Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner/archive1

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner edit

I feel that this article is a stellar example of quality collaboration between editors to produce a piece that has numerous quality sources, contains multiple opposing viewpoints, and is well organized. The polite disagreement between Fadedhour and I (among others) has enabled the page to fairly represent both sides of the page as to whether Colbert's performance was covered enough in the media. In combination with the article's speedy progress from creation to featured quality (I believe) and its recent significance in the public discussion (as evidenced by the 2.7 million downloads on YouTube alone, check the article for yourself!), this would make a great featured article. --kizzle 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the ThankYouStephenColbert.org website. I also created the ThankYouHarryTaylor.org and ThankYouRayMcGovern.org sites. I've attempted to correct the incorrect statement that the site was created by a Salon Magazine writer. If anyone needs to clean up the language I've used, please feel free to do so. If anyone needs to verify my identidty, please visit the site and email me at the admin email I provide in the 'about' section of the site. Thank you! - Greg Felice (grokgov@gmail.com)
Weak Object. There are several issues which should be corrected in this article, however most of them are small formatting issues.
- The "Audio/Video" section should be listed at the end of the article as an "External Links" section.
- The quoteboxes should be converted back into normal prose.
- Some of the sections could be renamed to give the article a more encyclopedic tone
- There are many very short paragraphs, they should be merged into paragraphs which are more substantial.

Given the topic, this article is excellent content-wise, it just needs some formatting care. Also, bravo to whoever cited and footnoted the article; it is masterfully and obsessively done. RyanG e rbil10 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Ryan's criticisms are spot on. The article is also written in a rather sensationalist tone, which doesn't really help things. Rebecca 05:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object This ia a very good start, but the topic is just too new for this to be stable. Perhaps you should wait a few months. The biggest problem is that there is little description, discussion and analysis of what Colbert actually said. The assumption of the article is that everyone has seen the video. I don't think that should be the assumption. There should be quotes, discussion of his style of delivery, etc... For example, I don't watch cable, and had never seen Colbert before. I get the distinct impression that people familiar with him found this much funnier than I did because of that familiarity. Others like me would come to this article to try an get an understanding of why. I got a much better sense of this from the recent piece on 60 minutes. -- Samuel Wantman 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's hard because any analysis or discussion would be labeled as original research. Instead, we've extensively cited other people's analysis of the performance where apparently now we're accused of creating a "collection of media reports." --kizzle 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Is this article even encyclopaedic? It is basically a collection of media reports. If this FARC fails, I am tempted to nominate this for AfD. Batmanand | Talk 09:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you 2:1 odds that an AfD would fail by 80% keep. --kizzle 09:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel like this article is really missing something. There's a ton of information on the reaction, both of the audience and of the public, but there isn't really too much about what Colbert did or said at the dinner. There's a brief mention in the lead that he "satirized the Bush administration and the White House press corps," but I feel like there has to be a lot more detail on exactly what was said. (The Disco King - not signed in)

(Just wanted to confirm - the above comment was, in fact, from me.) The Disco King 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I appreciate the advice but everytime I've edited an article based upon current events, everytime I try to put in any sentence that describes the performance it gets labeled as original research. How do we describe it without violating NOR? --kizzle 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you could include some quotes (but not too many) from one of the transcripts floating around on the Internet, or reference a description of Colbert's performance in a news article on the event. Good luck! The Disco King 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see someone had removed the quote section before for some stupid reason. Thanks :) --kizzle 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some substantial changes and addressed both Disco King and Ryan's objections. Another look? --kizzle 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object "See also" section has a number of links already linked-to in article. First para of "Audience Reaction" has a strange sentence fragment as of this timestamp. Image:Snapshot200604292346073on.jpg needs a fair use rationale. Article needs these finishing touches. This also seems more like a Wikinews story than an encyclopedia article, but I am not going to oppose based solely on that impression. Jkelly 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I'm not even sure this warrants being an article. Rlevse 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 50,000 signatures on thankyoustephencolbert.org, 2.7 million downloads in 4 days according to the New York Times, many many many articles in both the blogosphere and the mainstream media about the dinner, and yet you doubt whether "this warrants being an article"? I can't think of any other reason besides your own bias why you would think that. Disputing featured article status is one thing, but disputing the entire article with 60+ citations? Now you're just being a dick. --kizzle 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely zero relevance - and indeed completely unheard of - for anyone outside the US. Hasty Fool 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt 95% of the world has heard of Chew_Valley_Lake yet we have a featured article on that. It is my impression that featured status goes to an article's quality rather than its public familliarity. --kizzle 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, you are for using such language. Rlevse 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has some awkward parts that could be fixed with probably one more pass through the article, also that one image needs a fair use rationale. Besides that it looks very good to me. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]