Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Truthiness

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 01:38, 29 September 2007.

---

Truthiness

Previous FAC

Since the article was last nominated for FA status last year, the article has been dramatically improved. I believe that this article is now worthy to be of such status. ISD 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support Subject obviously has had relevant cultural impact and coverage since Colbert popularized it. However, currently it seems to have too many sections that are arranged more in a time-line fashion than an article fashion. So, support on the grounds it is notable, but I wouldn't mind seeing a restructuring. The Clawed One 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Supporting on the grounds it's notable seems sketchy. If it wasn't, it shouldn't have an article at all... Featured articles are not about the subject, but about the article quality. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support This a great article, it has all the information anyone would need on Truthiness and has great citations. "Truthiness" should be used as a model for other word articles. Voot42 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• A few comments:

• First, the prose in the first few sentences of the "Origins" section sounds very stilted: "Stephen Colbert did this. He did this. He used the word here." I'd like to see it flow a little better in more compelling, coherent prose. (Should only require some minor restructuring).
• The Wikipedia section seems to exhibit to me the bias of authors writing about it in Wikipedia -- that is, I feel its authors are forgetting that not everyone is a Wikipedian. I see this particularly in the last sentence in that section, which deviates entirely from the subject at hand (truthiness) and simply discusses Colbert's history with Wikipedia, which is entirely irrelevant. I would say this of the entire closing paragraph, but if the elephants thing was directly linked to truthiness -- i.e., "You should change it because it makes it truthy" -- I suppose it is okay. (Was it linked in that way? Because there's nothing about elephants in the excerpted monologue, and no citation supporting the fact that "This lead [sic, fix] to Colbert encouraging his viewers to vandalise the Wikipedia.") In that continuing vein, concepts like an article being protected should either be explained better or wikilinked to the relevant sections of the article Wikipedia or the relevant policy page explaining that practice.
• The article's organization seems a bit off: only two main body sections. "Popularity and widespread use" seems like it's trying to take too big a bite out of the material. I would recommend splitting that material up into one section dealing with the history of the term, post-first-episode -- how it took off, its trajectory and media coverage, its getting Word of the Year, etc. -- and then another section on "Applications" or "Instances of use" or something -- like the James Frey controversy, Colbert at the WHCA dinner, and Colbert's further discussion of wikiality, all of which are really post-phenomenon events still relevant to the subject.

I don't have time now to give this a thorough reading-through, though I intend to later today or tomorrow. At any rate, I will give my overall impression, which is that I'm reluctant to support -- I'm not sure this article is ready yet. I realize that's not helpful to you trying to improve it, though, so when I come back, I will have specific objections that can be addressed, as per WP:FAC. Dylan 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is being improved in response to your comments. ISD 06:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support! I really like the new structure, it's much better than before. All concerns being addressed, I think this is ready. Good job. Dylan 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Thorough, well-written, and up to FA standards. Nice work. -- Wikipedical 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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.