Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Colbert Report/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

The Colbert Report[edit]

previous FAC

The article is culturally significant, is well-written, well-sourced, has been noted as a good article, is stable, and properly organized. I believe it deserves the Featured Article status. The Clawed One 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I feel like this article contains too much fancruft. One example is the lengthy description of the set, and subsequent changes that have been made to it. There are other examples, and I feel like they need to be trimmed down before this article can be featured.--Danaman5 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been trimmed down now. --Jude. 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support, concerns addressed.--Danaman5 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - looking at the sections, I do see several areas where irrelevant data can be re-written or removed. Although I'm not withdrawing my nomination, I'll see what I can do. Thank you for your input. The Clawed One 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Having worked on this article recently myself, I consider the article to be well referenced, well written and well organised. It would also probably be good to promote an article which often features criticism of Wikipedia. ISD 07:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "Greenscreen Challenges" and "Fictional characters" sections have no references. I don't see any references in the "Robert Wrexler" and "Neologisms" sections either. A few big sections (for example, "Set") have only one or two references when they should have more. The "Wikipedia references" section has ASR problems (for example - by checking this page to find out whether he usually refers to) and has too much little details that should not be there. --Kaypoh 09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Greenscreen Challenges" and "Fictional characters" sections are now referenced, and the "Set" section has been cut down. --Jude. 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexler and Neologisms have been cited, and the "by checking this page" line has been removed.--Jude. 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have all your objections been addressed, or is there something else that needs to be done?--Jude. 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure the "Wikipedia references" section has no cruft, check for ASR problems again, and I strike my oppose. --Kaypoh 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything. (I'll be away for the next 2 days, so if there's anything else, hopefully someone else will address it, or I'll fix it when I get back) cheers, Jude. 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wikipedia references" section still looks a little crufty. SandyGeorgia also said that the lead section and prose need work, and there are some problems with reference format and style. --Kaypoh 06:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the Hat - I support the idea of this article obtaining Featured Status. It's quite well written. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The article is well written and well-organized. However, the "Greenscreen Challenges" and "Fictional characters" sections are unreferenced (as mentioned by Kaypoh). If this is corrected, I'll support the article. --Jude. 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:So the section is now cited...with wikipedia articles. Which are unsourced. Hmm.--Jude. 02:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Uncited sections are now cited.(by me, I don't know if that disqualifies this or something?) Anyway, since my objections are addressed, I support this article attaining FA status. --Jude. 05:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found more problems with the article. So I will not strike my oppose. Instead, I will expand my oppose. --Kaypoh 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems that there's not enough consensus for support or oppose. More people need to voice their opinion on this subject. The Clawed One 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just left notes on the talk pages for Wikiproject Television and Wikiproject Comedy. Hopefully, someone will respond. Cheers, Jude. 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Copyedit needed, e.g. This is evidenced in one of the recurring questions that he asks to many of his guests - "George W. Bush: great President, or the greatest President?" I don't think the verb "to ask" takes that preposition ("to") in this context. I found other instances where prose was cumbersome. Also, specifically unhappy with the "Stephen Colbert character" section. This is an ecyclopedia. That's to say, everything should be obvious to the uninitiated. And in that section, I don't think you'd be leaning out of the window too far to mention, preferably in the first sentence, that the character is satirical. Was this omitted due to lack of a reference, I wonder? 82.71.48.158 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Almost immediately the Wikipedia entry for "librarian" was protected from vandalism, and edits to other pages were rapidly undone. - I can't think of anything that would be easier to reference. 82.71.48.158 02:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon? Ok, you oppose it, but I have no clue why. Could you be more specific to the problems you found? The Clawed One 02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The George W. Bush sentence has been corrected. As far as the other instances where prose was cumbersome, the more specific you are as to the instances, the easier for us to correct the issue. I don't believe that the Stephen Colbert character is satirical, however. The show is satirical; the character is a caricature. Anyway, I did some copyediting; but if there are any specific issues that need addressing just say so. Cheers, Jude. 03:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The WP:LEAD needs a lot of work to make it a compelling, stand-along summary, and it's visually unappealing with all of that progamming detail crammed into one paragraph. Footnote/reference formatting is all over the place, with numerous errors and an unprofessional appearance (see WP:CITE/ES). A copyedit is needed (sample sentence, As an example of "The Wørd," Colbert showed a graphic of the Wikipedia page "elephants," which appeared to say "Thanks to the works of Stephen Colbert, the population of elephants has tripled in the past 10 years."[82], and offered $5 to the first person who changed the Wikipedia article "Reality" to read "Reality Has Become A Commodity".[83]) WP:DASH and WP:UNITS (non-breaking hard spaces) need attention. The prose is choppy: there are several two- and three-sentence sections and one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Sample one-sentence para, The Colbert Report presents various recurring themes that help define the show. The article relies very heavily on quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 August 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.