Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supernatural (season 1)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:30, 17 October 2009 [1].

Supernatural (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it has been brought up to the standards of a featured article. Ophois (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComment: I have to say, nice work here, I'm a big fan of this show and am excited to see this article at FAN. Anyways, I don't see many issues. Here's some things I caught with the images and refs:
  • In ref 76, "SUPERNATURAL" needs to be changed to "Supernatural" per here.
Done. Ophois (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Boateffect2.jpg - is this supposed to be a work in process with CGI or an actual screencap? If the latter is true, then it shouldn't be black and white as the series is produced in color (unless that scene used that tint as an effect, I don't remember the episode quite well).
That's the way the scene appears in the episode, with not much color. Ophois (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Like I said, I haven't seen that specific episode in a while. I've stricken that opposition. The Flash {talk} 13:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of the refs switch from "October 14, 2008" to "2008-10-14." Please choose one or the other for all the refs per here
Done. Ophois (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Flash {talk} 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: File:Supernatural S1 DVD.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 and the fair use rationale on File:Boateffect2.jpg needs to be beefed up. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but DVD images serve the same purpose as a film's poster. It's the cover art that the studio had used to represent the "season". It's standard to use it in the infobox, just like a film poster is for a film. Would you fail a film article's poster simply because it doesn't "provide 'Contextual significance'"? I doubt it; I only say that because you didn't bring it up here. I've fixed the fair use rationale for the boat effect image though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted, but I maintain my position that readers don't need to see the image to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely understand, and one could easily argue that we don't need a film poster to understand the film Wall-E, or any film for that matter. I'm merely saying that the DVD cover art is a TV show's "poster" (unless of course you actually have a poster...then that's the poster - but that doesn't typically happen).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Stifle as the situation stands. IMO that it can easily be rectified though by simply providing some sort of commentary about the DVD cover (e.g. a description of the photo/graphics) somewhere. This idea should be followed for most, if not all, non-free images, including those in infoboxes. RB88 (T) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you're asking for is a shake up of the entire TV project and Film project for infobox images, and something I think should be discussed there first. You cannot single out this page when every other page (both FA and below) work this way. DVD cover art and posters have been the standard in film and television infoboxes for illustrating a main topic. It's been this way for a long time, and you cannot single out one article for it when it's such a large scale action.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're not here to review all the other articles. We're here to review this one based on current policy, which changes rapidly and wildly sometimes. WP:ALT is a recent case in point. I'm sure most FAs before this year don't have it but it doesn't mean that they do not have to have it. RB88 (T) 23:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • True, but WP:ALT didn't happen on one FAC and then magically start appearing everywhere. It was something discussed in detail, then decided upon, and now retroactively added to FA articles that didn't have it before. It's not like someone saying, you don't have any text describing the image for those who cannot see it.."oppose". Posters and DVD cover art (which is used to supplement posters when they don't exist) have long been standard imagery for article subject representation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I personally wouldn't oppose based on that. I doubt Stifle will be, and I was simply giving advice to pacify. I do a lot of album articles and I would also say that infobox product art is a special case of sorts. Having said that, I do make the effort to detail every non-free media piece for good authorship, even if it is just one sentence describing it. The question for me is, regardless of policy: "Do you want that little bronze star to shimmer with perfection every single time, or are you simply going through the motions to churn out as many FA articles as you possibly can?" (Same thing applies with having kids weirdly enough lol). RB88 (T) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If stuff existed on that kind of non-free image, then I would be one to promote it's inclusion, but you'll rarely (if ever) actually find commentary on how a poster (or DVD cover art) looks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not everything has to be cited, especially if it is blatantly in existence and also in the article itself. A sentence doesn't hurt. "Supernatural (season 1) DVD was released on such and such date with such and such cover". Problem solved and everybody's happy. RB88 (T) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The infobox already lists the DVD release date (for regions 1, 2, and 4). Are you just looking for a caption? I'm not sure I'm following exactly what you'd like to see added to the image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I didn't mean in the infobox. I meant in the DVD release section. RB88 (T) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm lost, because the DVD release section kind of already does that. If you're looking for something else you're going to need to help me out because I don't know what it is specifically you'd like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries. Added a sentence myself. RB88 (T) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments: Oppose, largely on 1c (suggest withdrawal) Way too many non-notable (and non-reliable) sources in my book. The whole DNA of this article is based on a large chunk of these sort sources, I'm afraid. Needs extensive new research.

  • I'm now happy with the source quality. I've left one out for reviewers to have a look at. I have more ref nitpicks to come, but good job on surviving your baptism of fire. I hope to see your future FACs hermetically sealed with good sources. RB88 (T) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes these reliable?
  • http://www.monstersandcritics.com/dvd/reviews/article_1198720.php; http://www.monstersandcritics.com/dvd/reviews/article_1354007.php/DVD_Review_Supernatural_-_The_Complete_Second_Season
    • These are for critical reviews. I'm not sure if the policy applies.Ophois (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does, especially for those. We need to provide notable critical appraisal from reputed publications and not minor views. RB88 (T) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Supernatural/5598
  • http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/DVOTcQPVUBD1TO
    • Removed Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what source is the information now written? RB88 (T) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two sources were used for the same info, so other source being used now works. Ophois (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Search/TitleSearch.asp?title=supernatural
    • Removed Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what source is the information now written? RB88 (T) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted earlier, no RS exists for this information, so it was removed. Ophois (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20051006wb01
    • This cites its source as the WB. It's a press release. Ophois (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then cite the press release using {{Cite news}} (and add the website to the url field if you want). RB88 (T) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't list how to cite a press release. Ophois (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Warner Bros. (June 2005). "Supernatural" (press release). Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  • http://www.huntingtonnews.net/entertainment/060707-rutheford-mcg.html
    • Removed Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what source is the information now written? RB88 (T) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted earlier, no RS exists for this information, so it was removed. Ophois (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.dvdfanboy.com/exclusivedvds/current.htm
    • Removed Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what source is the information now written? RB88 (T) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted earlier, no RS exists for this information, so it was removed. Ophois (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.digital-retribution.com/reviews/dvd/0528.php
    • Removed Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what source is the information now written? RB88 (T) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted earlier, no RS exists for this information, so it was removed. Ophois (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/794730
    • Removed Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on what source is the information now written? RB88 (T) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted earlier, no RS exists for this information, so it was removed. Ophois (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and especially, http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.serieslive.com%2Fnews-2698-the-teen-choice-awards-2006-le-vote-du-public.html
    • Replaced with IMDb as source, as merely citing for award. Ophois (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not counting all the retailer sources like Amazon and websites which just about met notability and reliability through decent About Us pages.

Then there's two interviews on websites that need their reliability ascertained:

There's other nitpicks, but in the grand scheme of things, they are pretty unimportant. RB88 (T) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the sources you listed are related to the DVD releases section. That's pretty much all there is to find on the DVD's, so the only other option is to delete Region 4-related information. And also, what is considered "reliable" for a review article, as Monsters and Critics is for the reception section? Ophois (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well, the Futon Critic and TVShowsOnDVD.com have been used in other featured articles such as List of Smallville episodes, so I don't see how it's unreliable. And how is a local news website unreliable? Ophois (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the criteria that sources need to fulfil to be considered reliable: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. If they cannot, then they cannot be used. For this article, it would mean a major research task for new sources, hence my advice to withdraw. I'm always open to being shown they're reliable based on the dispatch criteria. Saying they're used in other FAs won't cut the mustard though. Each article and nomination is largely taken in isolation, unless a source was explicitly considered reliable in those other FAs. RB88 (T) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay if I just removed the information cited for the DVD articles? Ophois (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all the sources I've detailed above are removed, then I'll strike the oppose. But then you'll get film experts who'll point out that it is not comprehensive and/or lacking in source depth. It's up to you. My advice for withdrawal stands. It's probably better to work at it some more and maybe give it another peer review before coming back here with good quality sources. RB88 (T) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of the challenges. Even the dispatch page says that it's about the context in which the source is being used. Most of these sources are being used simply to cite a release date, or acknowledge special features on a DVD boxset. The special features are on the back of the box, which acts as its own source. That said, having a third-part source--even one that you'd not likely be able to use for anything else on the source--is merely a courtesy. It's like a plot summary. The episode itself is the source, we don't actually need an in-line citation or third-party source to verify it because viewing it can verify it (so long as it's it's available to view). It's my opinion that anything used to verify uncontroversial, DVD boxset info is perfectly fine so long as it's not making any claims.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, simply cite the DVD cover instead of using these poor sources. Solves everybody's problems. RB88 (T) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd prefer "<ref>Information provided by the back of the DVD boxset</ref>" over a website that provides a third-party verification of the exact same process?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One is reliable as it is produced by a multimedia production company, and the other is not. RB88 (T) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More source comments

  • Current ref 1's publisher needs to be USA Today (in italics).
  • Current ref 6's publisher should be abbreviated to "Slant" to stop any confusion with print media.
  • Current refs 14, 15 need italics on the publisher.
  • Current ref 16's publisher needs to be The Boston Globe.
  • Current ref 74 needs the publisher capitals removed.
  • I see a mix of citing authors (John Doe and Doe, John). Pick one style and stick to it.
  • All the Knight references can be simplified to "Knight, p. xx".

RB88 (T) 15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says that IMDb can be used for cast and award info. Ophois (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What policy?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches Ophois (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:V and WP:RS's comments about using "the most reliable source" supercede, and citing someone more reliable is best. IMDb should be the last resort, which is insinuated on the dispatch page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a last resort. No other reliable sources could be found on the subject. Ophois (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources I just brought you above?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rafablu88 called it into question, and I was unable to find anything that made it a RS. Ophois (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Mania.com was cleared because it's owned by Demand Media?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was. Ophois (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2006 Saturn Award link is from Mania. And the 2006 Teen Choice Award link from The Futon Critic is a press release. Didn't Rafablue say just cite those as Template:Cite press release?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were from other sources. Ophois (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go back up to the top, where he first lists The Futon Critic. You mentioned that the source was a press release, and he said to cite it as such (hey also provide the template for it all filled out).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Saturn Award link was from HuntingtonNews, and the Teen Choice Award link was from the French site that you provided. Ophois (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links I just gave you (2006 Saturn Awards, and 2006 Teen Choice Awards) are from Mania and TheFutonCritic. Mania was cleared outright, and the FutonCritic link is a press release which you can use the template I just provided to cite it with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lol. Sorry. I thought the links you gave were to the IMDb site. Thanks, I'll change it. Ophois (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Futon Critic one only gives info on one of the awards for Teen Choice Awards. Ophois (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I found another one that supports both.Ophois (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what happens now?Ophois (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (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/Supernatural_(season_1)/archive1&oldid=1136095388"