Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mom and Dad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.
Mom and Dad[edit]
A new nomination of the most profitable exploitation film in history, a sub-article of sorts from current FA Kroger Babb. Much of the text comes straight from there in some reorganization, the article has been copyedited by a number of people over the last few months, and I think it meets the criteria.
- I believe it to be well-written, and there's no issues on comprehensiveness or stability - I believe this touches upon every aspect of the film that's readily available.
- Meets MOS guidelines to the best of my knowledge.
- Fair use rationale for the poster exists, no problems.
- The length is appropriate given the subject matter, the issues surrounding it, and the available information.
I think this meets the standard, so let's have at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good, but not featured quite yet. These fixes are needed:
- Many redlinks in cast and crew.
- References: At minimum, if using this ref style, you should indicate year and pages for print media, such as <ref>Smith (2002) pp 206-210</ref>. None of the refs mention the year, and many don't even mention page numbers. Consider using the referencing style of Cricket World Cup, which does what this article is trying to do, and is itself a featured article...
Happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Red liks are never a reason to oppose an FA candidacy. Red links show us we need articles, plain and simple. They are very important to the growth of Wikipedia. At any rate, "no red links" is not part of the FA criteria. Second, the referencing style used in the article is perfectly fine. "You did not use the referencing style I prefer" is not an actionable objection. — Brian (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Overt violations of the Manual of Style are not actionable??? I find that hard to believe. WP:WIAFA 1(c) asks one to use the WP:CITE page, where there are NO acceptable formats where listing only the author is acceptable. Other style guides like MLA, APA, etc. also never use this style. If this article is to be the best of wikipedia, then it should at least have references that are checkable, and formatted according to SOME style guide, not just some random format. The existance of redlinks shows that no one has created the articles for the people in question. This could be two problems:
- If it is the first problem, create the article for them as a stub. Then we have a bluelink. If it is the second problem, we shouldn't have an article for those people, so wikilinking is inappropriate. There are NUMEROUS articles that come up for Featured nomination that are held up for too many redlinks. I never said there could be no redlinks. This is ALSO in the manual of style, in the page on linking, clearly advises against overlinking, especially in cases where ~10% or more of the links are redlinks. WP:WIAFA criteria 2 requires compliance with the MOS. These are not small problems, and we should not promote an article as the best wikipedia has to offer with such glaring issues...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a similar reference style to The Turk, except that I broke out the longer titles and put them in one place - all the sources are listed right at the bottom, and this doesn't appear to be unorthodox, but I don't necessarily mind changing it back if there's good reason. WP:CITE, after all, doesn't require a specific type of citation, but rather that the citations are consistent throughout. As for the redlinks, they're simply because I haven't made them. I'll create an article when I'm good and ready, or when someone else who can do it justice. As you note and I quote, "an article may be considered overlinked if...[M]ore than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist." Emphasis mine - just because our coverage of film in this area is low at the moment doesn't mean that we're overlinking now. It's entirely subjective. And if you really want to get specific about the MOS guideline, I have about 100 wikilinks in the article total, and 13 are redlinked. Either you can continue being concerned about those extra 3%, or I can find more things to Wikilink that I de-bluelinked right now to dip that number below 10%. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The redlinks are for expansion, and I won't be removing them. I don't mind putting dates in if it's a killer for you, but the dates are already in the works cited section - is that redundancy useful? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was objecting to Jayron32's insistence that years be added to the footnotes. He/she is right that page numbers need to be added where applicable (i.e., for everything but web references). And I stand by my comments on redlinks. If Jayron had argued that the article was overlinked, that would be an actionable objection. But he/she was originally complaining about the mere existence of redlinks in the article, which is, of course, not actionable. — Brian (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise if you thought I was replying to you on that last one. With the page numbers, everywhere they're available, I've added them - some of my newspaper resources are photocopies from a library on the other side of the country and thus don't have that information. I've been as specific as possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I made it seem as if the year thing was an issue. I want to state this clearly and loudly and for all to hear: The years make NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. I could have given a shit about the years. The issue is the page numbers. If a 300 page book is cited, it is inadequate to simply say "Somewhere in this book the info can be found." What the references lacked, and ALL THEY LACKED, was page numbers. The problem was NOT THE YEARS. It was that the references were inadequate because they lacked PAGE NUMBERS, which would allow someone to verify where in the book the information came from. Again, this miscommunication is MY FAULT and NOBODY ELSES FAULT, and I APOLOGIZE UNEQUIVOCALLY for the misunderstanding. However, it appears that this has been largely fixed. It was never a reference FORMAT issue, it was a COMPLETENESS issue. The refs were inadequate. This has been fixed. Oh, and apparently, you two care a WHOLE LOT about keeping redlinks in the article. If you think the article looks better with it keep them. The strength of your caring that they stay has outweighed the strength at which I would like to see them gone. You win, I will no longer force the issue, on the grounds that I don't care as much as you guys do. While we are on references, some other things that need clearing up:
- The Joe Bob Briggs reference appears to be referenced to a journal. We have no issue, volume, or page numbers. That needs to be fixed, as if I want to look this information up myself, I need to find that article. The reference as yet does not let me do that.
- The pressbook reference makes it unclear what this reference is or where it comes from. If I were to try to hunt this reference down, how would I locate it? Again, we need more bibliographic information about it.
- The McDougal reference is also sketchy. It looks like an article that was published somewhere? Where? Was it in a journal somewhere? There is not enough information in this reference for someone to find it.
- The big problem with this isn't format, it isn't some minor style thing, its that the references are inadequately complete for someone to use them to verify the information that they support in the article. I am not doubting that they do, it is just that it is impossible to verify that they do. If these references can be brought up to ANY level of completeness, so that someone could actually find them, I will change my vote to support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm glad we've worked that misunderstanding out. To answer your new concerns:
- The Joe Bob Briggs info is sourced to the November 2003 issue of the magazine Reason. It's linked in the article under "external links."
- The pressbook reference is...the pressbook for the film. The second paragraph under "Marketing and presentation" explains what the pressbook is. How can you get one? I'm not sure at this point - I have one in my personal collection, and they're not entirely rare, but perhaps some specialty libraries may have them.
- Then expand the title to read "Pressbook for Mom and Dad, (CITY, STATE:Hallmark Productions, c.1959)" That might make it look more like a standard bibliographic entry, which would make it easier to cite and find if needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pressbooks aren't typical books, they're promotional vehicles. They don't work quite like that, but I've expanded it for what I've got on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then expand the title to read "Pressbook for Mom and Dad, (CITY, STATE:Hallmark Productions, c.1959)" That might make it look more like a standard bibliographic entry, which would make it easier to cite and find if needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The McDougal reference is detailed as best as I can find - I went through this problem with FA Kroger Babb - the article came from a photocopy I recieved from a friend, who recieved it from the AMPAS Library as-is, with no date on it. Trust me, it's more frustrating for me than it is for you at this point.
- Dropped in a google search for Dennis McDougal Press Enterprise. Found GOBS of stuff on the author, including this personal website which has a contact page where you can reach him by mail, fax, or email. Drop him a line, ask him if he has information on the article, which apparently was published in the Riverside Press-Enterprise, where he wrote from 1973-1977. It can't hurt to simply say that you are trying to cite the article he wrote for a scholarly paper, don't have the original, and need full bibliographic information about it, such as issue date and so on. Even if he doesn't have it, he could probably refer you to the research department at the paper in question, who can look up the information in short order since you have the author and title. The website for the paper is here; who knows, maybe they have searchable back issues or something as well. I love Google...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done that already. No response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, have you tried the paper? They have a research department. You have an author and a title, if you call them on the phone they should be able to find the information for you. It really should be trivial for them to look up when the article was published. Then you can make the bibliographic entry complete. this google search turns up a google yellow pages entry for the paper, and there is a phone number there.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, and, as I said, I received no response. I saw the link the first time, and I've tried to no avail. It's important to me personally, forget Wikipedia, as I'm trying to write a book on the producer in my personal life, so getting stonewalled on it hasn't been the most pleasant experience. I don't want you thinking I'm poo-poohing your concern on this one or blowing smoke - I have made the effort for myself and received nothing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, have you tried the paper? They have a research department. You have an author and a title, if you call them on the phone they should be able to find the information for you. It really should be trivial for them to look up when the article was published. Then you can make the bibliographic entry complete. this google search turns up a google yellow pages entry for the paper, and there is a phone number there.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done that already. No response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropped in a google search for Dennis McDougal Press Enterprise. Found GOBS of stuff on the author, including this personal website which has a contact page where you can reach him by mail, fax, or email. Drop him a line, ask him if he has information on the article, which apparently was published in the Riverside Press-Enterprise, where he wrote from 1973-1977. It can't hurt to simply say that you are trying to cite the article he wrote for a scholarly paper, don't have the original, and need full bibliographic information about it, such as issue date and so on. Even if he doesn't have it, he could probably refer you to the research department at the paper in question, who can look up the information in short order since you have the author and title. The website for the paper is here; who knows, maybe they have searchable back issues or something as well. I love Google...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope this answers some of your issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm glad we've worked that misunderstanding out. To answer your new concerns:
- I apologize if I made it seem as if the year thing was an issue. I want to state this clearly and loudly and for all to hear: The years make NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. I could have given a shit about the years. The issue is the page numbers. If a 300 page book is cited, it is inadequate to simply say "Somewhere in this book the info can be found." What the references lacked, and ALL THEY LACKED, was page numbers. The problem was NOT THE YEARS. It was that the references were inadequate because they lacked PAGE NUMBERS, which would allow someone to verify where in the book the information came from. Again, this miscommunication is MY FAULT and NOBODY ELSES FAULT, and I APOLOGIZE UNEQUIVOCALLY for the misunderstanding. However, it appears that this has been largely fixed. It was never a reference FORMAT issue, it was a COMPLETENESS issue. The refs were inadequate. This has been fixed. Oh, and apparently, you two care a WHOLE LOT about keeping redlinks in the article. If you think the article looks better with it keep them. The strength of your caring that they stay has outweighed the strength at which I would like to see them gone. You win, I will no longer force the issue, on the grounds that I don't care as much as you guys do. While we are on references, some other things that need clearing up:
- I apologise if you thought I was replying to you on that last one. With the page numbers, everywhere they're available, I've added them - some of my newspaper resources are photocopies from a library on the other side of the country and thus don't have that information. I've been as specific as possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was objecting to Jayron32's insistence that years be added to the footnotes. He/she is right that page numbers need to be added where applicable (i.e., for everything but web references). And I stand by my comments on redlinks. If Jayron had argued that the article was overlinked, that would be an actionable objection. But he/she was originally complaining about the mere existence of redlinks in the article, which is, of course, not actionable. — Brian (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Red liks are never a reason to oppose an FA candidacy. Red links show us we need articles, plain and simple. They are very important to the growth of Wikipedia. At any rate, "no red links" is not part of the FA criteria. Second, the referencing style used in the article is perfectly fine. "You did not use the referencing style I prefer" is not an actionable objection. — Brian (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentsIt's most useful if at least two works by the same author are cited. That does not appear to be the case here.--Rmky87 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It seems to be a very good article. The redundancy with Kroger Babb is nearly gone, and what remains is (I think) acceptible. It's well referenced, and while I agree the referencing style might be a little confusing, I see no reason to change it. It is well written, and seems to have a faster pace than a great many FAs which, IMO bog down in the middle. Good luck! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My assumption is some with any sub-article is going to occur. I'm glad it meets your standard for it, since you were one of the more vocal about the redundancies, so thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Production section seems rather short and not all that comprehensive. Is there more information available about the topic or possibly a reason why information on this aspect is limited/unavailable? ShadowHalo 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The genre is mostly at fault - the productions were done very quickly and with little budget, so not a lot is really known or out there. Detailed records aren't really that available, and I've searched high and low - this is possibly the most comprehensive information available on any of Babb's films, which is saying a lot when you're left wanting some more information on the filming. To the best of my efforts, this is the most information on the actual production that's available for use. Looking at it now, combining the two sections (production and plot) may help the issue, as much of the plot filling was tied into the production end. Would that make any difference? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that makes sense. I've been focusing on song articles recently, where six days of production is more than enough to write about there, but certainly not for a film. If you think merging the sections would help, go ahead. I'll support as it is though. ShadowHalo 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it. I'll merge anyway on further thought, but thanks for the comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that makes sense. I've been focusing on song articles recently, where six days of production is more than enough to write about there, but certainly not for a film. If you think merging the sections would help, go ahead. I'll support as it is though. ShadowHalo 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The genre is mostly at fault - the productions were done very quickly and with little budget, so not a lot is really known or out there. Detailed records aren't really that available, and I've searched high and low - this is possibly the most comprehensive information available on any of Babb's films, which is saying a lot when you're left wanting some more information on the filming. To the best of my efforts, this is the most information on the actual production that's available for use. Looking at it now, combining the two sections (production and plot) may help the issue, as much of the plot filling was tied into the production end. Would that make any difference? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice work. It's great to see such hard work put into cult, exploitation, and horror film articles. Article offers a lot of interesting information on the production. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Support. I went in a cleaned up the refs a bit to be internally consistant, and also to remove the ambiguity of the Press Enterprise cite (there are 2 newspapers named Press Enterprise, on in PA and one in CA. This one is the CA paper). Also, I noticed that one of the Joe Bob Briggs refs has been commented out, specifically his book. Why was this done? Why not leave it in as a reference?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your commentary, help, and support. I've commented out the JBB ref only until I can get my hands on the book again, where I'll then work from the page numbers instead. As they're both essentially the same words, it's merely temporary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can apply the reference formatting the way it is done in Beijing opera? - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest, that style hurts my eyes, and is inconsistent between the use of the <ref> and <ref name=> tags. While I don't nearly have the amount of refs in this article as that one does, that's exactly the type of thing I'd be trying to avoid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This is a fine article and is well written, researched, and cited. Two questions however; why is the girl referred to as just "the girl"; and who or what is "The Presenter", exactly. Ceoil 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.