Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cape Feare/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 kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [1].

Cape Feare

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Cape Feare

Featured article review/Cape Feare/archive1

Notified: Maitch, Gran2, Scorpion0422 and WikiProject The Simpsons.

I am nominating this featured article for review for 3 reasons. Firstly, I am concerned that is too US-centric. We are told at The Simpsons that this programme airs around the world; why isn't this demonstrated in the article? All of the audience ratings and reviews are from America. Therefore, it fails 1(d) of WP:WIAFA. "File:Cape Feare.gif" appears to fail point 3 of the said policy - it claims to come from a press kit, yet no evidence is shown and the source identified is a fan page. There are also sourcing concerns; 2 are from Amazon and most of the rest are from Fox (failing 1(c)) - a heavy reliance on primary sources for an article such as this is surely not healthy? DJ 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As one of our oldest FAs it was inevitable that this would eventually happen and we at WP:DOH will look to improve it, but some of the nominators concerns I disagree with or don't fully understand them. Firstly, "most of the rest" of the sources are from Fox. None of them are "from Fox". I assume you mean the DVD commentary. That is used as the source for the production because it wa recorded by the people who produced the episode, therefore, there is no better (and indeed, no other) source for the production of the episode, it can't really be called a primary source - pretty much all DVDs have the disclaimer "The views expressed in the commentaries do not reflect the views of Fox/WB/NBC etc." for a reason. As for it being "US centric", that is all well and good to say, but there just are not any review of the episode from other countries (with the possible exception of the UK, I'll look). This episode aired in 1993 so it's likely if there were any, they have long been deleted. In fact, looking at the article I see reception informatin from Empire, Total Film and The Daily Telegraph, all of which are UK publictions. The images are definitly a problem though. Gran² 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about TV viewing figures for the episode from other countries? In regards to the UK, I know that The Guardian has a good backlog of ratings and you may be able to obtain some infomation from BARB. And its not just about the UK - Australia? Ireland? Foreign language countries? The list goes on. The article doesn't actually mention when this episode first aired abroad. However, I do understand the disclaimer issue on the DVD commentary. DJ 10:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Australian publication mention of the episode I found on Newsbank (there is one other, which says its better than a newer Sideshow Bob episode, but doesn't actually mention which that one is, so isn't very helpful). It does not list any article which mentions the episode's title from any country apart from US/UK/Aus. As for ratings from other countries, the only source I've found for the UK airdate (October 10, 1993) is a fansite. I searched Newsbank and only three UK articles from October 1993 mention "The Simpsons" or "Simpsons", none of which are refering to this episode. I also looked at BARB for that week and it doesn't list Sky or even any specific shows (at least not as far as I can see). Gran² 11:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit and added a Swedish and a Norwegian source to the reception section. The leftorium 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

All of the above concerns have been addressed excluding one; the 2 Amazon links that fail WP:RS. One still remains as Amazon and this must be changed. The other has been replaced with ""DVD New Releases". Evening Times. 2005-04-23.". The publication's Wiki article says that its a Scottish local paper and after a search of its website, it doesn't appear that they do DVD reviews, let alone one on the DVD concerned. Along with the fact that a user just randomly knew that the review took place on this date, I highly doubt that this article exists. Therefore, I request some proof (a scan of the article etc) or a change of source until we go futher. DJ 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of newspaper archives? :) Here is a screenshot. Also, since when is Amazon not a reliable source for that kind of information? The leftorium 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because its a commercial website; it is writing to sell and not inform. Countdown (game show) got its FA status revoked due to a reliance on IMDb and Amazon sources. DJ 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But all it is being used for is to prove a VHS exists and that this episode was on it. I've been trying to find something about Amazon on the RS noticeboard and this is the only thing I can find: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Amazon.com as a RS for merchandise? Consensus seems to be that Amazon is fine for proving products exist which is all that is happening here. Maybe you should create a new discussion? Gran² 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. The leftorium 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have now replaced the Amazon.com reference with this. The leftorium 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, I just noticed that that source was for a re-release of the 1997 collection without the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episode. I'll wait for some more replies at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Amazon.com_a_reliable_source_for_this_sentence.3F. The leftorium 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new source has been added by User:Bradley0110 ([2]). The leftorium 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, balance. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, concerns significantly addressed. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All problems seem to have been dealt with. L0b0t (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is at the bottom of the FA range for Cr. 1a: undistinguished. I don't have enough energy to oppose its retention as a FA, though.

Bad pipe from "sheet music" to "score"—not the same thing, and not even useful. I fixed it.
"unbeknownst"—code for "unknown"?
Why is "mystery" linked?
A redundant "also". Tony (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done (I think). I'll try to get someone to copyedit the article. The leftorium 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the lead and plot, and will try to go through the rest when I get the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's much appreciated. The leftorium 09:29, 27 September 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.