Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Dan Povenmire/archive1

Restart

What? First off, why was the entire content of the FAC removed? Second, what are you talking about, "the citations are not consistent or correct"? Every date format is consistent(it's all ISO) but the works/publishers I understand (another user kindly fixed them). Could you please explain why this whole thing was "restarted"? The Flash ^{talk} 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Flash on the date formats; there's not even the usual quirk of ISO style full dates and "Month Year" partial dates to worry about. If it's date placement, then it's probably a template issue; if not, I've no clue. Either way, explain further please. --an odd name (help honey) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you will check the article history, you will see that the inconsistent dates and incorrect italics in citations were fixed by User:Dabomb87 and myself.[1] A WP:PUNC review is still needed, and I left other issues in edit summary. The FAC was restarted because it was long and inconclusive, and it doesn't appear that reliability of sources has been resolved. Further discussions of the restart should be placed at the talk page here to avoid again lengthening this review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. --an odd name (help honey) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checked bit into the history, it seems this was cut down to lower the huge amount of content at FAC right now, no? I believe every date/publisher inconstancy in the citations have been fixed and all other issues (except the sources, which the user has not responded about) have been resolved. The Flash ^{talk} 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Big comment why did they restart the review, there was no need for that.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So all the supports now don't count? The Flash ^{talk} 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct: the review starts anew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SuperFlash, you can ask everyone who reviewed the article to revisit the FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I truly find that completely ridiculous, but I will message all the reviewers and urge them to check back at the review. Hopefully they'll respond. The Flash ^{talk} 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2c Resolved post restart

• First off, by decline do you mean oppose? If so, please just put that. Next off, I've change all the AWN refs to cite journal. The Medianet doesn't say it was written by Yoo, but all press releases for the website are written by Yoo, so the author is clearly her. Why do you have no faith in it? What at all makes you not agree with it, when all authored web citations specifically say the source, if you checked (other than Yoo, but I explained that). The Flash ^{talk} 00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you presume Yoo then [Author] is the correct way forward. If your presumption contains any doubt then [?Author] is the correct way forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

....What? The Flash ^{talk} 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The webpage does not attribute authorship to anyone, normally this would indicate Corporate Authorship, ie, the publisher or the newspaper or the company being the author of the work. You're making an assertion that you reasonably presume a specific author from other knowledge you have. Such a presumption needs to be indicated, the most common way of indicating presumed authorship is with [Square brackets] around presumed authors. Doubtful presumed authors are indicated with [?Square brackets and a question mark]. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see; done. The Flash ^{talk} 02:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

2c after restart: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapters authored by the book author should not be cited separately in a single author book, "Greenspon, Jaq (2003). "Character Layout Animator". Careers For Film Buffs & Other Hollywood Types. McGraw-Hill. pp. 89–90. ISBN 978-0071405744."

Done. The Flash ^{talk} 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Date not in style, publication title (ie the newspaper) requires italics for your style: Galas, Majorie. "Phineas and Ferb: Music, Mischief, And The Endless Summer Vacation". 411 News. Retrieved 2009-08-05.

It's a template, Cite web doesn't italicize titles. The Flash ^{talk} 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect template used, cite journal for periodicals. The fact that the periodical publishes on the web doesn't matter, genre determines citation style, not medium. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Collected publications (newspapers, books, edited collections) the collecting work should be in italics in your style (eg: Al.com. Retrieved 2009-07-29.; Classmates.com.; Annie Awards.; Toon Zone.; Badmouth.)

I have absolutely no idea as to what you could possibly be talking about... The Flash ^{talk} 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Publications which are a collection of other work, ie, chapters in a book, entries in an encyclopedia, articles in a newspaper, take in Wikistyle either cite book, or cite journal as appropriate; unless they're truly not collections such as reports in a data base, or screeds, pamphlets or miscellaneous ramblings on a website. Again, this comes down to inappropriate use of cite web for items that are not cite web items. Badmouth is an excellent example as its clearly a periodical that merely happens to issue via web. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References section (your bibliography) should not have page references, unless you're citing journal articles or chapters in an edited collection. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed section title to "Further reading" and put it below "Notes." The Flash ^{talk} 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it's not Further reading, I changed again (see WP:LAYOUT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 old comments

Flash, your cites have problems primarily with the way you've cited books. You and I discussed this before, and I wasn't happy with them then. Still not. If you're going to use the cite template as you did for Web, Video, DVD, etc, I suggest using it throughout. So, instead of linking your book cites to the references, you need to use the cite books template. This should solve part of the problem with the citations. Then, I suggest you make a comprehensive bibliography--yes, I know, pain in the neck, but I think it's necessary. You might refer to the bibliography if the Featured Article Inner German Border for help, and if you want some assistance from someone who knows a lot about citations, contact User:Fifelfoo .... With your permission, I'll fix as many of the punctuation problems that I can find, if you'd like. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try to make myself clearer this time. I see absolutely zero issue with citing books like this. Every single historical biography article I've ever read uses it like this — just check out Grover Cleveland, Edgar Allen Poe, George Washington, John Adams, etc. They all list the books then use "Smith, p. 256" It's a clear-cut and clean way to keep the reference section neat and I really can't fathom why this is being completely hated by every reviewer that has commented on refs. As for bibliography, those are the only books that mention him, so if you like I can just rename the header. Finally, I would appreciate it if you could fix any punc. problems, that would be helpful. The Flash ^{talk} 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55, you cite Inner German Border, but that article does pretty much what Flash did in Dan Povenmire (mini-refs for books, linked to a separate section that lists the books using {{cite book}}), except with multiple sections.

So would you explain further what you request with "So, instead of linking your book cites to the references, you need to use the cite books template."? Do you want him to move all book cites to "Further reading", and then make all direct page cites mini-refs (which would make sense)? Otherwise, I'm confused, and surely Flash as well (he already uses {{cite book}} for the main cites of the books). --an odd name (help honey) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think you need to find out what Sandy means, then. I don't find the citations particularly easy to follow, and I won't TOUCH them. (Personally, I don't like to use the templates, because they make me crazy). You need someone who has greater expertise in that to deal with it. Again, I suggest Fifelfoo.

I've gone through and fixed all the punctuation errors I could find, according to WP:PUNC, or at least my understanding of it. I smoothed out a few rough spots, and I hope I didn't change meaning in places.

For example, References like this "^ a b Marcotte, John (2004-01-22). "Comic Strip War". Badmouth. Retrieved 2009-06-08." are incorrect. Badmouth is not |publisher=. Badmouth is |title= |journal=. It is an online newspaper or magazine equivalent. This is intensely frustrating when people use templates, but don't understand the fundamentals of what a citation is. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just looked over the top half of the citations and didn't see any problems remaining, so I'm unclear if these issues have already been addressed, or if Fifelfoo sees something I don't. For example, the "Comic Strip War" citation (above) looks correct:

• <ref name="badmouth">{{cite web|url=http://www.badmouth.net/comic-strip-war/|title=Comic Strip War|author=Marcotte, John|publisher=Badmouth|date=2004-01-22|accessdate=2009-06-08}}</ref>

I'm also unclear on why so much time is being spent on citation formatting when the more important question is reliability of sources. Citation formatting can be sorted on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the way refs are style should be of little importance, the reliability of sources which took up a majority of spacing in the previous version of the FAC is what should really be addressed. Also, the "title" field is for the title of the article, not the publisher as you stated Fifelfoo — this is all explained in the instructions for Template:Cite web. The Flash ^{talk} 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the way the refs present is of importance to me. Apologies for indicating |title= instead of |journal= above; and the template is incorrect; Badmouth is a periodical (a journal), not simply a webcite. Compare:

Marcotte, John (2004-01-22). "Comic Strip War". Badmouth. Retrieved 2009-06-08.

Marcotte, John (2004-01-22). "Comic Strip War". Badmouth. Retrieved 2009-06-08.

(Damn I wish we had Cite Turabian.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that Badmouth was also available in hard print; if that's the case, Fifelfoo is correct, and it should be italicized, which can be accomplished by using the correct cite template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It publishes periodically, is edited by an editor, and purports to act as a periodical. The media format its transmitted on doesn't matter. The function of the publication: an edited periodical, does. We don't, for example, cite Guttenberg Project books through citeweb. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in changing it to cite journal when changing "publisher" to "work" will make it look the exact same, no? The Flash ^{talk} 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I understand that it's a journal, SuperFlash101, one of Fifelfoo's points is that the correct italics in this case speaks (somewhat) to the reliability of the source; it's a legitimate publication rather than "just some website". That's why these things need to be correct. Why not do it right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood, I suppose. Changed to cite journal. The Flash ^{talk} 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)