Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Veronica Mars/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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008.

Veronica Mars

 * Nominator(s):  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion , User:Jclemens

This page has undergone significant improvement over the last month by User:Jclemens and I. It has undergone a peer review, and I think it is almost at FA status. All comments are welcome, although supporting ones would be great. ;)  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * I asked these during the PR (see Peer review/Veronica Mars/archive2) and they are still disputed. I'll admit I'm picky on sources, so I'll post these and a link to the PR for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'll note that all three are fansites doing interviews/etc. and we don't know what sort of editorial oversight was exercised over the editing of the interview.
 * http://www.neptunesite.com/dohringinterview.htm
 * http://marsinvestigations.net/index.php (Used multiple times)
 * http://whedonesque.com/comments/7502
 * http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/default.aspx?posting=%7B3737C38B-5F14-40C1-BEE6-9A47E8BE4A59%7D deadlinks
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing those up there, as well. Upshot of my response there was that these all seemed to fall under and be used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. My followup question, which didn't get answered on that page.
 * "So no featured content can ever use a WP:SELFPUB site, even for noncontroversial statements? See, I follow the policy chain like... WP:WIAFL references WP:RS which references WP:SPS, which is followed by WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within WP:V.  Looking at that, it would appear that if the (admittedly pretty limiting) conditions of WP:SELFPUB are met, the source should be acceptable within both WP:RS and WP:V.  However, I don't doubt that actual current consensus can markedly differ from what is written... does it? Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)"
 * Apologies if that's a question with a well known answer--this is my first time at FAC, so I may have a few such questions. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to those that Ealdgyth brought up, I'd also like to know what makes the following sites reliable:
 * http://www.imdb.com
 * http://www.seanharry.com
 * http://www.medialifemagazine.com
 * The IMDb has been discussed and discarded by Wikiproject Films as a reliable source on many occasions. I know how the rest of Wikipedia views it is pretty contentious. I understand that 95% of its information is likely correct, but I can easily find instances where it has been proved wrong. In this article, one of the things it's being used to cite is VM{{'}s awards. This is one of the areas in which I've found errors before. In addition, the Ain't It Cool News link doesn't tally with what it's being used to cite. Steve  T • C 22:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, would you be in a position to answer my query--is there a (written or unwritten) rule against using WP:SELFPUB sources in any manner in a featured article? WP:WIAFA doesn't make that clear. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is no rule against it, and if there were, it would not be an unwritten one. However, as the link describes, self-published sources must only be used under strict conditions. Additionally, some reviewers may be more stringent on the weight given to a self-published source in a featured article than they would in a non-featured one. Essentially, if the information is available elsewhere in a bona fide reliable, secondary source, this should be used instead. Steve  T • C 10:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the references, I have been told tht IMDb is reliable for awards, and that it cannot be user updated. If this is untrue, I could find alternate refs. SeanHarry is only used to cite the fact that there have been fan conventions, however this could be removed if neccessary. Likewise Media Life is only referencing fan activities, which is unlikely to be covered by a "reliable source". The Ain't It Cool News ref actually does cite what it's meant to: "my pick for the best TV series of 2006" can be found on the page. Hope that helps.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally ran into the IMDb's lack of reliability for awards information last year. The site was used to cite that the Babylon 5 episode "The Parliament of Dreams" won an Emmy for its visual effects (it was for makeup). The IMDb entry has since been changed, but it's just one example. Now, even the most reliable of sources will make the odd mistake, but the user-submitted nature of the IMDb means it happens all too often. Do you have a link to anything that declares the IMDb's awards information to be either 1) reliable, or 2) not user-submitted? Steve  T • C 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the Ain't it Cool News thing, I did indeed miss that. But I think citing the statement "In 2006, the series was ranked number one on the [list] of Ain't It Cool News..." to what amounts to a throwaway comment from one contributor to the site who rarely actually reviews anything is a little tenuous. Steve  T • C 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:MOS re pull quotes and decorate quote marks. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick-fail—An ideal example of a premature nomination that should be removed forthwith. We can't afford to clog up the list with items that need far more work than can be done in this timeframe. Please work on the prose and other aspects in a freer timeframe and resubmit when several editors have passed it. A few random examples of the prose in the lead show that a lot of work is needed throughout:
 * "high school and college drama"—US editors would insist on a hyphen, since "high drama" is a possible ambiguity.
 * "Balancing murder mystery, high school and college drama, and social commentary with sarcasm and off-beat humor in a style often compared to film noir,[3] the series starred Kristen Bell as the title character: a student who progressed from high school to college during the series while moonlighting as a private investigator under the wing of her detective father." Oh, this is a horrid twisting snake of a sentence. The grammar of the colon is wrong.
 * Logical problem: "Thomas originally wrote Veronica Mars as a young adult novel; however the protagonist was a male." Why is it unlikely the protagonist was a male just because it was originally written as a young adult novel?
 * "Episodes had a distinct structure;"—I'm relieved. The semicolon should be a colon, but the sentence needs rethinking.
 * So Veronica is trying to "solve" the story arc? Fatal confusion of character and script-writer—comic in itself. Tony   (talk)  03:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony1, thanks for all this feedback. Sorry if anyone reviewing this feels like this was a waste of your time.  Cornucopia and I will address the issues you've raised in relatively short order, but I accept that this is perceived as insufficiently prepared.  It's my first run at FAC, and the issues raised in peer review were prettly lightweight compared to the scrutiny that's being given here.  At any rate, thanks for helping contribute to my FAC education. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were one of the editors I contacted, but I got no reply. I guessed (incorrectly) that your lack of response was a good sign.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  04:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, pending resolution of the above sourcing and prose issues. I'm not sure there's time to sort it all out during this FAC. For that reason it may be a good idea for you to withdraw the nomination; there's no shame in bringing it back later when it's had a few more editors look over it at their leisure, rather than in the pressured environment of a FAC. Steve  T • C 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I guess Jclemens and I knew this would be the result, we just wanted to see what the response would be like and what issues the article has. Since the peer review only received two replies, we thought taking it to FAC was get a bigger response. Well, I guess we were right. I want to keep it here a bit longer, to see if there are any more comments by other users and how to prepare for the next nomination.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  08:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Sourcing issues (by default, a fansite doing an interview doesn't meet WP:RS, and for this post you need some sort of confirmation that this guy is, indeed, Joss Whedon). There are still prose issues; Tony's given examples, but at a glance there are still some clunky sentences like "Kristen Bell was chosen to play Veronica Mars from more than 500 women who auditioned for the role". "The setting of Neptune High for the first two seasons was located in Oceanside, California" - implies there was a Neptune High in season three, which apparently there wasn't. "Kristen Bell's performance as Veronica Mars was praised, however several critics felt that she was overlooked and deserved an Emmy Award nomination" - why "however", if the two clauses basically agree? The use of Image:VeronicaMarsNoir.JPG does not meet NFCC; what does the image do that text can't do in terms of explain the game's music? These are just examples of how a bit more work is needed. Giggy (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.