Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner[edit]

The article has changed very significantly since it was first nominated, rendering many of the objections (most of them filed early) moot. I'm restarting this one. Old nom here. Raul654 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support. There are a lot of one sentence paragraphs, but otherwise, this is an excellent article given the topic. RyanGerbil10 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great example of how wikipedia can cover unusual topics. 08:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - here are my objections which still stand, from the previous nomination, with comments by RN from there also.
    • There's lots here that's not really relevant to the article. For example in the intro, Before Colbert's presentation, Bush mocked himself with the help of a celebrity impersonator, Steve Bridges is a non sequitur with the previous sentence and is hardly something that needs saying in a concise overview of the article.
      • I think the information is indeed relevant to the article, as throughout the article the event is often compared to the bush vs. bush one by the media, so a little context helps here. RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a non sequitur where it is. A bit more explanation should be given there, or better, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro but only in the main text. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed, it's already duplicated now, I'll remove it from the intro and only mention it to note the difference in audience reaction between Colbert's and Bridge's performances. --kizzle 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Early press coverage', 'Media blackout' and 'Praise and criticism' all deal with the same thing, and organisation is a problem here. You could substantially trim what's here because much of it takes the form 'On such-and-such a date, so-and-so said this'. You need to have a paragraph with an illustrative brief quote which explains the point of view behind the quote, rather than just giving a slightly random list of who said what, when.
  • still Object This line needs reworked and prices need to totally go away, it's advertising: "On May 20th, 2006 Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner became the #1 download ($1.99) at the iTunes Music Store and #6 at Audible.com. C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." " Rlevse 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One could do this, but it may be just a style change - I'm unsure if one would want to trim anything here :). RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why the prices are mentioned is not to advertise, but to give context to the fact that only a couple thousand DVDs were sold while somehow the much-cheaper online version became the top seller at iTunes. I tried to remove the prices and put a qualifier at the end, but it felt like original research because I had no one to specifically quote that that was the reason behind the difference in sales. Thus, lets just make sure the readers know the difference in prices and let them come to their own conclusions, but the vast difference between the C-Span DVD (24.99) and iTunes download (1.99) definetely should be mentioned. --kizzle 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It all feels a bit choppy at the moment, and still looks a bit like the regurgitation of quotes that I originally complained about. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • copies of a DVD of the event, priced at $24.95 - the price is irrelevant and looks like advertising. There's also still a link to the C-SPAN store. We shouldn't be promoting or advertising. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it is doing either - it is just discussing it from a numbers and historical perspective - maybe it is too specific, but some readers might find the extra valuable I guess... RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously, it looks like blatant advertising with a price. It also doesn't follow from the sentence before properly, and lacks a reference as well. The store like is probably OK as the text accompanying it looks less promotional now. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, the prices are inappropriate and look like blatant advertising. Bwithh 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the DVD price is removed, and the citation needed tag(s) are gone. Otherwise, a fine article. If my requests aren't met, consider this an objection. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support incredibly well referenced and is a different type of article, wiki needs more like this. As mentioned above it needs the 1 sentance paras worked out of it.--Childzy 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further opposition brought from old nom:
    • This article presents facts without enough context to make them meaningful. To wit: 24 words and a footnote about people thanking Colbert en masse without explaining why they were thanking him or what they were thanking him for. Further to wit: Not knowing the history of the word balls as Colbert's catch-word or whatever makes the Daily Show reference uninformative
    • This article is bloated with overuse of direct quotes from sources where they are not warranted.
      • C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." (and why give the cost?)
      • why the Washington Post's article about the dinner "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say,"
        • Urm, it says right after the quote, doesn't it :)? I agree that wording needs to be tweaked slightly though :). RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The information is justifiable. My point is that "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say" is a wordy way of saying "did not cover Colbert's performance" or something that effect. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Google searches for "Colbert", "Stephen Colbert", "Colbert Bush", and "Colbert dinner" don't really need to be listed -- none of those are surprising and are perfectly predictable. That doesn't give any more information than just "surge in Colbert-related searches"
        • I lightly disagree with this - we're trying to show it was an "internet sensation" and this helps it - just saying that cspan hits went up probably isn't enough. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just say Colbert searches went up -- this makes it look like there's something interesting about these particular terms, when in fact, they're pretty much what you'd expect would go up if Colbert-related searches went up. I bet "Bush dinner", "Colbert dinner Bush" and various others went up too. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has been significantly improved in this regard, but I still see a number of direct quotes that are unnecessary. Compare:
        • Calame said the fact that the Colbert speech had been mentioned in a later article "didn't explain why Mr. Colbert didn't make The Times in the first place". - this is perfectly ordinary, straightforward English that could easily be reworded.
        • CBC columnist Heather Mallick wrote, "Colbert had the wit and raw courage to do to Bush what Mark Antony did to Brutus, murderer of Caesar. As the American media has self-destructed, it takes Colbert to damn Bush with devastatingly ironic praise." or even Colbert's performance "landed with a thud" among the live audience - both are idiomatic and expressive quotes that could not easily reworded.
    • Many paragraphs are longer than they need to be. e.g. Time columnist Ana Marie Cox called.... Neither of those quotes are particularly useful in and of themselves. That could easily be trimmed without losing anything: "Cox called the allegations of a deliberate blackout a "fake controversy" because Colbert's performance got coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major wire services. Fellow commentator Kurtz concurred, noting that he had played two clips on his own CNN show, and the video was carried on CSpan and available online." (not meant to be an exact suggestion) This does not lose any information, presents and connects all the relevant opinions, without original research. (I don't agree that "I didn't get the memo" needs to be a quote; it's not very illustrative and may be difficult to understand for people who aren't native English speakers. But I can live with it.)
      • While you are right that it doesn't lose much information - I don't really see it as improving anything. Rather, it seems like a change from a more immediate direct quoting style to a more passive one. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not appropriate to quote a source unless quoting is necessary to impart information to the reader. There's no reason this can't be summed up in our own words. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many sections of the article read like random jumbles of facts.
      • Chicago Sun-Times TV Critic Doug Elfman... exclusive rights to retransmit the video. (these two sentences share a paragraph despite a lack of any explicit connection between them, AFAICT)
        • You appear to be correct here - I'll try to tweak it :) RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I re-organized this section. Please check the new structue. -- Brian.fsm 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the lead, there is virtually no introductory text. The sections are largely laundry lists of direct quotes, and are not in WP:SS. This objection is actionable and is fixable without including original research. For example, take "Allegations of a media blackout".
      • Take one paragraph to summarize who alleged a media blackout, and why they believed it. This would not be original research because is merely restating the cited opinions expressed by others.
      • Take another paragraph to explain the opinions of those who deny the media blackout.
      • Create a section for the allegations and one for the denial. In each, restate briefly at the beginning why people believe what they do. Then give the details of who exactly believes what and why.
      • That section has been well-fixed, and much of the rest of the article has been cleaned up significantly too. Do the same kind of thing to "Praise and criticism for Colbert", and put a sentence or two introducing "Early press coverage". Tuf-Kat 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clips of Colbert’s comic "tribute" remove the scare quotes over tribute; probably just change the word "tribute" to "comic performance" or something. Tuf-Kat 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed the scare quotes. However, the article already uses the word "performance" 18 times; "tribute" only appears 4 times. -- Brian.fsm
  • Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three things:

#I agree about the non-sequiteur in the first paragraph - maybe integrate it into the first section on the performance?

#The price has to go. It adds nothing to the article and looks like advertising.

#Comedians don't "play" events. They perform at them. Al Franken didn't "play" the dinner twice, he performed at it twice.

Other than that, as before, I'm an enthusiastic support for a great article. The amount of effort that's been put into dealing with the various objections brought up is very impressive. Cheers!The Disco King 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously. --kizzle 16:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Startlingly well-balanced and NPOV for an article on a polarizing subject. Talk page indicates a high degree of collegiality and civility amongst editors. The subject might not be the most important in the world, but to my knowledge that's not a factor for FA. The quality of the article is an example of how Wikipedia should approach articles on controversial pundits. Kasreyn 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken (struck?) my complaints above, as they have all been dealt with, so I'll just reaffirm my support. Cheers! The Disco King 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several people above who have objected solely on the basis of the price being include with the C-Span DVD... since that has been rectified, could you please change your vote to support? Thanks :) --kizzle 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It was freedom of speech in it's worst hour. A captive audience, sneering insults right in the face of a sitting President, he might as well have just stood up there and said "Fuck you, Mr. President". But the article is well written and Colbert is a zero of a comedian...he's about as funny as pink eye.--MONGO 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in other words, you weren't a fan ;) --kizzle 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, the greatest amusement was not Colbert's outrageous performance, but the reactions of the audience. The performance wasn't aimed at Bush. If you thought it was aimed at Bush, you missed the point entirely. Remember, Colbert is playing a satirical character. His remarks may have been about Bush, but they were aimed at the people he was facing - the White House press corps. And by the uncomfortable expressions on many of their faces, it appears they took the point quite well. (Helen Thomas up on on the dais, by comparison, was practically cackling with glee at their discomfiture.) It amazes me that they didn't tar and feather him. Kasreyn 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support pending removal or resolution of the last "citation needed". I have the feeling that this article is at a local maximum: little changes one way or another won't make it noticeably better (though somebody could go through and make the footnote/period placement consistent all the way through, nag nag). A massive reorganization might make it really great, but that's like saying changing lots of notes in "Hollaback Girl" will give you "Hey Jude". In other words, it's not necessarily a meaningful statement. Anville 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well referenced and well written. Tombseye 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Comprehensiveness. The one thing that I think this article really needs is some context. If you could add an introductory section (in the article, after the lead) that brings some more context to the issue, that would be enough to change my vote to support. Describing more what the event was supposed to be about (I understand that another comedian was also invited; was having a comedy night the purpose of the dinner?), stating some facts well known today but potentially not well known in the future, such as that this is Bush's second term, all time low approval ratings, etc. This contextual information doesn't need to be very in depth (so long as it links to other articles), but I believe strongly that it needs to be there. Fieari 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fieari makes a good point here, with very good examples. This should be done before featured status is granted. As another example, reference should be made to reports of Bush as insulated and of his aides normally shielding him from criticism - there are several newspaper articles that have discussed this, and it provides significant context. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding context where appropriate, but I think an introductory sentence is the wrong way to go here. In fact, I might change my vote to oppose if one was added. Such sections inevitably become crufty and repetitive. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and tried my hand at adding a referenced context blurb for Bush's reputation for avoiding dissent making Colbert's performance more notable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 12:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very odd topic, but a very good article. Tobyk777 07:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the two items needing citation are either cited or removed. Disclosure -- I helped contribute to the article. I'm impressed with how much the article has improved in response to everyone's feedback. -- Brian.fsm 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but after some serious thought on the subject, I still can't bring myself to say this article is ready for featured, for the following reasons:
    • 1) Context and comprehensiveness, per Fieari's objections in part. This article should have information about the nature of the event where the speech occured, as well as Colbert's character from The Report. Also, there's really no serious discussion of Colbert performance as comedy, despite the fact more than a few sources have written about his unique satirical style.
    • 2) Some citations lead to unacceptable sources. The in-line cite for "his jokes were mostly met with awkward silence" leads to a blog entry by a self-described "teenage fangirl" watching the event on c-span (because Stephen Colbert is "hot"). Newshound is apparently a self-published, anti-FOX blog.
    • 3) Some quotes are used misleadingly, like Richard Cohen's criticism of Colbert, which was actually a bit more substantial than saying Colbert was "lame", "rude" and "a bully". The way Brian Calame is quoted also seems misrepresentative, even to the point of being possibly disingenuous.
    • 4) Prose which falls short of "compelling, even brilliant", with excessive use of scare quotes, some disjointedness, and quotes that don't add anything essential to the article (like saying so-and-so called Colbert "unfunny" and "bad"). I do appreciate that this article is improving. However, I think right now it's still being edited heavilly, and it shouldn't be up for featured just yet. Greater stability than this is probably needed to achieve the compelling prose criterion. And techinically, stability is a requirement too. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since our (probable) goal here is to raise the quality of the article to that of featured status, as with any other article, why don't you make some edits that help put the article in tune with your objections? Looking back at the last 500 edits on the article, it has basically been RN, Brian, and me answering objections on this page by people who haven't touched the article at all or not in a while. I'm not sure how you would accomplish #1 without delving into original research, as I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's duty to evaluate and analyze the efficacy of Colbert's humor. Colbert's character has been plenty explained in The Colbert Report, which is linked to almost immediately in the article's beginning. If you find any citations that lead to unacceptable sources, please just take 5 minutes to google new ones, or remove the citation and put a "citation needed" flag up on the sentence, as your request shouldn't take longer than 10 minutes. For #3, if you believe that Cohen's criticism was mischaracterized, please rephrase it to better reflect his opinions on the matter. Finally, since you have provided no specific examples of scare quotes, disjointedness, and only one example of extraneous quotes, why don't you just go through the article once and do a quick copyedit to make it flow how you would like it to read. I look forward to seeing your edits which might make this article featured sometime soon :) --kizzle 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our "probable" goal is to rasie the quality of the article? Try to assume good faith. :) With regards to discussion of Colbert's comedy, I see you've asked variants of this question before, and I'm sorry I haven't been around to chime in. It is quite possible to include criticism of Colbert's speech as a piece of humor. Please check out some articles in featured status on the movies, or major written works. Criticism isn't automatically original research; just find reasonably good sources and cite your critics. You've already applied the process to discuss opinions about the media's reaction and the newsworthiness of the event. That process needs to be applied to a criticism section related to Colbert's humor specifically, which is extremely revelant to this piece. As for Colbert's character, I'm not saying you need to reinvent the Report article, but this article currently mentions that the speech was given in the Report character, without a word of explanation as to what that means. This article must assume that the audience is not automatically familiar with the character. Wikilinking exists to allow the reader to explore related topics as they see fit, but articles are supposed to stand alone. A short explanation of what it means to perform in this character is warranted. Also, you haven't said anything about the request for context regarding the nature of the event; but I'll re-iterate that I think that's pretty much essential background too.
Finally, on your invitation to fix what I see wrong with this article -- respectfully, I must decline. I appreciate that you're using this page as I guideline to try and fix up the article, but let us not forget that this is primarilly a consensus-building discussion on whether or not this article is ready to be featured as-is. As it happens I don't have the time or the ambition right now to tackle the revisions necessary to this article, but I did feel I had to make it clear that serious objections still exist to this article's featured status. I stopped giving specifics about halfway through my above list of objections mostly because the list was getting dreadfully long. Since these long diatribes really have a way of breaking up the page, I'll clarify any objection you want in the order you're interested in dealing with them. But point one is substantial enough to qualify a serious "object", in my estimation. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, I meant (probable) in the sense exactly what you said, not that you didn't want it to see gain featured status, but that you didn't have time to do it yourself. I think there is plenty of criticism of Colbert's humor in the piece (did you read Cox's piece? Yikes!), I don't think anyone else is pointing to a lack of NPOV as the problem getting this article to featured status, but rather the quality of the prose the article uses. Subsequently, I can't understand for the life of me what is preventing you to simply make a 5 minute pass, adding, contextualizing, and editing what you see as bad prose and make it into good prose. Just spend 5 minutes, one non-minor edit, and I'll be happy. I don't think that's too much to ask. For instance, your point about Colbert's character is a good one, I'm going to try and make the change now, and I expect it should take me about 2 minutes to make a stab at it. Just a little bit of effort is all I ask rather than simply pointing out easily rectifiable flaws and leaving Brian, RN, and me to do it. --kizzle 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objectors are under no obligation to fix any part of the articles they comment on. It is the burden of people who want the article to become featured to make the necessary changes. Tuf-Kat 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Read my comment as more of a friendly appeal rather than citing some obligation, especially considering the good work Lee has already put into the article. --kizzle 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kizzle, I know this is an annoying response, but I'm honestly not interested in editing this article any more than I already have, at least not for the moment. I may jump in at later junction. And anyway, I haven't had time to go through the massive list of citations for this article and individually evalute each one, so I've offered up an examples of how some citations are problematic. I could fix the one's I spotted easilly, and declare the problem solved, but that would be taking the five second out rather than carefully going down the list and examining each individual source for this article, which probably should have been done before this article went up for featured. In any case, my edting habits are probably a subject more suited to my talk page. If it makes you feel any better, if those 2-second citation fixes still need doing after my more substantial objections to this artcle are addressed, I'll gladly take care of it. :)
Meanwhile, with regard to the queston of criticism of Colbert, I don't mean the "two thumbs down" kind of criticism. I mean specific critical discussion. Cox's piece is primarilly attacking the mentallity of people defending Colbert. It doesn't say anything of substance about the humor itself. I agree that you've quoted some people who have opinions about whether or not Colbert was "unfunny", but mostly these remarks aren't substantial with regards to the Colbert's humor. Colbert is a comedian who was hired to do comedy at political function. This claims to be an article about his performance, but the best you could really figure out from this article is that Colbert made some jokes about Bush which were maybe out of line, maybe not. Discussion of Colbert's comedy as comedy should be at least as relevant as reporting on Colbert's comedy as political action, but for some reason, no one here seems to be interesting in writing about this angle. Still needs doing. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not annoying, not all of us have free time :) Just when you get some free time I'd value your contributions to the page. --kizzle 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee, it's not that some of your criticisms aren't valid. By for those of us who have been working with you since this article was but a wee stub of the Stephen Colbert article, I think it seems that you have an entirely different vision for the article, and you want other people to write that article for you. I point to your comments here, here, and here.
As for "discussion of Colbert's comedy as comedy," I've read everything I came across about Colbert & the dinner and have seen nothing on this topic that isn't already included.
Regarding the TV Squad cite -- TV Squad is notable enough, I think, for the fairly benign claim that Colbert's jokes were met with silence (which Colbert himself admitted on his show). Feester ranks it #3 on its list of important blogs. It is one of the top 10,000 web sites according to Alexa, and is ranked higher than many daily newspapers. Annie Wu, who wrote the article, is ranked #8 on the TV Squad site and appears to be their primary writer on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Also, TV Squad is a site dedicated to TV, and this was an event broadcast on TV, so it does seem a relevant source. -- Brian.fsm 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner/archive2&oldid=1144861732"