Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/What It's Like Being Alone/archive1
- 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted
What It's Like Being Alone edit
Partial self-nom. Yes, it's short; but it's comprehensive for a CBC show that bombed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- "Indeed, these ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." -- Article as a whole seems well referenced, but that's certainly a sentence in need of a reference!
- The Characters section does not read like a dispassionate, encyclopedic entry.
- "finds any way out blocked by a lake monster and a dangerous forest, among other things." ... begs the question, what else?
- Quite a few red links. Mark83 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The introduction is meant to summarize the article and does not need references since the rest of the article will expand upon its ideas- the ratings reflecting generally poor ratings is covered below under reception and has two references. I'm not sure if the character section having some livelihood makes it unencyclopedic; it reflects what happens in the show, and doesn't contain any original research. Additionally, do we need all the details as to what else? 24.64.165.149 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All good comments. I saw that reference later down and considered adding it to the intro using <refname>, but thought it was better to leave it as a comment here and let someone who knew more about the subject decide. By livelihood do you mean it doesn't matter that there's slight informality? That may be so, some of the words and phrases used just struck me as too informal. And sure, summary style suggests not every triviality should be listed, and maybe this is indeed trivia. Mark83 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I meant a fun read, sort of along the lines of exploding whale, but yes, informality is still discouraged, so I tried to smooth it out a little. BTW, I can take care of one or two of the red links once I'm able to log into my account- Fred Fuchs is a glaring omission- but I've been generally surprised as to how many of the voice actors turned out to be blue. 24.64.165.149 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred Fuchs is created. 24.64.165.149 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I meant a fun read, sort of along the lines of exploding whale, but yes, informality is still discouraged, so I tried to smooth it out a little. BTW, I can take care of one or two of the red links once I'm able to log into my account- Fred Fuchs is a glaring omission- but I've been generally surprised as to how many of the voice actors turned out to be blue. 24.64.165.149 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All good comments. I saw that reference later down and considered adding it to the intro using <refname>, but thought it was better to leave it as a comment here and let someone who knew more about the subject decide. By livelihood do you mean it doesn't matter that there's slight informality? That may be so, some of the words and phrases used just struck me as too informal. And sure, summary style suggests not every triviality should be listed, and maybe this is indeed trivia. Mark83 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the redlinks were accounted for by the use of "Peter" for a person who did already have an article, albeit at "Pete". That's been corrected with a redirect. Bearcat 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, I just started Evelyn: The Cutest Evil Dead Girl. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The introduction is meant to summarize the article and does not need references since the rest of the article will expand upon its ideas- the ratings reflecting generally poor ratings is covered below under reception and has two references. I'm not sure if the character section having some livelihood makes it unencyclopedic; it reflects what happens in the show, and doesn't contain any original research. Additionally, do we need all the details as to what else? 24.64.165.149 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Overall the writing just feels choppy and not ready for FA status. I have several comments:
"Indeed, these ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." Indeed shouldnt be there, the opening only breifly mentioned CBC and indeed requires the audience to know more than it does. Could you elaborate on this statement, what other shows were failures during this time? This could be its own section.
Secondly, I would consider seperating the Story section into two section. One section would be a backround on the season/show and the second part would be a summary of the episodes. As it is now, its hard to read.
Thirdly, "One CBC critic commented that What It's Being Alone has "arguably the most surreal opening sequence in TV history" Which CBC critic? I wouldn't say that this is weaseal words, but context would be nice.
Fourthly, put the ratings into some context. I see that they are bad. How bad? Whats the average rating in a time slot like that on a channel like that in Canada. I have no clue.
Why don't you request a peer-review? I think that the article would be greatly helped by it. Warhol13 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I thought I'd be doing some work on it during this. Anyway, I've given some other shows that have flopped at the time, but the sources don't say what the average is and digging it up would be original research; the fact that the ratings are bad is referenced. I'm kind of surprised by the weasel words comment and the reference was there but the article doesn't become more confusing in naming the critic. I've also tried merging a few sentences for flow; and I've subsectioned the plot section. The first part wasn't so much "background" as it was the pilot. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as my fourth point goes, I meant what are the ratings of the other shows on national tv during that timeslot. Or what was the rating of a show in a similar timeslot on that channel a few years ago. I didn't mean that you try to figure out for yourself what the ratings should be. Also, it wasn't weasel words because you cited a source. When I read that section I just want to feel like I am reading a few respected critics from respected newspapers and not "one cbc critic". I don't know how you feel about my second suggestion, though. I think you should have an episode list, with the name of each episode in bold, and possibly a overview of the plot synopsis for the show on the whole. Combining the two just reads funny IMO. Thanks. Warhol13 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wary of putting in another list- this isn't WP:FLC- and originally the titles were bolded but that made the article look messy, so I settled on italics. Anyway, I tried restructuring the plot section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Too unprofessional a topic to be featured. Media-related articles don't exist in normal encyclopedias; retaining an article (also unwise) is one thing, but featuring it only encourages further abuse and gaming of the system. Altogether the wrong focus of what should be presented as the pinnacle of achievement, for an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose doesn't cite anything actionable; being featured is about the quality of the article, not the topic. Trebor 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose:
- Passive voice sentences to not identify subjects properly, such as "These ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." "The style of animation was chosen due to Peyton's personal interest in it." "Additionally, some animation was done through computers." "The airing of the series had been stalled for a year, perhaps due to difficulties within the CBC."
- The lists of characters and episodes compose too much of the article - half the article is a list and not an article.
- Is the show canceled? I can't find where, why, or who.
- Need much more substantial information on production methods and technology to be comprehensive. --Mus Musculus 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're asking for a bit of information that does not exist; and the episodes section is not written as a list. The article is clear that the show is cancelled- "The final episode, 'Silver Screen Lucy' or 'The Sweet Stink of Success,'" "On September 18, the series finale had only 163,000 viewers." Moreover, other TV series FAs have character lists- Arrested Development (TV series) for example. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair, if the information isn't accessible, then it's not possible to be comprehensive enough for FA status. The article may seem clear to you, but I'd rather see a concise section detailing the cancellation, the circumstances, who made the decision, etc. Again, if that information is not available, you do not have a comprehensive article. Many readers skim articles for information - if one were looking for that information, it is difficult to locate at a cursory glance. As for the character list, I do not weigh FA candidates against other FA's. I weigh them against the criteria listed here. Thanks for your response! --Mus Musculus 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the theory that any article can be a FA dictates that the article can be considered comprehensive if you've covered the published, notable commentary. I don't think WP:OR would be justified for a more "comprehensive" feel. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that theory published? I don't agree with it. I'm looking at the criteria at WP:WIAFA. It lists "comprehensive" as a criterion, and defines it as "the article does not neglect major facts and details." There is no disclaimer of "unless you can't find it." In my opinion, in-depth production information including technical details, and circumstantial details of the show's cancellation are "major facts and details" per the criteria. I definitely wasn't suggesting you violate WP:OR, I was just suggesting that if the information is not available, the article isn't appropriate for FA. --Mus Musculus 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been debated countless times, including right above you: The topic doesn't preclude an article from FA status, and in this case the topic's obscurity is preventing books and journal articles. Here's another diff- [1] - if it can have an article, it's eligible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... that is a different argument. I'm not saying your topic can't be an FA - I'm saying it isn't currently. If someone has said everything there is to say about a topic, and it's still short, then it could be an FA. My point is that you haven't said everything there is to say. That you can't find sources is inconsequential. The person above me was claiming that your topic is unprofessional, which is completely different from my claim that the article is not comprehensive. What it boils down to is this: When one can say about an article, "I have said everything there is to say" then it can be an FA assuming it meets the other criteria. If one can only say, "I have said everything I can find sources for." then you don't have a comprehensive article, and thus, you don't have an FA. Make sense? --Mus Musculus 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now, I have good access to sources, including Canadian newspapers as you can see from the article, all of which I added, as well as access to journals and whatnot, and the Internet (obviously), so I don't think you can cast me as the guy who can't find sources and never bothered to look. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... that is a different argument. I'm not saying your topic can't be an FA - I'm saying it isn't currently. If someone has said everything there is to say about a topic, and it's still short, then it could be an FA. My point is that you haven't said everything there is to say. That you can't find sources is inconsequential. The person above me was claiming that your topic is unprofessional, which is completely different from my claim that the article is not comprehensive. What it boils down to is this: When one can say about an article, "I have said everything there is to say" then it can be an FA assuming it meets the other criteria. If one can only say, "I have said everything I can find sources for." then you don't have a comprehensive article, and thus, you don't have an FA. Make sense? --Mus Musculus 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been debated countless times, including right above you: The topic doesn't preclude an article from FA status, and in this case the topic's obscurity is preventing books and journal articles. Here's another diff- [1] - if it can have an article, it's eligible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that theory published? I don't agree with it. I'm looking at the criteria at WP:WIAFA. It lists "comprehensive" as a criterion, and defines it as "the article does not neglect major facts and details." There is no disclaimer of "unless you can't find it." In my opinion, in-depth production information including technical details, and circumstantial details of the show's cancellation are "major facts and details" per the criteria. I definitely wasn't suggesting you violate WP:OR, I was just suggesting that if the information is not available, the article isn't appropriate for FA. --Mus Musculus 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the theory that any article can be a FA dictates that the article can be considered comprehensive if you've covered the published, notable commentary. I don't think WP:OR would be justified for a more "comprehensive" feel. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair, if the information isn't accessible, then it's not possible to be comprehensive enough for FA status. The article may seem clear to you, but I'd rather see a concise section detailing the cancellation, the circumstances, who made the decision, etc. Again, if that information is not available, you do not have a comprehensive article. Many readers skim articles for information - if one were looking for that information, it is difficult to locate at a cursory glance. As for the character list, I do not weigh FA candidates against other FA's. I weigh them against the criteria listed here. Thanks for your response! --Mus Musculus 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're asking for a bit of information that does not exist; and the episodes section is not written as a list. The article is clear that the show is cancelled- "The final episode, 'Silver Screen Lucy' or 'The Sweet Stink of Success,'" "On September 18, the series finale had only 163,000 viewers." Moreover, other TV series FAs have character lists- Arrested Development (TV series) for example. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nay, that wasn't my intention at all. In fact, I commend your research on the topic. But do you concede my point that even if the information simply isn't available online, said information may still need to be in the article, and if it isn't, the article isn't comprehensive? Let me use another example. Say I decide to write an article on a notable hockey player. All I can find are his stats, and maybe his trade history. I know that he has a whole biography that I can't find anywhere online, but I have stated and sourced everything I can find - his stats and his trades. I write about those things brilliantly. Do I have an FA, even though his article is not effectively comprehensive per WP:WIAFA? --Mus Musculus 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed my point; my access to sources is good enough that there is a high probability that the main points are covered; I think you'd need to point to specific source material to show that info's missing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've just added some production information (not sure you'll be happy though) from an already-listed source. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the addition. Have you considered my other suggestions re: use of passive voice and possibly adding a subsection entitled "Cancellation" that summarizes the circumstances? --Mus Musculus 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to highlight the cancellation in the intro although the infobox makes it clear. But I can't give you a subsection. I wasn't sitting in on the meeting where the execs chose not to buy another season. I can't speculate why there wasn't another season, although the reader will have imagined it was because of the ratings. As for passive sentences, I've adjusted a few (and generally set out to avoid them in the first place) but there I some sentences you point out that I actually don't agree are passive. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the addition. Have you considered my other suggestions re: use of passive voice and possibly adding a subsection entitled "Cancellation" that summarizes the circumstances? --Mus Musculus 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've just added some production information (not sure you'll be happy though) from an already-listed source. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed my point; my access to sources is good enough that there is a high probability that the main points are covered; I think you'd need to point to specific source material to show that info's missing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.