Talk:Jon Stewart's 2004 appearance on Crossfire

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that three months after Jon Stewart went on CNN's Crossfire and told the hosts that their show was "hurting America", CNN cancelled it and fired co-host Tucker Carlson? Source: Carter 2005
  • Reviewed: Finn the Human
  • Comment: i had other ideas for hooks, but WP:DYK#gen4a prevents me from making Tucker Carlson any angrier :)

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 04:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jon Stewart's 2004 appearance on Crossfire; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment (correcting my previous edit): the page was moved from draft space to main space today in this edit. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Theleekycauldron: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Stewart's 2004 appearance on Crossfire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I should probably be addressing the GAN backlog, but this event is too iconic to pass up the opportunity to review it. Very excited to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, just a few comments on the prose, but otherwise it's a very well-done article. Very close to GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well howdy there, MyCatIsAChonk! Thanks for the review, and the talk page message is a puzzler too :) I've taken care of the Bush administration wikilink, and stuck a citation on the first thing you mentioned. As for the rest:

Those sentences aren't in "Impact" because I wanted that section to be about the impact it had on the three men involved with the story – Carlson gets fired, Stewart gets anointed god-king, Begala gets forgotten. We could rename that section, but I think that's a kind of impact in and of itself, one that ultimately had a lot more effect than the raw viewcount at the time.

Critics at the time largely agreed with Stewart's commentary, elevating him over Carlson in their reviews is, unusually for these kinds of articles, sourced directly to an article that makes the same claim. I think Politico's assessment of RSes, as an RS itself, would supersede my own editorial judgement (not that I, y'know, disagreed too much).

There is the Boston Herald piece here, but I didn't include it because i couldn't find any coverage like it and BH isn't that reliable anymore (giving its editorial page less weight), so it seemed so far outside the mainstream consensus of RSes that it wasn't even worth including. That could, of course, just be my bias, and I'm happy to add a snippet if you think it's due. The only other piece of blowback I could find was in another piece where the cancellation of the show was said by nameless critics to just be pandering to Stewart's audience. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Fair enough on all your points. What about an external links section? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: I would imagine that the YouTube video breaches WP:COPYLINK, so unless there's anything else to put there... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense then. Good to go! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	*In 2022, Gordon Devin of The Atlantic termed it "one of the first truly viral political videos of this century". - Wouldn't this (and possibly the preceding statement belong better under "Impact"? ...remaining years of the Bush administration. - WL to Bush administration needs to be directed to Presidency of George W. Bush. Prose is clear and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In my opinion, an external links section would be appropriate here, as you could link to a YouTube video of the appearance. Otherwise, article complies with MOS standards. Complies with MOS standards.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	*...which Michael Schaffer of Politico notes predated rise of later social media giants such as YouTube. - Needs citation Critics at the time largely agreed with Stewart's commentary, elevating him over Carlson in their reviews; - Only one citation is present (or two if you count the following statement)- if you're claiming "critics at the time", some more citations are needed The sources themselves consist of newspapers and magazines, all reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did a quick spotcheck on some of the quotes, since it is a quote-heavy article (and rightly so, IMO). AGF on sources I can't access. Bella 2023, de Moraes 2004, Egner et al. 2015, and Huff 2021 all come up clean. No OR present.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism; the high scores on some sources are due to quotes or names, so it's all good here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the appearance itself and the reception from the three involved- all good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There's a chance for bias here, considering it's about an American politics debate show. I'll note one thing- the sources has a distinct lack of any right-wing news sources, but upon some Google and newspapers.com searches, it doesn't seem like any major right-wing networks covered the issue. I believe the article is clear of bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are properly CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and captioned with the person's name.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.