Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seth MacFarlane/archive1

Add links
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 not promoted by User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [1].

Seth MacFarlane[edit]

Self-nom. I worked on this article for about six months. The article is a GA. All of the images are free use, so the fair use rule doesn't apply. I have fixed the dead external links. I am free to suggestions on improving this article for FA status. miranda 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that this was a premature to nominate this as a featured article, because this is early in his career. Thus, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to those who took the time out to comment on the article. miranda 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://www.wargs.com/other/macfarlane.html a reliable source? Just as an FYI, it's generally considered not ethical for professional genealogists to publish any biographical data on living persons (like Seth's parents).
Not really. Genealogists published results of political/actors, recently. miranda 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo is a reliable source.
This is a biography of a person. I can't find it at the moment (duh!), but I seem to recall a discussion at the RS:N about how Yahoo's biographies of people were editable by anyone? Remember this is a BLP, we should be using the best possible sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean WP:N or WP:RS? miranda 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which has an abbreviation I never can remember. Sorry about that! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users or logged in users can't edit the yahoo article. The site publishes the content. The main content is here. I will find alternate sources. miranda 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're not dealing with an editable-by-anyone type article, yahoo's reliable enough to make it reliable. I could have misremembered!
Official blog of Frederator Studios miranda 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Yahoo.ca story
Flak Magazine - RS
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide, since some folks have a more jaundiced eye about online magazines than I do. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with IGN source.
About page mentions that it is a source used by professionals. Mentioned in reliable magazines. miranda 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will leave this one out for others to decide. I'm always a bit leery of pages from the site itself that say "So-and-so says we're great", not so much because I think they're lying, but you always wonder what got left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff (magazine) - RS
Insider magazine to Hollywood. Has cancellation of shows. I will contact the owner about the website's credentials, forward to OTRS, and place the results here. miranda 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Animation World Network - RS
So a trade organization for Animation professionals? Assuming that is so, I've struck this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsmeat - reliable source. Has campaign contribution reports.
What makes it reliable? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Huffington Post link miranda 23:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike outs, at FAC it's usual to let the person making the comments strike out issues when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I brought this up on the talk page, I'll bring it up again: how is where McFarlane was and what he was doing on September 11 important enough for a dedicated section? By the page's own admission, it didn't affect him that much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see by the talk page, the section was much longer, and I had to cut it. The section is notable because interviewers ask him about his experience with September 11th. And his incidents from September 11th have influences on Family Guy. He uses September 11th in several episodes. Just because someone doesn't think an incident is important to their life, doesn't mean that incident should not be included with the article. miranda 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of TV shows and movies have addressed September 11. The section currently says nothing about why his experiences are important to the reader understanding the subject (i.e., nothing about how 9/11 affected his work.) Without this, it's a section that shouldn't be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — It is still very early in MacFarlane's career, and it is highly likely that this article will be expanded and altered as new shows, films, etc. are produced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support This article looks great. Discount this if you want to, I do after all don't know much about FA, but judging from the readable paragraphs and the references I say it should be featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Use {{cite web}} for references so they are standardized. Several references, such as "Hooper, Barrett. "Winner’s one big loser: Not all ex-Daily Show correspondents make great sitcom stars". Now Toronto. Published March 8, 2007. Retrieved December 21, 2007.", has the publishing date formatted differently from "Finley, Adam. "Seth MacFarlane and Samm Levine in new short film - VIDEO", TV Squad, Webblogs (in partnership with AOL), June 30, 2007. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. "
  • Somewhat of a minor issue, but in "wrote a short titled", "short" is the noun and not the adjective that most people associate it with. Perhaps reword to short subject (and link) or explain it? I had to double-back on that one.
  • "intellectual dog Steve" → "intellectual dog named Steve" might be better
  • "characters called Family Guy." I don't think the characters were called Family Guy; a comma might be better here.

These are only a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of this nomination was probably a wise decision (I say probably because it isn't too far off, with a bit of work) but to withdraw because it is "early in his career"? I don't think that should prevent this from being FA. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I withdrew it because there aren't enough sources online. And, since he reached a new deal with Fox after the strike, it's kind of early in his career. IMHO. miranda 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough; but personally, I would not consider an article to be "too early" for FAC, unless there is a set date for when it would not be "too early" anymore. Examples include sports championships, where their articles would be stable after they ended, film releases, etc. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Seth_MacFarlane/archive1&oldid=1136095566"