Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Reubens/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.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009.

Paul Reubens

 * Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone sufficient vetting and appears ready for Featured Article status. The lorax (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xVENAAAAIBAJ&dq=david%20letterman%20paul%20reubens&sjid=PW4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3189%2C2618919 deadlinks
 * Done. Removed dead link.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * Done. Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://101squadron.com/101real/people/rubenfeld.html
 * Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://paul-reubens.net/article/1987_02_12_rolling_stone_pee_wee_perplex/1987_02_12_rolling_stone_pee_wee_perplex_01.htm (Also, do they have permission to reprint this article if it's a reprint?) I'm assuming it's from The Rolling Stone magazine, not Rolling Stones.
 * Done. Link removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://sfist.com/
 * Done. Subsidiary of Gothamist; reliable.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=features/interviews/reubens
 * Done. Interview with Reel Video; Reel used to be in the same league as Amazon.com but bit the dust during the dot-com bubble.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a bit more showing reliablity here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Staff written subsidiary of Hollywood Video, their struggle as an online retailer is chronicled by the San Francisco Chronicle.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~paulreubens/magazine/rollingstone/rollingstone3.htm (Likewise, do they have permission to reprint this article?) I'm assuming it's from The Rolling Stone magazine, not Rolling Stones.
 * Done. Link removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://news.toonzone.net/articles/10954/pee-wees-playhouse-comes-to-adult-swim-in-july
 * Done. Removed. Changed source to staff-written Tv.com article - which is indexed by Google News.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.nicekicks.com/2007/04/nike-dunk-high-sb-pee-wee-herman/
 * Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.cinematical.com/2006/09/06/pee-wee-herman-shoes/
 * Done. Established film news site owned by AOL.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But is it a staff written site or in other words, who writes the content? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Staff written.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2002-12-23/
 * Done. Passes the Citing IMDb test.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * HOw does it pass? Generally, it should be used only for the most basic of facts ..Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, IMDB's information came from WENN, an entertainment news wire service based in London.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.amarillo.com/stories/062001/ent_knowjack.shtml
 * Done. Newsday article linked from Amarillo Globe-News--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://dropkickmonkey.com/2008/02/22/pee-wee-hermans-new-adventure-unscrew-america-deadly-serious/
 * Done Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://blogs.nbcuni.com/greenisuniversal/2008/02/unscrew_america.html (It's "Green is Universal" also, not Gren)
 * Done. Fixed and NBC's official corporate blog is a legit source.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Current ref 84 is just a bare url, needs publisher, title, last access date at the very least.
 * Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "As a child, Reubens would frequent the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, whose headquarters was in Sarasota during the winter. The circus' atmosphere sparked Reubens interest in entertainment and influenced his later work." This level of detail certainly does not match what the given source briefly touches on. Was there another source used here? Budding Journalist 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Vanity Fair article has further details on this, added reference.--The lorax (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed graphics, per WP:FAC instructions. It can mess with the transclusions, apparently. Steve  T • C 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Otterathome (talk)
 * 1) Ref 67 is IMDB, not a very good source. Any other sources to use with it instead?
 * It can be removed if need be. It appears to be referenced legitimately in regards to Citing IMDb.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Isn't image:1991-07-30 NY post front page.jpg a bit too small? It's barely readable.
 * I tried to hunt down an original copy of the cover unsuccessfully. I think the point was to show examples of tabloid saturation of the story.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked for an original copy for ages, don't waste your time. The image is so small because its actually a scan of a scan, I got it from a magazine article.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Excess space at the end of the last sentence. and 'The Blues Brothers.'.
 * Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The infobox seems very small, can't more information be added to it?--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please fill in as many of the Template:Infobox_actor as possible.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) "Since 2006" in lead, wouldn't From 2006 be better?
 * 3) Is he really known for the child pornography allegations that it belongs in the lead? On from that, is all the info in the child pornography section relevant and non-trivial?
 * 4) I'm still worried about the IMDB source as it is in the child pornography section and may be touching upon WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned about this passage: "Reubens remained in shock and feeling paranoid for the following months, with the arrest still haunting him during the following years. He refused to give interviews or appear in talk show, unlike other celebrities that got involved in "sex scandals" during the 1990s, like Hugh Grant or Robert Downey Jr.,[15] which Reubens later declared made people start 'blacklisting' him." Aside from the awkward phrasing, I see no support in the sources for the claim that "Reubens remained...feeling paranoid." Also, the source referenced by citation 15 doesn't say a single thing about "in talk show" (I suppose you mean "on talk shows"), "other celebrities", "sex scandals", Hugh Grant, or Robert Downey Jr.


 * Removed Ref 15, cited US Weekly interview (ref 55) where he says "I couldn't tell you a lot of what was going on when it all happened, because I was so in shock. I'm not sure I even knew the scope of it at that point. Because I really was in a kind of clinical shock - like your brain sort of lets you go somewhere else, and you're not, you know, 100 percent yourself. And I didn't realize that until maybe two months after it happened, when someone said, "Well, you're in shock." The source for refusing to go on talk shows is from Vanity Fair. (ref 38.)--The lorax (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lovely, except I didn't say a word about the claim of "shock". Please allow me to quote myself:


 * I see no support in the sources for the claim that "Reubens remained...feeling paranoid."


 * I still see absolutely no support for that claim, which is of a sensitive nature. DocKino (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Now on to this claim: "He refused to give interviews or appear on talk shows...which Reubens later declared made people start 'blacklisting' him." Please check your source, the Vanity Fair article (more precisely, its second online section). Reubens nowhere makes this claim; "blacklisting" is raised by an unnamed source and by producer Phil Rosenthal. Also see Reubens's response to a question about "being blacklisted" in that US article you mentioned. Edit away. DocKino (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed for accuracy: "Some collaborators believe this made people start "blacklisting" him."--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added the ref for Hugh Grant and Downey and as for the paranoid thing, in the vanity fair interview's second page he says "I was a wreck. I was convinced people were listening on the phone, that I was getting photographed through the bushes." That first month, he says, was the hardest. "I was so in shock, and I didn't realize that's what was going on with me. (...) I never contemplated anything like suicide. But I see how one could." I thought it was appropriate to summarize that with "paranoid". thoughts?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cite. We need to be very careful about introducing words like "paranoid" on our own to describe a living person's mental state. If you wanted, you could do something like this:


 * In the immediate aftermath of the arrest, Reubens says, "I was a wreck. I was convinced people were listening on the phone, that I was getting photographed through the bushes." He remained in a state of shock for weeks, and was haunted by the arrest for several years.


 * I've suggested "weeks", as the US article has him realizing he's in shock when someone tells him so "maybe two months after it happened". After that, he says, "it was like I'd had a diagnosis, and that made it easier," so I don't know if we can pull out his "shock" over a longer period. DocKino (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The cited IMDb material actually originates with WENN (World Entertainment News Network). It's a gossip news wire, bearing roughly the same relationship to the National Enquirer as the Associated Press does to the New York Times. Query: Do we regard the National Enquirer as a reliable source or not?DocKino (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This can be removed, but how contentious is the claim of the source? Does anyone dispute that Romano recast Reubens' part?--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My view is that we take a source like WENN on a case-by-case basis. There's nothing to suggest that this report is inaccurate in any way. Unless someone has a good policy-based rationale for excluding WENN entirely, I think it's fine to keep it. DocKino (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I ran through the lead—some MOS, some improvement in expression, a few on the personal-pref. side. it's OK, but could do with a polish throughout. Tony   (talk)  04:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.