Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Spoo

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nydas (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 30 August 2008 (→FARC commentary: remove). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spoo

Review commentary

FAR 1 FAR 2

1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:

  • Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources. Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event," whereas "primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event." 17/27 of the footnotes comprise primary sources: Internet postings by the creator of Babylon 5, Dining on Babylon 5 (a book published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5), TV episodes, a short film, and a song. The article, therefore, fails the requirement that articles should rely on secondary sources.
I rarely comment on a FAR but I feel that this policy must be clarified. The policy uses the word "should" which is not be confused with the word "must". The FA criteria requires reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should and must are synonyms. "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" appears in an official policy, and all FAs must abide by official policies. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree on this. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. There's a very clear difference drilled into me in High School debate team, yea these multiple decades ago. If a policy states a requirement, it must use must. In the same way, a guideline should use should. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So when WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", we don't really have to follow it, since it says should instead of must? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the way it's written, yes. Of course, there may have been a decision made to avoid the more precise language. Reasons to do so include that the use of the word 'must' seems demanding and incompatible with a volunteer project, or that the Foundation's legal counsel felt that use of the word 'must' would create legal problems for the Foundation in the event that the policies are not followed. I have no knowledge of any such considerations, however. Rather than saying that should and must are synonymous, which they are not, it might be more on point to assert that 'should' when used in an official Wikipedia policy is normative, not optative. That seems to support your point, while still avoiding unnecessary torture of the English language. :-) (disclaimer: I write policies for a living, so my usage of words in this context may be overly precise and downright arcane) Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does indeed say "should" as it ought. Using "must" in that context would have the unfortunate meaning that any editor who sees such material is obliged to remove it, no matter what. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" does not mean that "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Primary sources are legitimate sources, per WP:PSTS, the very section you're selectively quoting, and are often the best sources for a given area of coverage. You cannot use primary sources as the basis for an independent analysis of a subject (that is OR), but factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing. Have you looked, for instance, at the "Plot" section of nearly every movie article on the site, including the FAs?--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Of course factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing—when used in conjunction with ample secondary sources. That is not the case here. Movie articles, if they truly are FA quality, will draw heavily upon secondary sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then what you're saying is "delist, too much use of primary sources". I don't see how this in and of itself should be a reason to delist an FA. If it had no secondary sources, it would fail WP:N. (That is, depending on whether you considered "inherited notability" kosher... which is not at this time a resolved issue.)--Father Goose (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious I haven't presented this point very effectively. My point is that once you remove the 7 citations that clearly violate WP:V and WP:NOR, as explained below, you are left only with primary sources and a few highly questionable secondary sources. The problem is not too many primary sources but rather too few, or no, good secondary sources. Solid secondary sources are the flesh and blood of this encyclopedia; although primary sources are useful in some cases, for the most part we should let the historians handle them. This, I take it, is what Jimbo means when he says "this is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists" in the quote below. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Self-published...personal websites...forum postings...and similar sources are largely not acceptable." 3/27 of the footnotes comprise forum postings and a personal website, none of which involve J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5.
  • Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." 4/27 of the footnotes comprise sources that attempt to support the conclusion "Straczynski was not the first person to use the word spoo - uses can be found in popular culture since the 1970s," but none of them explicitly reach this conclusion, and none of them are directly related to the subject of the article.
  • So, 24/27 of the footnotes fail the content policies that 1c is based upon. What do the remaining 3 contain?
    • A draft of an article and a tv.com biography, which attempt to support the claim "Straczynski's use of Usenet and other internet forums is well known," a fact that, while important, is not specifically about spoo.
    • A USENET FAQ, which attempts to support the claim "The question of what spoo is made it into the major Babylon 5 FAQ," an absurdly inane fact.
    • A Lurker's Guide entry, containing the statement "The price of spoo is highly volatile: near the beginning of the episode, as Mack and Bo ate lunch, Mack claimed it cost 10 credits an ounce. At the end of the episode, he said it cost 15," which somehow has been stretched into "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges. During one episode the price of a spoo sandwich is stated as ten credits an ounce; at the end of the same episode it is stated as fifteen credits. While this could be a simple mistake by Straczynski, a bit of fanon assumes that it is an intentional reference to spoo's exorbitant volatility in the market." in Wikipedia's article.
  • One final thought: "The article spoo that you mention is a very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion." —Jimbo Wales, creator of Wikipedia, a year after the article was featured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has only minor changes since the last FAR, mostly some changes to accessdates. Sourcing was addressed in previous FARs. Nothing really has changed here, so no need for a review. Gimmetrow 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment diffs between the version of the article Jimbo criticized and today's iteration.
    • To me Jimbo's opinion has the same weight as that of any other editor on this encyclopedia. The community has decided that the article is worthy of inclusion on this encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove this nomination now - The article has twice been FAR'd, there are no new issues whatsoever, and it was decided that the references used are allowable. Jimbo can have his opinion, but the people who actually build his encyclopedia have been very clear about where they stand on the issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I remember when they happened, and I didn't agree with the AFD or the FAR then, and I don't now. The sources are not the most optimal, but they are from the creators of the substance, and are therefore reliable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Midnight_Spoo_copy_lite.jpg might be unnecessary, but the others all seem pretty justifiable. There aren't going to be free images available of a fictional subject.--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's only a small portion of the non-free content criteria. Does Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg convey signification information that Image:Spoo Close Up 3 lite.jpg does not? (3a) Does it significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? (8) Is it impossible to convey by text alone? (1) Pagrashtak 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have the WikiProjects/users associated with this article been notified of this FAR? I don't see a list of notifications at the top of this FAR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Concerns- Delist
    • Images: How do any of the images, besides those directly identifying the subject, meet WP:NFCC? Can't it be said in text Skeletor got offered Spoo?
    • WP:WAF- entire sections such as "Commodity" don't help an outside reader understand the subject, and veer into unnecessary detail
    • Sources: I have nothing against using primary sources, and have used them many times. However there needs to be a balance. Flood has 14 secondary sources. Many of Spoo's citations are more like footnotes, and several are flying in the face of WP:RS (such as current ref 23; we can't throw people at Google and just say 'it is notable, look here'.) Next to no info on creation or reception beyond fans- in other words, little to show the actual food, not the word, have relevance outside of the series.
    • Summation: Fails 1b, 1c, 3, and 4 of WP:FA?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep listed. It is clear that this article relies on the best available sources, and that the sources available are reliable by any sane or objective measure. To declare that these sources fail to meet our criteria misses the point - this article, and I say this as a published scholar in popular culture, is well-sourced. It is we who are mistaken if we say otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced /= reliably sourced. I could make you an excellent sourced article on the Helljumpers from the Halo series. That doesn't mean it is fit for this encyclopedia. Spoo lacks secondary reliable sources for its continued inclusion. This is a minor piece of fiction which appeared, according to the article, in only eight episodes of a series and is inherently fanbait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you are arguing that "well-sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not synonyms, you have departed reality in favor of Wikipedia jargon-land. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me how forum postings meet RS, and I'll stop considering this fancruft in need of deletion, let alone demotion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how comments by the creator and more or less sole writer of a television series aren't reliable sources. Never mind RS - if RS says that J. Michael Straczynski talking about Babylon 5 in any verifiable medium isn't a reliable source, RS is on crack. And, notably, I haven't read RS in a month or two. It's frankly irrelevant to this discussion - if it says that JMS speaking on B5 isn't a reliable source, it is transparently wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, the relevant quote from WP:SPS is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." JMS is an expert on B5. JMS' work on B5 has been published in RS. Therefore, use of JMS' SPS are RS WRT B5, QED. If we're agreed on the logic, WP:B5 members can certainly source each statement therein to everyone's satisfaction. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about that guy as a source: it's a primary source which falls under WP:SPS as long as its verifiable. But the article has, next to no secondary sources which prove the article is notable. All I know is that the creator used the phrase once before in a show he worked for, and that fans spoofed it, and that college students used the term. That doesn't equal notable, and none of the "See Usenet posting via Google" are reliable sources and should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope, given the contentiousness of notability and fictional subjects, that FAR would not become a frontier in that battle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, I object strenuously to the use of FAR for a problem like "too many non-free images." That's trivial to fix - go remove the images and challenge the fair use rationales. FAR is not an appropriate response to easily fixable issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither here nor there, but it was brought here for 1c concerns, not 3. Pagrashtak 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak FA jargon. What are 1c and 3? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1c and 3 are "factually accurate" and "image" clauses of the FA criteria. Ec: "claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed..." Ergo, we need reliable sources, of which at least five are patently not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to specify what five? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only four (though there are more I'm not sure about.) Current refs 14, 16, 25, 13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13 and 14 seem to me trivial - they're minor references for a side point, and I don't really see them as major issues. Remove them if they offend. 16 does not bother me particularly - the Usenet post is a sufficiently reliable primary source for the basic fact that the term was used. The only bothersome claim is "earliest use," since to my knowledge Google's Usenet indexing is not complete. 25 is a non-issue, being redundant with 26, but is probably worth keeping due to its link to the primary source of the song. I'd agree with removing 13 and 14 and recasting 16 slightly, but I am unable to see how these add up to de-listing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way... explain to me what the significant secondary sources are which make this article notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is an appropriate discussion given that the overall question of notability and fictional subjects is ambiguous. Delisting a FA while this is being discussed seems unwise. If nothing else, we have learned by now that we cannot effectively stem the tide of articles of this sort being created. Given that, a FA that is a genuinely good model for how to do articles of this sort seems to me a positive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was a great question. Starting with the secondary sources that provide notability will probably be the best way to improve the article. I've removed refs 13 and 14 based on the above. Pagrashtak 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, seeing this discussion and looking at the article again, the references that do exist are very poorly done, they are much more like notes and not actual references; they say what happens in the episode they reference, instead of citing the actual episode, for example. Proper formatting and fixing this aspect will give us a much better idea of what is a reference and what is not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if we axe that reference, the only other source that meets secondary criteria and is a reliable source (maybe) is the Babylon Park short, but that too, is just a video, and isn't a reliable source for demonstrating the notability of spoo. The main issue with this article is serious original research and synthesis is being done here. We need a source that says "Spoo, a fictional food, has a significant impact in the fan community" or something along those lines; we can't take some songs and say that they are indicative of a wider impact. For all you know, those two guys were the only ones who gave a damn about spoo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm simply elevating notability concerns to the level due of a fictional subject FA. I would expect you, Phil, to know better about reliable sources. The OR and questionable sources are a serious issue, and I'm giving it serious thought and time. If need be, we can do an RfC to judge the reliability of all the usenet sources. But if we gutted all questionable sources and possible OR, we'd be left with very little in the way of featured material. The burden of evidence falls upon you, Phil; we have every right to be skeptical. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the Luke Ski, Babylon Park, and JMS posts (which I am skeptical of the appropriateness of calling primary sources for Spoo) all as establishing notability. I remain broadly skeptical of the relationship between notability and fictional subjects, and I am sure you are well aware that the matter remains controversial. I find your dogmatism here unhelpful and ill-advised. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm saying that I don't see any of the above as establishing notability, least of all the JMS stuff (If you can explain how that is not a primary source, I'm all ears.) I think soliciting the opinions of venues such as WP:RSN is warranted, since I believe we have a fundamental difference in opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the person who posted the usenet information said at some point he did post the information listed, in which case it would be usable. I would look around for that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event [...] published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." He's a primary source; he's not taking information from primary sources and performing synthesis, then he'd be secondary. Developer commentaries, et al are all primary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll grant that they're primary on the overall work, but I'm disinclined to agree in terms of specific elements. But then, I'm inclined to look at this from a larger perspective - in covering Babylon 5, there are numerous reliable sources that provide a good deal of information about Spoo, a fair bit of it real-world. If there were no length limits on articles, it seems clear to me that Babylon 5 would rightly have a sizable section on Spoo. I think questions of its notability have to be taken in that context. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind those who keep defending this embarrassment that featured articles are meant to exemplify our very best work? Look at the sources. Actually look. Read them. All of them. Here's one example: Rusty0918 of the Jedi Council Forums writes "Yes, this is Spoo Space, keep going down..." in a message board post, so that means "spoo space" is a verifiably widespread term. This scholarship exemplifies our very best work? Really?

Here's another: the fan-made Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 notes "The price of spoo is highly volatile." This has been expanded into some crackpot highschool lesson on economics in the Wikipedia article: "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges." This exemplifies our very best work? Are you kidding me?

Another: A Wikipedian found "[Deleted Spoo]" in some 1989 sci.physics post, so that apparently means it is the first recorded instance of the word on USENET; linguistic researchers are apparently out of a job. Paradigmatic cases of original research represent our very best work? You're joking, right? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you haven't refuted Punctured's opinion (and mine) that there aren't "numerous reliable sources that provide a good deal of information about Spoo, a fair bit of it real-world". If there are, they should be in this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, nothing more, nothing less.
  1. The used sources and how they were used (as demonstrated by Punctured Bicycle above) make it extremely unlikely that this article would pass FAC if it was nominated today. Although I do not have a problem with JMS as a source (he is reliable after all), or his forum posts (his way of commenting doesn't make him less reliable), the article still violates WP:V's "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the article is therefore not among "the best articles in wikipedia" (my emphasis, WP:FA).
  2. Unlike the times when this article was promoted to FA, there is significant acknowledgement now (see e.g. the current discussions at WP:Good topics) that some articles do not have FA-potential although they are legitimate GAs, simply because of their limited scope, which seems to be the case here.
  3. Talking from a disambiguation perspective, the section "Real-world etymology of the word" describes a totally different concept and should thus have its own article (or just a wiktionary page). Which limits the real-world info about spoo in the B5 universe even more, and it's coming dangerously close to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) - although I am never opposed to merging.
  4. This whole article reminds me of Jello in the Stargate universe which was picked up in several audio commentaries (acknowledgement as a running gag by the producers) and fan forums ("Jello" as the name of the reputation blocks etc., google results imply that jello stargate is over five times as popular as spoo babylon). Most people would agree that Jello (Stargate) would be a bad idea for an FA article, so how is Spoo any different? (This is probably the least convincing argument, but at least I see where people are coming from when they say that Spoo is simply not an FA-worthy topic.)
(I do realise that I am digging my own grave here since I have created similar fiction articles that are dear to me, but I accept that the future of an FA-quality wikipedia is not going to be with all the Spoo-like articles.) – sgeureka t•c 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Spoo. Please keep the declarations short and sweet. Marskell (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose removal. Babylon Park, Luke Ski, and JMS Usenet posts all are, to me, valid sources for notability purposes. Other sources adequate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delist. Phil has not demonstrated per the requirements of WP:RS and WP:SPS how the above are reliable or demonstrate notability of the subject as defended. USEnet posting in particular should not be used for sourcing. Secondary issue of original research in the article in part reinforced by the use of unreliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. - I agree with David Fuchs (talk · contribs) - the article lacks in-line citations to secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS/WP:V - and in other locations the cited "sources" simply violate WP:OR/WP:SPS. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is one of the most disgusting things I have seen in my time on Wikipedia. The continued raising of the bar in this debate has been utterly pathetic. Every time a response is marshalled or a change has been made to this article, suddenly the criteria demanded changes. It is pathetically obvious that this is in no way about improving the article, and that nothing will ever satisfy the de-listers. This is a pathetic, naked hit job being used to open another front in the discussion of notability on fictional articles. Never mind that this is as good and thorough an article on a fictional topic as we have on Wikipedia. Never mind that its sourcing is, in practice, impeccable and reliable by any measure. Never matter the hair-splitting and residence within the echo chamber of Wikipedia necessary to twist this article into some unreliable piece of flimflam. This article must die, clearly. Fine. Delist it. Delete it. Clearly this is going to get rammed through process without any regards to reason. Why fight it.
  • I am ashamed to be a part of this project some days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delist The interpretation of WP:SPS is uncompelling, and I don't see meaningful change since the last review. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you oppose delist then you think the article exemplifies our very best work. Explain, as one example, how appealing to anonymous Internet poster Rusty0918 exemplifies our very best work. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am uncertain of the problem here. It is clear that Rusty0918's post says what it is presumed to say. Still, this is one sentence that is incidental to the article at large. If this is really your objection, I'm sure we can compromise on removing that sentence and you dropping your FAR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are two separate issues: sourcing and notability. Nothing with regard to sourcing changed since the last FAR, and FAR isn't the venue for notability discussions. Gimmetrow 03:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you oppose delist then you think the article exemplifies our very best work. Explain, as one example, how using a Beatle Baily comic strip to substantiate a claim about a word (rather than, say, a scholarly article by a linguist) exemplifies our very best work. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is this an invalid use of a primary source? It is making a non-controversial and obvious claim about the usage of the word in the strip in question. Please, explain how this violates WP:RS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Phil, the relevant policy is no original research. According to WP:OR, you must not use sources to "advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used." The Beatle Bailey comic strip does not directly and explicitly support the position advanced in the article: "The earliest known print usage was as an exclamation in a 1971 Beetle Bailey comic strip, as a play on the reverse spelling of 'oops.'" (emphasis added). The only kind of source that could support this position is an article or dictionary entry written by a professional linguist. "Firsts" are frequently controversial, and are never obvious. Of course, I am ignoring for the moment the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Babylon 5 foodstuff and can just as easily be removed for being irrelevant. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of objections

One of the most important rules, as I understnad it, at FAC is the idea of actionable criticisms. That is, an objection to a FA nomination must be something that can be fixed. As it stands, the objections here are not actionable. When specific objections have been raised they have been, without fail, easy to fix. But beyond that the objections have amounted to "there's... stuff that's not good." This is not fair, and should not be counted. To better clarify this discussion, I would appreciate if the specific, actionable objections to this article's featured status are compiled so that actual response and editing is possible. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps the vote could be suspended for a few days while this process goes on. As it is currently a straight-up deadlock, this ought not be terribly controversial - it is not as though this is a tactic to block a vote that is currently going against the article).

I've added the three actionable objections that I am aware of - all of which are now fixed. Will others please note the specific flaws in the article so that a better idea of what needs to be fixed can be obtained? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beetle Bailey reference. Claim changed to be more specific and supportable by source.
  • "Spoo Space" internet forum reference. Claim removed.
  • Google search reference. Claim fine-tuned. Google is, in this case, a fine source because it is a complete Usenet index, and so can be used to make historical claims of this nature.

You need to show that the Babylon Park and Luke Ski uses of spoo are notable, or that they themselves are reliable sources for fandom (or, for example, replace the current 1st-part sources with, say, a New York Times article mentioning Luke Ski's contributions to fan music and the spoo shindig.) You need to clean up the prose, which is not brilliant ("After several years of speculation from Babylon 5 fandom, Straczynski finally offered an extensive, humorous explanation of the origins and nature of spoo. [...] After several years of cryptic answers, Straczynski finally made a post explaining what Spoo was.", et al). And then we need more content, because I'm not sure if 800-something words can qualify as an FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there length requirements for FAs? I was unaware of that. I also confess, I don't see the problems with those bits of prose. Explain? Ski's notability, I thought, was clear. Babylon Park seems notable: [1] is a pretty high-profile accolade for a fandom site, and its first episode was called Spoohunter, which is a significant reference. And the Luke Ski song has, effectively, a full verse on Spoo with the fade-out dialogue. Both seem non-trivial mentions, and both are clearly secondary sources of independent notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Luke Ski and Babylon Park are not notable, maybe someone should list those articles at AFD. Gimmetrow 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, stop serving food on the bait-train, we're here to discuss one article not a slew of crap on the far side of the wiki. Meanwhile, I believe my main issue here is what Ski and the Park tell us. That fans really loved Spoo? First off, two fans don't equal the entire base, so the references don't help us there as they aren't indicative of any other impact. Secondly, there's no "tangible" impact mentioned. I'm talking little plush spoo-thingies, merchandise, something of that sort which most fictional items seem to have (although looking at TARDIS, it's in need of some major cleanup itself, but that also is irrelevant to the current discussion.) As to length, there has been considerable discussion at FAC and GAN to the effect that articles of such limited scope cannot become FAs (thus the auditing requirement of FTC for these articles.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is moving a bit existentially, and starting to go beyond what I think WP:N demands. In my understanding, WP:N demands multiple independent sources with non-trivial mentions of the subject. Babylon Park and Luke Ski are independent, they are two different sources, and both non-trivially mention Spoo. That satisfies all policy requirements, doesn't it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just throwing out concerns when I think of them, I'm not out to get you Phil. N states the preference for secondary, and in this way I think it's best we have someone say that Luke Ski/Babylon Park did the spoo-referencing works, for one thing. Now, given the current size of the article, I'm also suggesting that it might be best to merge the article into the Babylon parent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lordie... that kind of mergism would bloat the B5 article very, very quickly if we started targeting similarly notable things. In any case - are we at least in agreement that there's no policy issue in terms of WP:N here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, the arguments are blurring, and that's the problem. Sourcing is in relation to the topic. Some topics can be discussed entirely from peer reviewed literature, others not so much. Spoo is not a major character in Babylon 5 (as far as I can tell). It's a plot device that appeared in a few episodes. It looks to me like the tribbles of Babylon 5. I'm not sure fuzzballs contribute any more to "tribble" significance than spoo keyrings, but if you think so, the Babylon 5 cookbooks may be relevant. As for the GA/FA thing, GA was originally for short articles, but it quickly began reviewing very long articles, and FA has promoted a few very short articles. Short articles can run into problems with the comprehensive criterion, but the issue isn't simply length, it's whether the article covers aspects of the topic expected of comparable topics. Gimmetrow 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil, my WP:N concerns haven't entirely been allayed, but I think we should try and avoid the repetitiveness of you and me beating our heads on opposite sides of the same wall and try and inject some fresher blood into this discussion. Perhaps some of the FAC wigs (Ealdgyth, if she's willing) might be able to help move this in a more constructive direction? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Phil's comments, I have removed all questionable sources and their corresponding statements, edited out trite detail, rewrote entire sections, restructured the article, and copyedited for stylistic consistency. I've tried as hard as I can to make the article as good as possible given the subject. And yet it still isn't featured quality. It fails WP:V and WP:RS, which both say the same thing very clearly: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not based on third-party sources. It is based on first-party sources: recollections from the show's creator, TV episodes, songs, and film shorts. Similarly, it fails WP:OR: for example, no reliable, third-party, published source notes that spoo is referenced in the film short or song; these are true, but "unpublished facts."

There has been talk of merging above. I actually think that if this was boiled down some more it could be a decent entry in an article like Babylon 5 universe. It seems common practice to merge minor fictional elements into one main article, rather than have individual articles for each. But before any merging can happen the article must be defeatured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly unimpressed by the suggestion that the remaining sources in the article are in any way problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, this is archaeology, a lovingly restored facsimile of something that was once a big deal to a few people. But the picture is so incomplete and the sources so rudimentary that it can't be anything other than original research.--Nydas(Talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Spoo/archive2&oldid=235223490"