Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deadalive/archive1


 * 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.

This article was not promoted by 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Deadalive

 * Nominator(s): Gen. Quon   (Talk)   22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the fifteenth episode of eight season of The X-Files, and a big episode for the series; it features the real return of David Duchovny as Fox Mulder. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for the next big step. It is currently a GA as well as an A-Class article. I implemented much of what I learned from my previous FAN attempt. It has been copyedited, as well as peer-reviewed by three different editors, including Noleander, The Rambling Man, and Ruby 2010/2013. The article reads well, features illustrations (and the non-free images have proper licenses), and the references are properly formatted and of high quality. I feel that the article's prose, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
I'm probably not the best qualified to check some of the FA criteria, but I'll do what I can, since this is nearing the bottom of the list without any love at all. So far, all I have checked is the reference formatting and quality. I've got significant concerns there, so I'll hold a bit before looking at the actual article text. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Date formats are inconsistent in footnotes. Compare the retrieval date on #2 with #8.  Footnote #3 has two different date formats. Footnotes #8 and #32 have their publication dates in different formats. I probably missed some; this needs a thorough audit.
 * Fixed. Those were just sloppy mistakes on my part.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, when a footnote refers to something in the works cited list, you include the publication date. Sometimes (with the Spotnitz source) you don't.  Any reason this shouldn't be consistent, however you decide to do it?
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is iTunes really the best we can do to source the running time? I wouldn't object on this alone, but surely we can find that figure somewhere...
 * Why isn't it acceptable? iTunes is a third-party, reliable company. They clearly state the running time.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to give this particular topic some more thought. Ideally, what I'd prefer is if some third-party source that actually had significant coverage and commentary on this topic also included the runtime, so that we weren't just citing that data point to a big chart on a web portal of a company trying to sell downloadable copies. I suppose it's too much to hope that Shearman & Pearson includes this? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to tell us that Berkshire Hathaway owns The Buffalo News? You do this with a couple other publications, too, but not all of them.  I don't really feel this is the same sort of thing as citing publishers, and I really haven't seen it elsewhere before.  Is there a reason for it?
 * I do this for all the newspapers, because the publisher publishes the newspaper, and it is the same thing (in fact, it's the definition of publisher). I also do it for all the website that have publishers. I'm being inclusive, not exclusive, so I certainly don't see why this is a problem.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen "publisher" used that way. Yes, Berkshire Hathaway owns The Buffalo News.  But that doesn't mean it's the publisher of that newspaper (the newspaper itself is, as is the case for most major market US papers).  Similarly, Bertelsmann owns Random House, but that doesn't mean it's the actual publisher of everything put out by Random House. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't see this as a problem. Regardless of how it works, Berkshire Hathaway still is the official publisher of The Buffalo News.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Cinefantastique sources are from 2002. I may be wrong in remembering this, but wasn't that periodically officially rebranded CFQ by that time?
 * You're totes right.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pretty dubious about the reference in footnote #40. An advertising flyer is a primary source, but those aren't without their uses.  But I don't really see anything to give us context for the flyer in the reference; the link is to an image stored on photobucket that isn't immediately identifiable as a flyer -- and likely presents some copyright concerns as well.
 * Primary sources aren't issues unless they are non-notable. Furthermore saying this isn't noticeable as a flyer because it is presented as an image is like saying a page scan doesn't look like a book because there is no context. I can remove the image link, for copyright reasons, but I feel the source isn't an issue at all. It was issued by Fox, after all, which makes it notable and reliable.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My problems with the flyer are really twofold. As I've noted, one concern is that we are linking to copyright violation at photobucket.  But the other is verifiability.  What assurance do we have that the flyer, as hosted at photobucket, is legitimate, and has not been manipulated in any way (in fact, I strongly suspect it has and that the image we're linking to is cropped from a larger document that includes more information, like show times, and possibly publication data)?  In part, too, I'm worried about the ability of readers to locate the source from the information we're able to provide, which is almost none.  To be clear, I don't doubt that this flyer is actually real, and a real piece of advertising, and a plausibly useful primary source; I do have misgivings about it's use as a "high-quality reliable source" for the FA criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll concede this one. I just removed it, as it doesn't add that much to the article.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote #43's link takes me to a University of Kansas login prompt, which is not exactly what I expect (subscription required) to imply. Is that link targeted correctly? And is that source really the best quality to begin with? Here's its self-description: "BtoB, the magazine for marketing strategists, delivers timely editorial on all disciplines of business-to-business marketing. Published 6 times a year by Crain Communications Inc, BtoB provides marketers with the information and analysis they need to develop a winning integrated marketing strategy for their companies." I'm not entirely sure that can be counted on for neutral, factual information. Has this been used in other X-Files FAs, or have you checked with WP:RSN?
 * The reason many of the 'sub required' links take you to the University of Kansas page is because they are articles from my university's database, which can only be accessed if you are a student. However, the info is out there, and can be requested (I provide all the necessary information, down to page numbers in some cases). I would argue that it still falls under "subscription required", because you better believe I had to purchase a subscription to get it. As for the 'dubiousness' of BotB: it's owned by Crain Communications publishing. Even though BotB isn't super huge, doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and is a marketing magazine, that doesn't mean it is not neutral. In fact, that's quite a claim to make. It's a published magazine from a notable publisher.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the login, I was mostly just wanting to spot-check for link target accuracy there, since I was expected a paywall by the publisher or one of the standard periodicals aggregators. But, sure, university databases should be fine, too. As to the periodical in question, my concern was that, as this is an editorial-driven marketing magazine, claims and analyses published therein might have a realistic expectation of being biased. However, I see you're only using that source as a citation for a hard data point, and I see no reason to doubt the accuracy there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can give you the info for the article. It's basically disclosing how much money companies/products pay for ad/air time during TV commercials and the like. For The X-Files, it reads: "The X-Files, Fox Phone: (310) 369-1000 URL: www.fox.com Viewers: 12.4 mil. (April 1 episode) Ad revenues: N/A Ad rates: $225,000 per 30-second spot Comment: IT companies are starting to narrow their focus down to coders and other IT geeks, many of whom get their weekly fix of science fiction from this prime-time show. Notes: Ad revenue for 2000, unless otherwise noted. Revenue figures provided by CMR Business to Business and media properties themselves. TV viewership figures provided by Nielsen Media Research Inc. Some TV ad rates were provided by media buyers."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think there's any problem with that sort of material coming from BotB. I wouldn't use it as a source for any sort of critical or analytic material, but that sort of numeric factual data is fine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, very little of this represents independent sourcing. The article leans heavily on the Spotnitz source, and I can't see any reason that would be considered independent. To say nothing of the booklet, a DVD, the episode itself, Fox-owned websites, and a promotional flyer.
 * In the past, DVD commentaries have totally been considered reliable third-party sources. The interview is from a notable, reliable DVD release from a notable, reliable company. Anything released by Fox is also reliable and notable. Primary sources are not bad if they are reliable and notable. In addition, ~26 of the 55 references are completely from third party sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.), whereas, the rest were officially published by (like I mentioned before) reliable sources. All in all, I'm very confused by the amount of criticism these references are receiving, when articles I've worked on in the past have proceeded with similar citations just fine.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern's not about primary sources per se, but about non-independent ones. I know WP:IS is an essay, but I don't really understand how DVD commentaries are independent with that in mind.  They most certainly have a vested interest in the topic at hand.  I view non-independent sources much like primary ones: they are useful, with caution, so long as the bulk of the article or passages do not depend on them, as seems to be the case for much the Writing section, for example.  Now, admittedly, I'm used to working with scientific and historical topics rather than popular culture ones, so it's plausible that I'm simply misreading the expectations and standing consensus of sourcing in this field. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with this is that the primary sources are largely being used for the production part of the episode. Many, many, many TV series/episode pages use the DVD commentary, mini-documentaries, booklets, etc. to cite this part of the article. Of course there will be a vested interest, because it is intrinsically related to the show and the show's parent network, but I don't see the issue with this. For instance, many of the books I used in my previous FANs—"The Truth", "Triangle", and "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati"—were officially licensed by Fox and feature interviews and other primary sources from the people involved (I also used the DVD commentary, as that's pretty important for those episodes, too). This is a pretty common occurrence when it comes to TV articles (for instance, this (unrelated) FA makes use of DVD commentary and mini-documentaries). For reviews, I totally get that they should be third-party (which I think all of them in this article are), but for production info, there's really no way to get completely independent sources, because Fox owns the rights to all the film, scripts, etc, and thus have to license/release them. Besides, the DVD released are notable and reliable, because Fox as a company has to pass through many hoops before releasing DVDs. I guess what I'm trying to say is that DVD features have long been accepted as citations for an FA, for at least TV articles.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)
 * Personally, I disagree, but this does appear to be the longstanding consensus take on television sourcing, even at the FA level. Objection withdrawn, and chalked up to the difference in sourcing expectations between this and my normal editing areas. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- After eliciting comments from only one reviewer in six weeks, this nom unfortunately seems more dead than alive; curious given it's had so many reviews beforehand. I will archive it and perhaps you can have another go at some later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.