Self nomination - The first FA nomination was done without addressing the previous peer review. This time, the article is well-cited and covers everything you could possibly want to know about the guy. I've done a lot of meticulous work with the wikilinks and citations recently trying to make it as good as it can get. The only potential problem I see from the start is the "Awards and honors" section: is it fine the way it is, or does it need to be changed? I certainly know the temptation by Colbert fans to add trivial facts there. - Boss1000 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose on fair use grounds. First, Image:Carellcolbert ds.jpg lacks a fair use rationale for this use. Second, all but one fair use image suffers from the problems of being used for illustration purposes as opposed to critical commentary. Observe;
Image:Strangerswthcandy.gif used to depict Colbert on the show, but the image does not depict any particular scene that the inline text discusses. It's simply an illustration of the show.
Image:Wigfield.jpg; in this case the rationale even notes that it's use is to illustrate the topic, but the cover is not in anyway discussed on this article. The display of this image is appropriate for the Wigfield article, but not here.
I note that Image:Colbert-truthiness.jpgis appropriate as the image is depicting the moment that the word "truthiness" was announced, and this image is complementary to the inline text. The other fair use images do not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic and thus do not contribute significantly to the article subject, and therefore fail WP:NFCC item #8. All but Image:Colbert-truthiness.jpg should be removed from the article unless the inline text make use of the image in some way (at a minimum), rather than "Colbert on...", "Colbert with..." captions on images being the only reference in the entire article. Note here that the issue isn't whether such images constitute legal fair use. The question is whether such use complies with Wikipedia's overarching philosophies on the use of fair use images. --Durin 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Since when does a copyrighted image have to illustrate a specific scene? It only has to "contribute significantly to an article" and "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." Image:Stephen Colbert TDS.png illustrates his role as a correspondent on the show by showing a typical scene and, more specifically, shows how it was filmed in studio using a greenscreen (as discussed in the text). Image:Colbert report.jpg illustrates a paragraph about how The Colbert Report satirizes other political talk shows as well as the use of right-wing patriotic imagery. I'm not sure how Image:Snapshot200604292346073on.jpg could be interpreted as not being a specific scene, unless he makes regular appearances at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. 17Drew 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I assumed he was correct, mostly because we've "gone over" the same thing with fair use and lists. Even if it's not necessary to change them all, it is still something that can be improved upon, I think:
Image:Carellcolbert ds.jpg - "Colbert working again with Steve Carell in the segment "Even Stephven" from The Daily Show" and "Colbert has appeared in several recurring segments for The Daily Show, including "Even Stephven" with Steve Carell, in which both characters were expected to debate a selected topic but instead would unleash their anger at one another."
Image:Colbert report.jpg - "The set of The Colbert Report also highly satirizes cable-personality political talk shows."
Image:Wigfield.jpg - Removed because it doesn't add much. If it doesn't hurt to keep it there, I'd like it to put it back, but I fully understand the rationale behind removing it.
I hope these changes satisfy your judgement. - Boss1000 05:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment The 'personal life' section should be worked into the main part of the article - how can his personal life be seperate from his biography? Doing that would also slim down the ToC (by essentially removing a level). Contrarily, you could remove the sub-sections from the biography scetion and get the same result. I haven't yet given the article a full read, so I'm not voting at this point, but what I've seen looks very good. Matt Deres 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I had seen a section on personal life in variousotherarticles on people, and where it was previously did not fit at all. It's somewhat of a "current day" section in this case. Also, I don't see any problem with the length of the TOC; the subsections make it easy to navigate the substantially long article. - Boss1000 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Note how none of those articles have a Biography section though. A Biography section should be unnecessary. Instead, it's common to do sections such as Early life/career, Career, Personal life. Diane Keaton, Damon Hill, and Gwen Stefani are all good examples of such a layout. I agree that the table of contents isn't overwhelming. 17Drew 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
How about now?
1 Early life
2.1 Early career in comedy
2.2 Strangers with Candy
2.3 The Daily Show
2.4 The Colbert Report
2.5 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
2.6 Other work
3 Personal life
4 Awards and honors
6 See also
7 Notes and references
8 External links
The hardest one to place is the "Early career in comedy" section, but I think it fits best under "Career". - Boss1000 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I did not mean to imply that the ToC itself was a problem, my issue was with the layout, which is most plainly illustrated by that ToC. The version I commented on looked like this:
1.1 Early life
1.2 Early career in comedy
1.3 Strangers with Candy
1.4 The Daily Show
1.5 The Colbert Report
1.6 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
1.7 Other work
2 Personal life 3 Awards and honors 4 Filmography 5 See also 6 Notes and references 7 External links
What I was looking for was a layout that could be expressed more like this (my second suggestion, which was probably better anyway):
1 Early life 2 Early career in comedy 3 Strangers with Candy 4 The Daily Show 5 The Colbert Report 6 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 7 Other work 8 Personal life 9 Awards and honors 10 Filmography 11 See also 12 Notes and references 13 External links
Or like this:
1 Early life 2 Early career in comedy 3 Strangers with Candy 4 The Daily Show 5 The Colbert Report 6 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 7 Other work 8 Awards and honors 9 Filmography 10 See also 11 Notes and references 12 External links
With the stuff from the Personal Life section worked into rest of the article where appropriate.
The current version you have is also fine. Please understand - my voting decision will probably not hinge on something as subjective as layout; this is just a suggestion based on what I think would work better (subjective though that is). Accuracy and completeness are much more important. Matt Deres 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with mine or your first; like you said, it's just layout. Interlacing "Personal life" throughout the article in your other suggestion is harder than you might think, first because it doesn't quite flow anywhere else, and second because there's no more information out there (to my knowledge) about Colbert's wife or his kids. We're lucky to have a picture of her. What I mean to say is that there's not a lot to link it to anything else in the article (dates, too); all I know is that his wife was also in the business, and that's just from being implied from other facts and a small mention in an interview. - Boss1000 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had a chance to read through the article now and I don't have any objections. I actually shifted the text into Word and played with a few different layout and you're right, it doesn't incorporate elsewhere very well. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but since I can't figure it out, I can't exactly call it an actionable objection, and it's pretty minor to boot. SupportMatt Deres 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps in the future we'll have more information and be able to fit it in. - Boss1000 14:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
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.