, and fits Wikipedia style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.118.77 (talk • contribs) .
Oppose - Too many unfree images (screenshots). Just one would be enough to show Colbert. We don't need "Colbert on The Colbert Gang", "Colbert on the set", "Colbert announces The WØRD of the night", "Colbert and his "competition""... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) .
Support The article is a popular topic, it is very well written, and is the epitome of what a Wikipedia article should be. JustOneJake 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well written Trashking 21:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great writing, great organization; no need for so many pictures, however. --Cliff smith 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though this article isn't bad at all, it is not ready for featured status. See rationale below.

It does not meet several criteria for featured articles.

1.(d) "Neutrality". This article does not discuss criticism of the show and its tone makes it seem as though it was written by fans at times. (Not that fans writing it is a problem -- hell, I'm a huge fan -- but that tone has to go)
2.(a). Weak lead paragraph.
1.(e). With 17 edits and counting ([1]) today, even if some are vandlism and reverts, I think it's safe to say that this is not yet a stable article.

In short, this article needs to lose the fan-written tone and deal with the aforementioned problems before it can attain featured status. Please consider submitting it for peer review once thse problems are believed to have been corrected before bringing it up as a featured article candidate. --Zantastik talk 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critisism of the show? Does that even exist? [2] -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Glancing through it, I have a couple questions. Once they are answered I'll come by and do a real read through. First off I would like to request the lead to be expanded by 1-2 paragraphs. How is "Relation to The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hungarian bridge campaign" motifs(recurring themes)? and "The WØRD" isn't? Some sections seem to miss any inline citations. No news report mentioned the Tom De Lay email and you had to use a picture? To my knowledge, comedy cental site has a lot of videos (per their commercials "our site doesn't suck") and you couldn't find the videos you needed so you used "youtube" where you never know if video editing could have happened? How come in the "program format" it doesn't mention the quick "preview" or what ever you would like to call it of the Colbert Report at the end of the Daily Show(lets check in with our good friend Stephen)? Thats all I can think off for now. Love the Colbert Report but would like this article to be the best it can be or featured status in other words. - Tutmosis 22:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The Word isn't a "theme" per se; it's a segment. The "recurring themes" section is meant to display themes of the show, rather than different sections of the show. Besides, there are dozens of recurring segments and themes, which are listed in the main article. As for the reference about Tom DeLay, both a picture of the email and an article from a news website are provided. I would think that should be sufficient reference. Concerning the preview at the end of The Daily Show, that is technically part of The Daily Show and not the Report, so I don't believe it belongs in this article. It's in The Daily Show's article, where it belongs. Finally, to address the YouTube videos, I don't see why they aren't legitimate sources. Colbert himself condones the use of YouTube, and uses it exclusively for his green screen challenge. Would it not be fitting to use YouTube, as per his urgings? -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose, I love The Colbert Report, but this article gives a terribly incomplete and confusing idea of the show to people who are not familiar with it. I think part of this incomplete, rough feel comes from sections being shunted off to sub-pages without much care for what this leaves in the parent article. The authors need to take a step back and make it comprehensible to people who have never heard of Stephen Colbert or this show. Here are just a few problems:
- The article gives no good, detailed summary of the nature of the Colbert character, which is probably the single most important element of the show. The section "Stephen Colbert character" contains not even the most basic information regarding the character's personality and mannerisms, instead simply linking to the subpage, which is a misapplication of Summary style.
- I'd also argue that, as pretty much the central element of the show, the expanded section on the Colbert character should probably be the first or second section of the article, and at least a paragraph in the lead should introduce the character.
- Despite attempts at conciseness, the article wastes space on trivialities like the desk being shaped like an Omega and Mort Zuckerman being removed from the "on notice" board (which incidentally is mentioned in that sentence for the first time).
- The article says nothing about the sort of humor used on the show.
- Some of the unexplained references to gags would puzzle non-fans. "Search for a new black friend," "Gravitas-Off", "Dead to Me board," etc.
- The Hungarian bridge campaign section needs to go. It's already alluded to when you talk about Stephen trying to get stuff named after him, and it's not significant enough to warrant a higher level of coverage. Ditto the massive coverage given to the "reported as fact" incidents, which needs to be cut down to size.
- The article also fails to mention the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner incident, which probably drew more mainstream attention to the show than anything else.
- There's an uncited quote right after the table of contents.
- This is just for starters. Like I said, this article seems geared primarily toward fans of the show, and secondaly toward people who are familiar with American news media culture. I watch it every night, so there are probably other things I'm missing; show it to some European or Australian FA editors who haven't heard of Colbert (or have only heard his name dropped here and there) and I won't be surprised if a lot of them offer up more suggestions for what to include. Andrew Levine 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The lead is too short for such a long article, and does not summarize it properly. CG 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Poor lead and a horrible structure that goes in a million directions. The article needs better focus and less categorization.UberCryxic 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some sections read like fan-site work. Organization is confusing. Several paragraphs have no references, although there are plenty of references overall (some references may just need to be made inline). There are still grammatical errors to be fixed as well. (Although this can be done quickly.) It's just not ready yet, though the page has great potential. I would rate the article as GA right now. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - Thank you for your feedback, everyone. I am going to withdraw the nomination, as it seems this article needs some work. I think I'll nominate for GA status, though. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]