Talk:Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)/Archive 1

Notability

Is the mascot really notable enough to warrant an article of its own? It could be mentioned in the show's article briefly. ProKro (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say so:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I should state the amount of articles listed are typical, since this character was a major part of the main segment that week. However, the news of Jeff was typical of all other main segments of Last Week Tonight (with one exception), and thus could fail notability in the long run. Whatever the case, it would probably be a good idea to take this to AfD and see how it goes there. Prhdbt [talk] 23:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think it is far too soon to say that it is independently notable of the show. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. As is, the content here can be, more or less, copied to the main article. Description section could be shortened a little, but that's it. ProKro (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have guessed, even from the AfD discussion, that this article would be kept. Do editors feel differently about the content if the article were moved to the name of the episode, or the name of the tobacco segment, rather than the name of the character Oliver created as part of the segment? IMHO, this segment/episode is very clearly notable based on the amount of coverage it received, PMI's response, responses to PMI's response, commentary on the effectiveness of Oliver's campaign, etc. I am not opposed to renaming the article, but I think we are doing a disservice by merging/deleting here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Background section

Resolved

I think this article could use a Background section with some information about why Oliver created the character and devoted nearly 20 minutes of his show to PMI and its legal action in Australia, Togo, and Uruguay. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page move

I am not trying to be dissident here, but I am currently working to improve the article so that it is about the "Tobacco" segment in its entirety and not just the Jeff character. I maintain this segment is notable, having received widespread media coverage, an official response from PMI, and praise for its effectiveness. In addition, the previous deletion discussion was closed with consensus to merge the former version of the character, despite the flawed nomination. I received no feedback about my idea to make the article more inclusive by being about the segment, instead of just the character. Feedback welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have expanded and restructured the article. I removed the merge template. Again, I don't mean to be dissident, but I believe the article illustrates notability, more so than before. If you disagree, no problem, but please re-nominate the article for deletion to begin a new discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert to redirect. The AFD decision was "merge", not "retitle and screw around". Have a problem? Try WP:DRV. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion to force a second discussion. I've voted to keep the article because I believe it clearly illustrates notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You have a problem with a decision of an AFD discussion, you don't get to try again. Go to WP:DRV like everyone else. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources

• http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-2015InteractiveDesc.pdf
• http://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/video-john-oliver-praises-irelands-stance-on-cigarette-packaging-and-slaughters-tobacco-companies/500112
• http://jeffwecan.tumblr.com (appropriate for Wikipedia?)

Also, I am pretty sure the live version of Jeff made another appearance later in the season, when Oliver discussing season highlights, but I have not yet found a video of the segment or source verifying the second appearance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• March update: http://www.tv.com/shows/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver/2015-03-08-3067909/ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Seems uncontroversial to me, though I moved it to a more appropriate title. Revert if you disagree. (non-admin closure) Prhdbt [talk] 00:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Jeff the Diseased Lung → Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) – Unable to move this article myself. New title will reflect the segment's title, not just the mascot. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article is now disambiguated as "Last Week Tonight segment". I've never seen a similar disambiguator. Why not disambiguate using the show's title (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver), as per usual? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: See new move request below. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore

I've restored the article per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 24. I hope I am correct in thinking I am able to do so. I am fine if another AfD discussion is in order. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Tobacco (Last Week Tonight) per discussion. "Segment" was unnecessary, and the full proposal was too PRECISE and unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Tobacco (Last Week Tonight segment) → Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) – I think we should disambiguate using the show's name, like we do for television episodes and specials. This is a segment of a TV show. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as overly WP:PRECISE. "Last Week Tonight" gets the point across just fine. We could probably remove the "segment" as unnecessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We should definitely remove "segment", but why wouldn't we disambiguate using the title of the parent article? Isn't that standard? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tobacco (Last Week Tonight)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I didn't know the segment got so much coverage! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to review this article. I look forward to addressing any concerns you may have. (And yes, the segment received quite a bit of coverage!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you summarize notability discussions (AfDs, etc.) and explain why there was consensus to keep the article in its current form? (I agree with you that it's notable, but I would just like to hear what happened)
  • There has not been a discussion with consensus to keep the article. The article was originally called "Jeff the Diseased Lung". Much discussion about the article was related to the old version. Since then, it has been expanded to cover the segment in its entirety and not just the mascot. I think notability is clearly evident at this point, and no one has raised concerns with the current version of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think bolding Jeff the Diseased Lung and #JeffWeCan is correct.
  • Both terms redirect to this article and are possible search terms people could use to access this article. I believe that makes them appropriate for bolding. I feel strongly that the mascot's name should remain bolded, but I feel less strongly about the hastag. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• The lead should be split into two paragraphs IMO.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• "with some outlets..." this sentence implies that other publications thought differently.
  • Do you have a specific request or suggestion? All I am meaning to say is that of of the outlets who covered the segment, some specifically commented on Oliver's marketing abilities. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Another Believer: I think that writing "many outlets" or "several outlets" would be better, as I still think that "some outlets" suggests that the sentence would later continue with "but other outlets..." Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Whose word was "grotesque"
  • Rolling Stone, per the inline citation at the end of the sentence. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• "By February 16..." Online, on TV, or both?
  • I would assume both, but the source says "Anyway, here is the full Last Week Tonight piece that has already been seen watched nearly 2 million times since yesterday morning...", so I am not sure we should speculate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Why is Tech Times a reliable source?
  • Why isn't it? Here is more about the site and its publisher. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that the image of Jeff is important, but could you place a more detailed fair use rationale on the file page?
  • I am not sure what you mean. Do you have a specific request or suggestion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I think that "Response by Philip Morris International" should be a subsection of reception.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• As "Criticism" is only one source, I don't think it's enough to make it a subsection of that. Also, I think you could summarize that source a bit more concisely.
  • I removed the subheading. Is there a specific part you think should be removed or paraphrased? The article is quite long, so I am trying to summarize the author's many points. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• First sentence of reception: Same comment about "some outlets"
• I would split the first Reception paragraph into two.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Any non-Philip Morris criticism of the segment?
  • Not that I came across in my research. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think that List of countries by cigarette consumption per capita is relevant enough for a see also.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: That's all I have. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. I am happy to pass now.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

FA?

@Epicgenius: I can't recall if I've asked you this before, but given your work on "Donald Trump" (Last Week Tonight) and other LWT articles, I'm curious if you have any interest in promoting this one to FA status as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, definitely! I can help out. Thanks for the offer. epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Awesome. Before either of us submit a co-nom, how do you feel about just giving the article a thorough review and seeing if you can make any improvements and/or identify any content gaps, as a start? No rush whatsoever, I am not concerned about nominating this ASAP, but whenever we are both ready and prepared to take on the review. High five! 23:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

High five, I mean thumbs up! I'll look the article over in the coming days. epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the episode summary is missing a bit of info, compared to the summaries of "Donald Trump" and "Net Neutrality". The trends of smoking and the laws against it can be elaborated upon, as well as the statements and misconceptions regarding the industry. For example, at 1:22, Philip Morris CEO Joseph Cullman defends the tobacco industry, and at 8:36, Oliver describes Philip Morris' transferring operations of the Australia division to the Asia division so it would be easier to sue Australia. I don't think this article needs much elaboration, but some context would also be nice. epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Does this article need a screenshot for the infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt. But what of? Many of the screencaps contain quotes from articles, graphics of other things, videos, or Jeff the Diseased Lung. epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the mascot, but the article already has a fair use image of "Jeff". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. I guess we will need to think about that. Do you have any objections to my suggestion above that we add some information regarding context? epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No objections, and you've got more experience working on similar articles so I trust your judgement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I finally found the time to complete the plot summary. Maybe it's too detailed, or maybe it needs more clarification, but this is what I could glean from the video so far. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mascot image

Resolved

@RHaworth and Domdomegg: I see File:Marlboro Mascot Parody by John Oliver (Jeff the diseased lung).png was deleted, but I'm not sure why. Do either of you know? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• If you know that I deleted it, you have seen the deletion log entry. Go back and read it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I'm not lazy, but I don't know what I'm supposed to read. I see, "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". Is this what you mean? I guess what I mean to ask is why was the image deleted, and now that it's gone, should I re-upload under fair use? Also, why did you remove the WP Comedy assessment? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Restored. It seems to me that rather than change the Article= parameter in the non-free use template JJMC89 preferred to tag it for deletion. Or am I missing something? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• I should have chimed in earlier. I couldn't be bothered to fight copyvios etc. especially as I have less free time now and it's longer since the episode aired so less relevant. I saw it was proposed for deletion in a week, to speed it up I tagged it myself as Db-g7 - didn't realise people cared about it so much! Would be happy for someone else to take ownership / reupload it. Domdomegg (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The image has been restored. Thanks, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)