Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abyssinia, Henry/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Abyssinia, Henry
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:29, 15 March 2007.

Abyssinia, Henry edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at users Hotstreets and Tregoweth talk pages and Television. Gnangarra 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a real problem with citing unreliable sources. Finest-kind.net and mash4077.co.uk are fan sites. IMDb and Tv.com are user contributed web sites. None of these are considered reliable sources. If you take those away then you only have a few reliable sources, which is not enough for a FA. --Maitch 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note All the sources are the same as when it was promoted to FA, and most reviewers referred to the article as well sourced. The person who questioned the sources had that addressed, and ask if there were any further issues but never responded. Can you clarify how many sources are required for an FA? Gnangarra 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things change. I mainly work on pages related to The Simpsons and I was not allowed to use fan pages or IMDb for the recent promotion of The Simpsons. Right now it is not about how many sources the article needs, but instead about finding replacements for the unreliable sources. --Maitch 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So this is a POINT nomination? Well, the thing to do would of been to leave a message at the respected talk pages prior to requesting a FAR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to prove a point. Somebody asked me for advise for how to reference an episode article, because they had trouble getting to GA with the use of fan sites. I referred them to this page, but now I realised that this page actually had worse references than the other episode articles. I'm not trying to get the FA status taken away. I'm trying to improve the article. This is FA review right? --Maitch 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment before edit conflict)my thoughts on the sources, the section on the show itself is covered by a WP:RS the use of IMDB and TV.com are in sections on Reaction and impact and Aftermath both of sections are dealing with the public response to the show and as such it makes these reliable sources within the context of the article sections. (no changes to my comment after readn above) Gnangarra 13:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can not seriously call IMDb's trivia page a reliable source. --Maitch 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be exact I have a problem with ref 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12. --Maitch 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • on the WP:RS page is:This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.(my emphasis) occasional exception links to WP:IAR If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.. While you may not have had the reasons to argue such a case on the Simpson, with this article those source are used within the correct context of the article. Gnangarra 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree that they are used in the right context and the fact that you have to go the "ignore all rules" defense means I'm right. --Maitch 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will suggest you question your reason for this FAR, this process is about reviewing an FA article to maintain current standards. There is no right or wrong here, you have questioned the sources used I have responded that they are use correctly within the context of the article and accepted policies. Gnangarra 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My reasons for nominating this article is to get it to follow the same rules any other article has to go by. --Maitch 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that invoking IAR is a weak defense here, especially since the rules on reliable sources in no way hinder your ability to improve this article. It's already a fine article, but it doesn't really pass the bar as "featured" with the current referencing situation. -- mattb @ 2007-02-08T00:39Z
  • Comments. Currently fails 1c - problems with reliable sources, including IMDb and finest-kind.com, which is a fan website. (Can you all pls hold down the bolded text on commentary? Thanks. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With ref#8, why is the mention of the Carol Burnett Show using the IMDb link anyway? It looks like it's using {{cite web}} when it should be using {{cite episode}}. The article isn't repeating info from IMDb.com, but from an episode of the Carol Brunett Show. Jay32183 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Reference #14 has a nice-looking Further Reading section, if you're looking for non-IMDB alternatives.--Rmky87 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was perfectly fine when it was promoted to FA status what, two months ago? The sourcing is fine as it is. Rebecca 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced ref#10 to cite the Family Guy episode directly, rather than a fan's anglefire page. Jay32183 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We ask for citations from reliable sources to ensure that the claims in an article are verifiable (noting in passing that verifiablility is the relevant policy here: WP:RS and [{WP:CITE]] are just guidelines for deciding whether a source is reliable or not, in the context of determining whether there is support for material in an article, and for the format of a citation).

In the absence of concerns as to the accuracy of the article (are there any?) and given that the claims in the article are verifiable by reference to the cited sources, the questions are: what sources exist that can be used to verify this article? And are the sources used the best ones that exist?

Or are we saying that it is impossible for an article of this type to be featured because there are few newspaper reports, books and printed journal articles, etc, about it? Compare, if you like, spoo, which relies on usenet posts (acknowledged by their author as being authentic) and other internet sources (considered authoritative in their field), and Bulbasaur (which relies on many similar sources to this article).

I'm sorry that Maitch had problems with his FAC of The Simpsons, but this look FAR looks a little WP:POINTy to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sorry now. It made the article better. --Maitch 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad that you are glad. If better sources can be found for this article, great. If not, I don't see that as a substantial cause for concern. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia should really rely on reliable sources - especially at FA level. It is policy, so it is a valid concern no matter what kind of motive people think I might have. --Maitch 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that some better sources are emerging (see below). But I repeat: verifiability is the policy, and WP:RS gives a guideline to what sources are considered "reliable" to achieve verifiability. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from WP:V: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." This is not the case for this article. --Maitch 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - which sources in this article do you consider to be self-published (e.g. self-published books, personal websites, and blogs)?
And here are a couple of other quotes from WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed" and "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made" - which claims in the article are you challenging? and which claims do you think need more appropriate sources?
Or, in the absence of such sources, are you suggesting that Wikipedia should have no article on this topic?
Look, I am sure we can go back and forth like this for ages, but perhaps we should await developments, like the ones mentioned below. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb and fan sites are self-published, I've already stated which refs I have a problem with, yes. --Maitch 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already manage to eliminate the anglefire page and one of the TV.com refs, both of which seemed only to be used out of fear of "primary sources". But the information they were citing would be primary source acceptable. Also, it has been pointed out that the web cite at ref 14 has a further reading list. I noticed one of them is called "The First Five Years of M*A*S*H" or something similar, which season three does fall into. It would definitely be worth it for some one to check that one out, possibly the others as well. Jay32183 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Complete Book of M*A*S*H is available at Amazon. The one you mentioned had only three Ghits. Total. The ISBNs are listed here. And it has a chapter on season three. And it's not available in Kansas City, Missouri and I can't drive and will not be driving anytime soon. Nor am I likely to be driven to Sedalia, Harrisonville, High Ridge, Independence, Maryville, St Louis, or Springfield anytime soon. There are two copies in Leawood (zipcode 66201), though. But I don't know that the buses in downtown Kansas City will actually go there.
For some bizarre reason, WorldCat can't show me any locations for ISBN 0020446705, the ISBN for the 1983 edition of M*A*S*H: The Exclusive, Inside Story of Tv's Most Popular Show, the one listed under "Further Reading" at ref#14, but ISBN 0672526565 (for the 1980 edition) is very available. At the Kansas City, Missouri Public Library. And yet I can't seem to find it in their catalog.--Rmky87 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does your local library have interlibrary loans? Andrew Levine 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, yes.--Rmky87 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting)I went to the library today, and the search engine there (I had to widen it to "ALL") told that The Complete Book of M*A*S*H is available somewhere in Cass County and M*A*S*H: The Exclusive, Inside Story of TV's Most Popular Show is available in Atchison and I should receive word of their coming via email sometime soon.--Rmky87 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think reference #6 should be replaced with the actual documentary (it's nice that finest-kind.net gives the original date and time, but it would be nice to know where the webmaster lives.--Rmky87 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made the change to cite E!'s TV Tales directly, rather than the finest-kind.net version. In the process I was able to remove two of the IMDb cites as redundant. Jay32183 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes!--Rmky87 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reference #2 is talking about a PBS documentary.--Rmky87 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nice catch, I've fixed that too. Jay32183 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status — article needs a quick copy-edit and, if possible, an expansion of sources (although I don't see that as a big problem anymore). That's it, and it should only be an hour of work. — Deckiller 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was wondering. Doesn't anyone have the DVD. Usually DVD commentaries are gold for sourcing episode articles. --Maitch 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Great idea. I don't know when I'm going to get those books. I went to the library some time ago to see if they were there on the off chance that the email hadn't gotten through. They weren't.--Rmky87 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Where's the article? Almost all of the text is in spoilers; a re-telling of the story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree; I think the article covers all aspects as best as it can with the sources available. The other section in the dreaded "spoiler tags" is citing the impact of events. — Deckiller 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is quality and sufficiency of sources (1c). Marskell 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We only close early if there's unanimity, so I've moved this. Marskell 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — sources look fine to me, at least for the type of article. — Deckiller 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The citations need a consistent style first. LuciferMorgan 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website citations not using {{cite web}} I haven't touched because I feel they should be replaced. Hopefully, Rmky87 gets those books soon, or some one has the season three DVD set for commentary. Jay32183 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sourcing is good, and less respected sources are either backed up by another source or are for detail the article could live without. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I already took care of that. If a good source backed up a bad source, I simply removed the bad source. There are currently a double-up IMDb trivia, an IMDb trivia with a fan site, IMDb trivia by itself, and a fan site by itself. They need to be replaced or the statments removed. Jay32183 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the IMDb trivia pages is doubled with an IMDb biography page, which is different from "trivia." There is no IMDb trivia combined with IMDb trivia and no IMDb trivia by itself. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see what you mean, a trivia section in a biography. Never mind that, I found a better source (a newspaper) and will put it in the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we down here already? Keep. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not happy with refs 4 and 6. Jay32183 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Me too. I would suggest that we simply move the information provided by those citations to the talk page. If we do that people can still look for replacements and the article will not suffer. I will not vote for a demotion if we remove those two sentences. --Maitch 15:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the IMdB, ref 6. Ref 4 will be a little harder to take care of. It's disclaimer states: "This web site, its operators and any content on this site relating to "MASH" are not authorized by Fox." Can anyone take another look? Marskell 11:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm satisfied with the sourcing now. The information that was removed wasn't crucial, but it is significant enough that should some one find a reliable source later, I won't object to restoring the statements. Jay32183 04:02, 15 March 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Abyssinia,_Henry/archive1&oldid=1078809770"