Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Political Cesspool/archive4

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Karanacs 01:29, 30 June 2010 [1].

The Political Cesspool edit

The Political Cesspool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth nomination; please see the previous three, as well as the archived peer reviews. The reason the third nomination failed was because several paragraphs relied on Media Matters for America articles as sources; for instance, one MMfA-cited passage dealt with James Edwards and his involvement with Stormfront. These passages have since been culled from the article due to the fact that MMfA is not considered a reliable source for FA's. I believe that, with the MMFA controversy out of the way, this article is all ready to go now. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, two of the sources have gone dead since the last time I checked them. Not only that, but neither of them is available in the Wayback Machine. Fortunately, they were only used as minor sources, so removing them (as I've done already) didn't affect the article too drastically. Still, it's a bummer. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback (on the article's talk page) recommended that I re-add the Newsweek citation as an offline source, since it still exists despite no longer being linkable, so I took his advice. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Newsweek article has simply moved to a new URL, rather than dropping off the web entirely. Good news! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You know, you can use the Wayback Machine for dead links. Tezero (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, neither of the sources in question was available in the Wayback Machine; sometimes the Wayback Machine doesn't work, either because of commands in the robots.txt file or because the page wasn't online long enough for an archive to be taken, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I thought you were talking about external links for some reason. Tezero (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

  • Reliability: the question of the neutrality of sources has been discussed in detail at earlier FACs. The article uses sources (e.g. Media Matters, The Anti-Defamation League, VDARE, KHQN) that are not of themselves "neutral". However, in my view these sources have been used in this article essentially for the confirmation of dates, radio schedules and to support factual statements. This use does not affect the neutrality of the article. I accept that other editors may wish to comment on this aspect.
  • Formatting: a few tiresome issues:-
    • Why are refs 13, 24 and 47 marked ("in English")?
      • Fixed; all the sources are in English, so you're right; there's no reason to specify explicitly that these particular ones are. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-print sources should not be italicised. See 38 and 44, check for others.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The lead contains a direct quote without the inline citation per WP:CITE. That's the only issue I can see with a quick glance.陣内Jinnai 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Support - After giving it a more thorough read there are only 2 items I found.
    • Several items have multiple repeats wikilinks, especially cities like Memphis. I stands out as the article doesn't do the same for other items.
      • Generally, I try to have only one wikilink per topic per section; hence, topics like Memphis (which are referred to in multiple sections of the article) may end up having multiple links, but there will be no more than one link to Memphis, Tennessee in a section. This seems to work well, but if you still think that's too many wikilinks, I could try cutting back to one per topic in the whole article, though I'd probably want to get a third opinion before making drastic changes like that. But thanks for pointing out the issue of multiple wikilinks; while scrolling through the article checking for them, I noticed that Indigenous peoples of the Americas was wikilinked twice in quick succession, so I removed the second wikilink. I didn't notice any other problems with wikilinks, besides that one (which I fixed). Stonemason89 (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I think it could be repeated if its in the lead. I tend to think outside of a repeat in the lead, infoboxes, navboxes and refs should not be done in articles unless your linking to a specific section with that same article.陣内Jinnai 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure thing then; I'll cut back on the excess wikilinks and see what you think. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done; I'm pretty sure I got all of them. Thanks again for your feedback! Stonemason89 (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any commentary on Pat Buchanan's State of Emergency piece when he talked about it on the show? I ask because there is a lot of info on the former.陣内Jinnai 17:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose; I know you've worked hard on this article, and I'm cool with the sources now as ever, but there's one big concern I have with this article: Organization. Here are my sub-concerns of this issue:
    • Many sub-paragraphs. A paragraph is defined as having at least three sentences, and I see several "proto-graphs", as I shall call them. I will say, the way "Statement of principles" is organized looks legit, because most of it's a big quote and if you remove that, you have three sentences. Here are the proto-graphs that I notice:
      • The last two proto-graphs in "Primary host".
      • The first and penultimate proto-graphs in "Guests".
      • The second proto-graph in "Controversy and criticism".
      • The last proto-graph in "City Park demonstration".
      • The first proto-graph in "Radio stations that air the show".
    • Why is "Primary host" a subsection of "Staff" if there is no other content in the "Staff" section? Either add more stuff in "Staff", or remove that header and make "Primary host" independent.
    • The last part of "Radio stations that air the show" is uncited. You could probably find legit sources on the stations' websites.
  • If you can fix these issues, I will give you my full support. Tezero (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will have only very limited Internet access for the next few days; however, I will be able to fix all these issues by this Wednesday (16 June 2010). Sorry for the brief delay; I'm in the process of moving into a new house right now and it can't be helped, but I promise to address your concerns by the 16th. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel you. I trust that you can get it done; I just think it's important. Tezero (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; all my concerns seem to have been alleviated. Tezero (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on prose and comprehensiveness issues. See my talk page comments. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Change to Support after some copy edits and talk page discussion. And reading this article over the past two days made me go watch this [2] for an hour. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have responded to these issues, please see my reply to Moni3's comments. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That such a radio programme exists is almost incomprehensible to me, but I think this article does a fair job of describing it nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "According to its statement of principles, "The Political Cesspool Radio Program stands for The Dispossessed Majority. We represent a philosophy that is pro-White and are against political centralization."" - you might want to break that quote up a little, for instance - 'According to its statement of principles the programme stands for "The Dispossessed Majority", represents "a philsophy that is pro-White", and is against "political centralization"'.
    • "It was initially broadcast on AM 1600 WMQM, a Memphis-based radio station, on Tuesdays and Thursdays." - was it broadcast on tue and thur, or was the station broadcasting only on tue and thur?
      • The show was broadcast on Tue. and Thur. The comma between the words "station" and "on" makes it clear that we are talking about the show, not the station. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Edwards and Farley then took in friends" - wouldn't it just be easier to say "Edwards and Farley invited friends..."?
    • "Before joining the show's staff," - not really necessary if you instead say "Frith had previously worked..."
    • There are rather a lot of "In 200x, ..." almost to the point of repetition.
      • Removed quite a few of them, where possible. Replaced with more natural phrasing like "one month later", etc., when possible. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "James Edwards, a lifelong resident of Memphis, Tennessee, is the founder and primary host of The Political Cesspool." - isn't he one of the founders, and not the founder?
      • Changed to "co-founder".
    • "a philosophy that asserts whites should be a nation unto themselves and live separately from other races" in that sentence this statement reads awkwardly. It might be better as a footnote, or a simple article link.
      • I will change it to a footnote.
    • "The Nation has written that Edwards" - or "The Nation wrote that..."
    • "Other staff of The Political Cesspool include co-hosts Bill Rolen, Keith Alexander,[8] Winston Smith, and Eddie Miller, and producer Art Frith. Rolen is a board member of the Council of Conservative Citizens.[12] Most of the show's staff claim descent from Confederate soldiers.[7][12]" - we've already established some of those hosts. You should rephrase to accommodate this.
      • Changed to remove redundancies; the reference to Rolen's COfCC leadership was moved to come right after the initial mention of Rolen. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "gubernatorial" - link please
    • "has appeared as a guest on the show" - no need to say "guest on the show", its implicit. Ditto the following sentence about filmmakers.
    • "Jerome Corsi, who authored the" - better as "Jerome Corsi, author of..."
    • "was scheduled to appear on the show" - again, its implied that the show is what these people are appearing on.
    • ", on the other hand, " - I'm not a fan of this but it isn't a major problem. I'd use ", however, " instead.
    • In the Jermoe Corsi paragraph you mention his first appearance on the programme after his cancellation. I'd change this around so that its in chronological order.
    • "Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka appeared on the show to promote his presidential campaign in 2004" - this might be a US/UK thing. I suspect you mean "he appeared, and promoted his campaign", not that "he appeared to promote his campaign" (as if there were some uncertainty). Needs rewording. Ditto the following sentences. Also, far too much repetition of "on the show" - this isn't just this section, its throughout the article - 21 times to be exact! Parrot of Doom 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed excess use of "on the show" and other cliches, where possible; tried to make the prose read more naturally. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More
)
  • "On May 8, 2006, Minuteman Project leader Jim Gilchrist spoke on the program." - I made a slight copyedit to this paragraph so you may not immediately recognise it, but the entire paragraph has a fair bit of repetition within. Try rewording the second part to something like "However, Rolen disagreed with Gilchrist's claim that illegal imm...". Also, the last sentence is a bit choppy - try something like "Gilchrist's colleague" (if that's true) - just to make it flow a little easier
    • Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Gilchrist's colleague" - I hate to ask it, but are they colleagues, or just members of the same movement?
  • "Paleoconservative activist and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has appeared twice as of May 2009" - why not June 2010? There's a template that maintains a recent date, can't remember what it is.
    • The reason we say twice as of May 2009 is because that's when the source was written; so far I can't find any reliable sources that would prove he hasn't made a third (or fourth) appearance since then. If we used a self-updating template, then the statement will become false as soon as Buchanan makes his third appearance (which might not necessarily happen, but is likely). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. Have you searched the usual places to verify, like blog search, google news, etc? Parrot of Doom 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In June 2008 he promoted his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, an appearance which was initiated and arranged by Buchanan's publicist." - the book is not an appearance.
  • "Buchanan defended Charles Lindbergh against charges of antisemitism, saying his reputation" - a quick reminder as to why someone might charge him as such would be useful. Also, "saying" should be "stating" or similar.
    • The quote itself provides the reminder; as Buchanan mentioned, Lindbergh gave a speech in which he said that "the Jewish community has been beating the drums for war". That is an anti-Semitic comment, but Buchanan believes that it may well have been a true statement, and so in Buchanan's view, Lindbergh was not anti-Semitic. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok that's fine. Could we just say what Lindbergh is, in the context of this interview? His article calls him "American aviator, author, inventor, explorer, and social activist." - which of these was he "being" when giving that speech?
  • "Previously, in September 2006, Buchanan had" - this should be before the June 2008 interview, as with a previous point I raised.
  • "he show has also hosted guests from outside the US" - how about foreign guests, or international guests, or similar?
  • "Griffin appeared as a guest before and after his election as a Member of the European Parliament" - he was elected to the European Parliament.
  • "During his post-election appearance, Griffin attributed the BNP's electoral successes" - how is this relevant to the radio show?
    • Well, it's what Griffin said when he was appearing on the show, so it provides an example of what the show's guests talk about when they are being interviewed. If you don't think it's necessary, feel free to take it out. I'll leave it in for now and let you and/or Sandy make the final decision. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think its necessary to include the entire quote, especially as the other contributors in that paragraph don't get the same coverage, so I've trimmed it. It would be interesting to know if he's appeared since the recent UK election, when his party was demolished.
  • Is "staffers" preferable to "staff" in US English? Over here it'd be the latter.
    • "Staff" is better, although I believe "staffers" may have been used in the original source. I'll change it to "staff" nonetheless. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, there's one "staffers" remaining in the lead.
  • "at a Sarah Palin rally," - not everyone knows who Palin is, try something like "at a rally for/organised by/featuring Republican Governor(?) Sarah Palin".
  • "that the rise in popularity of white nationalism and supremacy" - aren't nationalism and supremacy more or less the same thing?
    • That's POV-dependent; there are some people who view them as the same thing, but there are also a lot of people who don't. Neither side is necessarily right or wrong. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many such groups have been attempting to gain new..." - this is odd. The paragraph up to this point is basically a running commentary on what other people have to say about this radio station. This sentence and the next don't really belong here IMO. Parrot of Doom 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added this passage (co-written by Moni3) in response to Moni3's feedback on the article's talk page. You might want to consult with Moni3 to determine whether these sentences are really necessary (Moni3 seemed to think they were) and, if so, how they should be worded, where they should go, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be better placed in a paragraph of its own, along with more information on how the station has defended itself against any criticism it has received. That might be something to look at in the future, if finding such information is difficult right now. Parrot of Doom 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBSP is a non-breaking space that usually goes between a word and a number. That way, "15 sausages" doesn't get split by your browser. 19&nbsp;kg Less confusing for the reader. Parrot of Doom 11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prostitution de-linked. As far as I know, the term "microstation" is not used anywhere in the article. The phrase "micro1650am", which is used in the article is the name of an individual radio station in New York; the reason why the initial letter is not capitalized is because the station's owner (who actually edited this article at one point) prefers to spell the name of his station with all lowercase. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nbsp's added. I was unaware of nbsp prior to this point; thanks Sandy and Parrot for letting me know what it is and how to add it. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously, another user had suggested that I list the title of this show in italics (or bold italics, in the lead); I believe this was during the article's good article review last October. I'll go ahead and de-italicize it, though, at Sandy's suggestion. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hmm, I thought programme titles were supposed to be italicised... Parrot of Doom 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone correcting the italics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show title re-italicized. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Political_Cesspool/archive4&oldid=1078808039"