Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nikki and Paulo/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC).

Nikki and Paulo

 * Notified: Thedemonhog, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Fictional characters, talk page notice
 * , a frequent co-nom, not notified. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is quite far from meeting current day featured article criteria. The sourcing specifically is a very low quality, including nine citations to other Wikipedia articles in a citation to a blog. The original nominator is semi-retired. Maybe this article can qualify for the one week FAR and FARC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * including nine citations to other Wikipedia articles is specious. These are convenience linking the Wikipedia article; the actual citation is the episode itself. (We've had that discussion in the past year or two.) No comment on the validity of the other concerns. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Today I learned. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just poor form, and should not be done. We don't cite Wikipedia in sources.  If a plot summary is referring to additional detail in another Wikipedia article, that should be done via Wikilinking to those articles, or via hatnotes in those sections (further information at, etc.). It's also done deceptively, in a way that makes it look like ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. Also mentioning that the FAC appears to have had considerable drive-by support. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While we are here, similar problems seem to exist in every one of the Lost FAs listed for thedemonhog at WP:WBFAN, including marginal sources as well as Wikipedia listed under references. Unless someone is willing to take on improving all of them, perhaps the lot should be submitted to FAR.  for a modern take on Featured article candidates/Martin Keamy, for example. In other cases, even when Ealdgyth questioned sources, such as Featured article candidates/The Other Woman, reviewers ignored the query.  By the end of 2008, and the last FAC in this series, reviewers started paying more attention. Featured article candidates/Meet Kevin Johnson.  Depending on the outcome of this FAC, there are nine more that may need FAR.  And Featured topics/Lost (season 4).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If a plot summary is referring to additional detail in another Wikipedia article, that should be done via Wikilinking to those articles, or via hatnotes in those sections (further information at, etc.). It's also done deceptively, in a way that makes it look like ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. Did you misinterpret my comment or miss it somehow? The reason it looks like ABC is being cited is because ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. As I said, it is a convenience link only. It is equivalent to something like  (not that I would cite Blink'' being popular psychology...).
 * That aside, the Duke has said below they are being used for interpretative/subjective statements rather than for basic plot (for which they are allowed on Wikipedia in general), which a no-no. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what we are each saying, but let's check:
 * ref name="Exposé" ... "Exposé." Lost, ABC. March 28, 2007. Episode 14, season 3.
 * renders as:
 * "Exposé." Lost, ABC. March 28, 2007. Episode 14, season 3.
 * That is not a citation or sourced to ABC: it is entirely made up of Wikilinks. Not how we do it. No source material in that citation. IF you're saying it is sourced in the other article, well, that doesn't work ... it should be sourced here. And as the person who passed some of these FACs, it is not apparent to me that I knew these fake citations were happening.  But then fourteen years back is a long time for me to remember ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not how we do it. Then either you, or FA, or both, are out of touch with the rest of the wiki. We are not citing the wikilinks, we are providing them for ease of access for the user to go and look at those articles (for w/e reason). To take my previous example, if I had wikilinked Malcolm Gladwell, would you believe that I was citing the wiki article about Gladwell? I wikilink Blink; do you believe I was citing Blink or the article about Blink?
 * IF you're saying it is sourced in the other article, well, that doesn't work I am definitely saying that, and I agree that  be concerning (and I routinely remove such citations, though there is also an inline tag template for the less-bold editor; see also this search which may take 30-60 seconds to load, where the intent between citing a Wikipedia article and citing the work/author is not obvious; I'll let you ponder why there are so many :). To put my earlier comment another way, an editor intending to cite the article about Blink (for whatever reason) rather than Blink itself (as above), would instead make a citation that looks like this: '' (or provide no authors probably just due to practicality). --Izno (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are using the Blink example, I am using the Expose sample that I listed, which is not a citation. Perhaps we are still not understanding each other, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for Featured articles, and these have sources that are not, but are masquerading as if they are.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To use your example directly, yes, that is a citation to the episode "Exposé" in the show Lost published by ABC on March 28, 2007 as episode 14 in season 3. That helps me find where the information "Ted has a red hat." is and is accordingly a citation (if that a. needed citation, and b. was the fact we were citing). Citing the Wikipedia article about Exposé would be something like "Exposé" (18 November 2020). Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation., or in longer form the article "Exposé" as published 18 November 2020 in Wikipedia by the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Whether it is a reasonable citation for some information or another is a separate concern and I've already admitted that its use here per Duke below is undesirable, of your apparent incorrect understanding of how citations can and will have wikilinks.
 * That said, I'm done arguing with you about what is entirely a sidepoint in the discussion of whether to delist this article as featured, and will move along accordingly. If I haven't been sufficiently clear regarding what I'm saying (this post being the fourth time), I don't know what to say. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikilinks are not the problem; it's non-citations masquerading as sources. But I, too, will move on here ... obviously, this issue troubles me considerably as I cannot recall being aware this was going on in the few of these that were promoted by me, and I relied on source checkers to make sure reliable sources were used.  So since I have a pony in this race, I probably won't be entering a Keep or Delist declaration, other than to observe that depending on what is decided here, we might submit the whole batch to FAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I think there are weak sources here. For a FA at least. For instance: Then there's the issue that this article was promoted as an article on Paulo only. Now it's an article on two characters. Which is a problem because if you look at the "Casting" section, almost all of it is about Santoro, Paulo's actor. There are 2 sentences about Nikki's actress. (There's also the issue that this version about two characters has not been "FA-approved". Nowadays, if a significant merge was suggested at FAC, I imagine the nomination would be withdrawn, with the article being re-nominated after the merge.) I also note that, despite using Wikipedia articles only as convenience linking, there's some speculation and opinion present in the article, taken from the episodes themselves:
 * This is a blog;
 * This is a fansite;
 * I think this is a forum;
 * This looks like a celebrity gossip website;
 * Here we are trusting in a translation posted in a forum, of an interview originally in Portuguese (Veja is a Brazilian magazine);
 * "Paulo either resents or is indifferent toward..."
 * "does not try to improve his status in the survivors' hierarchy"

I was not aware of convenience linking to Wikipedia itself (I did not read that discussion), but I think that the only way that primary sourcing (ie. the episodes themselves) should be used in a FA about fictional characters, is on the plot/appearences sections. Here they're being mostly used on the "characteristics" section, which is subjective, in my view. Anyway, most of this is just my opinion, I'm happy to discuss it. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, we don't need "Television Without Pity" covering the episode "Enter 77" when AV Club is available.
 * Much of the stuff directly sourced to the episodes is actually covered by reliable sources, and there's lots of new sources to be included in the article: Insider, Insider n. 2, Screenrant, TV Line, Entertainment Weekly, AV Club (the AV Club covers all the episodes the characters were in), EW n. 2, EW n.3, Digital Spy, Vulture, Vulture making a link to Heroes, some commentary in a cited book, more commentary in another book, another example. The article needs an update to reflect this. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the use of some of the primary sourcing to draw conclusions about the characteristics. For instance, "Paulo either resents or is indifferent toward the often heroic actions of some of the survivors, spending much of his time golfing" is backed up to a single episode. This is phrased as to refer to his entire appearance in the series, but one episode isn't a good source to state that he's constantly golfing, unless it's directly said in the episode "Paulo spends all his time golfing." There are several other instances where a single episode is used to draw overarching conclusions about the character. To the list of iffy sources above can also be added BuddyTV, which looks rather questionable to me. And surely a better source exists than Zap2It, as well. Hog Farm Bacon 00:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC no progress Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist the article uses poor sources as explained above. There's also the issue of using primary sources to support info on the characters' characteristics, instead of reliable secondary sources, that are available as mentioned above. The article lacks coverage of Sanchez, especially when compared to Santoro. The article does not meet FA standards and no one is engaging. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist - Major sourcing issues and nobody's working on improving it. Hog Farm Bacon 05:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist: I wish I had the time to help with this article because I genuinely love fictional character articles on here. I agree with the above comments that there are substantial issues that prevent this from being a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.