Talk:The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats

Sources: Garbage in, garbage out

I came here from the AfD discussion where I changed my vote from delete to keep. However I have a major problem with this kind of TV documentary having a WP article at all. I have seen, and enjoyed, the show. (I like cats, all animals in fact.) There are some serious problems with the article, based on having seen the program myself. Yes, I know that's "original research" which is contrasted with material from "reliable sources." I don't think the show was intended as comedy (although it had some humor), nor did it intend to put down cat owners. A small point: The "honeymoon room" was maintained by a person who was seriously involved in breeding (purebreed show) cats, not for "the mating needs" of her cat as the article (and no doubt the "reliable source") said.

Please consider the "reliable sources." This kind of TV program is shown to professional TV reviewers a few days before it is broadcast to the public. They then write reviews based on their individual feelings and impressions. For the most part they are concerned about their own reputations and careers and try to say something clever that will entertain the readers. There is no peer review or discussion between reviewers, except in the case of a program or movie of major importance.

This article seriously misrepresents the content and tone of the program and indirectly the character of the filmmaker. I think it would be better if WP did not have articles based only on TV reviews, even if they pass the letter of notability policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a good start be to just call this a documentary film rather than a "comedic" documentary film? As for the reviews, it seems that some are quoted at length too much. Since it is undergoing AFD, I assume the extensive quoting was to exaggerate this film's notability, similar to loading the "External links" section with every link that mentions it. We should cut down on this and get to the point of each review. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Taking out the "comedic" would be a good thing. I don't expect the article to be deleted under present policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not consider TV reviews to be reliable sources? I think that they can be abused as they were here (as I removed a lot of fluff), but in regard to notability, they indicate that this documentary is worth noting in an encyclopedia. It's not going to be Citizen Kane in terms of coverage, but it crosses the threshold as opposed to some minor school or some garage band or some YouTube video. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think every TV show has lasting importance. PBS puts out at least a couple of these type of documentaries every week. Newsmedia TV reviewers review them as a matter of course, just like weather people forecast the weather and sports writers report on games. Their reports are reliable as to the facts, but I don't think they show encyclopedic importance. In this case the article both exagerates the importance of the show and misrepresents its tone and purpose. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean before or even for the current presentation? I think whittling down the so-called reviews shows how little analysis there was of the documentary film. That way, it no longer appears that there's a staggering-seeming "Reception" section devoted to how critics purportedly received the film. Is it any better now? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The article now gives a much better picture of what the program was really like. Thanks. I still think that WP's standards should be higher so that only really important TV documentaries are given articles, but since the policies are what they are this article might as well be kept-- as it seems the AfD is trending. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• A person might also ask what information is in the article that is not on the DVD box. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Honest reviews? "Slightly mean-spirited hour" and "appearing a bit too formulaic" would not appear on the DVD box. There are more reviews out there, but they are behind paywalls. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2005 CFA was in California

The 2005 CFA International Cat Show was in San Mateo, California, not Houston. I wonder if he means the 2004 expo which was in Houston.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901215551/http://gothamist.com/2006/04/19/meow_pbs_looks.php to http://gothamist.com/2006/04/19/meow_pbs_looks.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)