Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Van De Kamp/archive1

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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

[edit] Andrew Van De Kamp

Ok, I've worked on this one a bit and I've tried to keep it within WP:MOS. The biography is as succinct as I could make it without losing meaning, and I've interjected out-of-world perspective where possible without disrupting the flow per guidelines. I did a google search on Andrew and trawled through all 37 pages for critical material - all but three articles have been worked into the article. I've gone through it on paper and copyedited it. I think it's ready. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support thoroughly referenced, well organised and constructed, and very good prose. A great article about a wonderfully psychotic character --User:Ahadland1234 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support needs 2 fixes:
  • References WAY overlinked. Only one instance is necessary for each episode, preferably the first.
  • Episode titles should be enclosed by double quotes.
• Otherwise looks pretty good. Circeus 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. I've put all episode titles in quote marks in the main text. Did you want them in the references as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I a referring to wikilinks in references, not the moment citation.Circeus 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. All fixed. It look ok now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is. Regarding the cite episode debacle. I'm not myself overly fond of that particular template (after all, I don't see anybody requesting people {{cite video game}}, for some reason...), but maybe you could convert only the first instance, and let the others as abbreviated refs? Would that make a good compromise? Oh, and full dates (in the refs) have to be properly wikilinked because user date preferences otherwise don't work. Circeus 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On that issue, my qualm is not the actual usage of the template but rather the style, I my self am perfectly content with a consistent style, even if you do not actually use the template to output that style. Matthew 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The ref format is fine. If you want to make templates standard go here: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Many editors (myself included) despise the templates. But if there is some objective criterion regarding format that the current refs violate point it out. Aaron Bowen 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are actually fine witha consistent style, why have you opposed for it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't. Matthew 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh. Circeus, I've wikilinked all the dates in the refs for you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that the image in the infobox does not qualify as fair use. The rationale states that it is of a fictional character, but it appears to be an image of the actor not during performance of the role in question. The source website for the image lists it as the bio of the actor, not of the character. I would normally tag this image for this issue, but I'll leave it here for a short time to allow resolution first as FAC is pending. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The official website has the image as both the actor and the character. Certainly Shawn Pyfrom does not look like that outside desperate housewives. It seems to be meant as a publicity photo for both. Is this not ok? Someone else put that image there to update it from this one - would you rather that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a fair-use expert, so I'm happy to be over-riden by someone who knows better, but I actually do find the screenshot to be a preferable image, for the following reason. I think that the screenshot leaves no doubt as to the character being protrayed, whereas the current image, to me, is of questionable fair-use status. I should note that I don't remember the character ever looking like the image in the promo shot on the actual tv show, but I don't have a DVR or anything to check on. I really don't mean to fuss about this, I just would like to have the fair-use status of the image cleared up by one of the "image experts" to withdraw my opposition. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have switched the image while I clarify the other's one status. Anything else keeping you from supporting? ;-) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to Support. Dev920 has changed the image and listed it for comment regarding WP:FUC and I know that he will follow consensus there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, episode refs should use {{cite episode}}, combined with usage of the name="x" parameter. I'll have a go at tasking this if I get the strength. Matthew 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Cite templates are irritating, fiddly and sometimes don't even work. The article consistently uses only one referencing format and I'd appreciate if you'd stick with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please show me an example where they do not work. They work fine, if used properly, they enable consistency among articles, I'd certainly appreciate your help in converting it though, it'll be a bit of a task :\. Matthew 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not going to bust a gut to change every single reference, which are consistently formatted throughout the article, to an arbitrary template I detest when I don't even need to. I would appreciate it if you would refrain. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - looking over it, it's all very impressive. Would anybody like me to standardize the episode citations? I don't think it's necessary to cite each one to the minute. Can't you just use the <ref name=Whatever/> tag loads?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. Look, the references are fine, OK? They're accurate, consistent, and took me hours to do. Why is everyone so keen to take them apart when it is pointless effort? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Another great article from Dev90.--Yannismarou 13:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - until converted to {{cite episode}}. Matthew 13:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." and makes it clear that this is purely an issue of personal preference. As the main editor to this article, and as I despise cite templates, I must decline to address your objection. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be doing it my self if I get the time, I advise you to read WP:OWN as well, by the way. Matthew 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tenses need fixing as well, as per WP:TENSE. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I don't like templates either and when refs are formatted properly (as these are) there is no reason to insert them Incidentally don't throw around WP:OWN every time your minority opinion doesn't get dealt with Matthew. Aaron Bowen 09:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great article Dev, I saw it when it was barely more than a stub, and it's amazing how much you've improved it. The references are okay too -Matthew, recheck WP:CITE. If the info that has to be there is provided, it's useless to go changing every single ref with a cite template just because of your personal preference. More than useless, it's horrible, tedious work. I believe you have no basis for your objection to the article. Cheers Raystorm 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Consistency with citations is paramount, every (nearly) other television related is using consistent citations styles. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The referencing is utterly consistent throughout the article. All the previous supports have been made with the current citation style, and I would appreciate if you would cease changing it. WP:CITE says "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." Please obey it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support good article. The reason for weakness of support is that I am not sure this is the right model for fictional characters. Is this following some established template? Homer Simpson, which is a GA, takes a different track and with less quotations, more readable. --ppm 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support good article, meticulously referenced, exactly what one needs to know about this character. Polymathematics 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment
  • The main image is still tagged as unlicensed.... can that be removed, as a fair use rationale has been placed there with an appropriate tag?
  • Doesn't the introduction contain spoilers? Looking around at some other high profile TV characters (Jack Bauer, Jack Shephard, Alan Shore) there doesn't seem to be plot twists/details revealed in the intro? In this article it's revealed Andrew is bisexual, that he is sent to a delinquent camp and that he says he is gay just to get out of camp. It also reveals Bree throws him out and that he comes home under Orson's advice.... need I go on? There just seems to be too much detail without a spoiler warning (which wouldn't look very good at the top of the article I know). Couldn't this intro be cut down a bit?
  • As far as the citation is concerned, I might as well chip in whilst I'm rambling! Matthew, WP:CITE clearly states that citation templates are optional and unless a consensus is reached by the article's editors to change anything, no rogue editor should just insist upon using them. As far as I have read here everyone is happy (including myself!) with the current format and it does indeed seem to be consistent. This democratic approach would seem to override the warning of WP:OWN that all content shouldn't be submitted unless you're willing to have it "edited mercilessly," nor does support of the current format constitute a tag team. Mentality 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the image tag - discussion on the previous image at IfD continues. I'm not so sure about the spoilers though, I checked other character FAs like Palpitine and Amidala and they both have fairly major spoilers in the leads. The spoilers in the lead are over a year old anyway, so does that really matter? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think with those articles spoilers are necessary in defining the character properly in the intro - and no doubt spoilers will be required here. However, my ex-bf got me into desperate housewives a couple of months ago and I only just finished watching Season 1 last week!! If I had read this article a few weeks ago, I would have found out Rex Van De Kamp dies before I'd seen it, which is quite a major event and would have, quite frankly, pissed me off! I'm not saying remove information, just limit it in the intro. His sexuality for example, well that's required. But does the whole thing about him saying he's gay to get out of camp have to be mentioned? And the vanilla/choc ice cream quote?

That said looking through it again it doesn't reveal as much as I thought it did. I guess it's appropriate to refer to someone as the "late" <so and so> but it would have definitely spoiled it for me. All in all I guess it's not that big a deal, it's still a superb article so if you don't think it's worth it, I won't make a fuss! :P

I do think it would be more appropriate to link to the Bisexuality article with the word 'bisexual' rather than the quote about vanilla/chocolate ice cream though. And wikilink the word 'atheist' too. Mentality 22:22, 29 March 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.