Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/An Inconvenient Truth/archive2

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 Karanacs 19:35, 6 July 2010 [1].

An Inconvenient Truth[edit]

Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this article after a previous FAC in March. Objections to the previous nomination over insufficient scientific discussion have been dealt with. The lorax (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~External links for refs 80 and 95 are dead; 80 does not even show a 404 page.~~ No dab links. --an odd name 23:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to exactly which links AnOddName is referring (I was working from the linkchecker tool, which doesn't show ref numbers), but I couldn't find any dead links; some had odd status codes, but all I checked did in fact lead to the right page. Ucucha 06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lorax might have fixed them by the time you typed here, but yeah links all work now. Striking. --an odd name 23:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: There are a great many issues with the formatting of references. In particular:-

Publications should be correctly named, e.g. The New York Times, The Washington Post etc.
Print sources (journal, newspapers, magazines) should be italicised. Non-print sources (broadcasters, websites, professional bodies or other organisations) should not be italicised
A consistent policy on providing retrieval dates should be adopted. Some editors provide retrieval dates for all online sources; others provide them only in the case of non-print sources. Either policy is acceptable, but consistency is lacking at present.
Publisher information is often lacking
Formats need to be consistent.

Around half of the first 30 or so references require attention in regard to one or more of these matters. A glance through the list indicates the presence of many more similar cases. Please work through the list systematically, to ensure that every reference conforms with MOS requirements. I will complete a proper sources review when this has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the sources to be more consistent.--The lorax (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comments:
- Ref 65 goes to the wrong page. I think you've inadvertently entered the url for the next reference.
- Ref 43 contains a dead link to the doi system
- Although progress has been made on sorting out italics and non-italics, there are still numerous fixes required. For example neither Grist nor Truthdig are print media sources, neither are Reuters, CNN or Fox News; none of these should be in italics. Bright Lights, on the other hand, is a journal. So are The Seattle Times and the Daily Mail, and all these should be italicised. It really is necessary to work through the list consistently, and get these correct; I haven't necessarily identified them all.

Can you give me a ping when you believe that all sources matters are resolved? Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning oppose changed to ~~Oppose~~ Dincher (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I would like to see more on the criticism of the piece by Gore. I read some of it in the Governmental Reaction section of the article. Perhaps these could be placed together in a ==Criticism== section. Dincher (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment many people would argue that Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming. is not educating at all. Rather they would argue that Gore is playing on fears or worse. Dincher (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were his comments particularly notable in comparison to the opinions of world leaders and scientists?--The lorax (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Limbaugh and Hannity, regardless of how one feels about their politics, are very influential voices on this subject. I still would like to see a ==Criticism== section in this article. Dincher (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a specific criticism of AIT by Limbaugh and Hannity (just criticism directed at Gore); Glenn Beck though did produce a special as an alternative viewpoint to the movie, which I added to the article; hopefully that is what you were looking for.--The lorax (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that. Dincher (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Not to intrude on Brian's promised sourcing review, but it is worth noting that there is a dead link tag for reference 43. Might be worth the effort to double-check whether the DOI is correct. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media - The image of Al Gore should look into the text, it is implausible there is no free image of him looking to the left. File:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg does not significantly increase the users understanding, nor would it's loss be detrimental to the readers' understanding, I therefore oppose as the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I switched the previous Gore photo to one of him looking towards the text. Movie posters appear to fall within Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images.--The lorax (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket allowance to any type of non free content, the policy is clear that non-free content must meet nfcc and this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, thus the article fails FA criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on File:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg. I'm sympathetic to Fasach Nua's view above; indeed, I respect his/her position on non-free content a great deal. However, current project consensus on promotional artwork—such as album covers, DVD box covers and theatrical posters—does usually come down on the side of allowing non-free artwork for "identification" of the subject where a free version is unavailable. I will make no comment here about my own view. I'll only say that I think wider community consultation is needed to overturn the current consensus, and as such, individual FACs such as this one are not the place to have the discussion. I recommend leaving this opposition respectfully unchallenged to allow subsequent reviewers to consider their own views on the matter. Best regards Steve ^T • C 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.