Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spoo

I wrote this page at first in April, and it was leaps and bounds above its previous versions, thrice deleted and copyvio. Since then I have made many, many small edits to the page, beefing up the prose, adding references galore, and taking it through Peer Review. As it is an article on a fictional foodstuff, the images are limited to fair use; however, I have provided detailed explinations of each image's qualifications and their relevance to the article at hand. I would not bother nominating this if it did not meet the criteria - it is accurate and very comprehensive, with nearly all references accessible online for easy further reading and verification, plus plenty of wikilinks; it is extremely stable and decidedly uncontroversial. It is shorter than many FA's, but it is longer than others - even sans the reference section it is still longer than the recently Main Page'd AEJ Collins. And, yeah, its a bit crufty, but that should not be a roadblock if one looks at other FA's such as Wario. Even if you don't vote, I hope you, kind reader, enjoy the read.

  • Self-nomination, and, (of course) Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely comprehensive and stable. Provides an interesting and funny read. --maclean25 04:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott's concerns:

  • Oppose. Big style errors - see Wikipedia:MoS. For instance, there are some sentences written in second person. Scott Ritchie 06:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
In regards the second person sentence, are you referring to "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: one needs only to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." ? If so, I have changed it thusly: "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: the only requirement is to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." Are there others?
As far as "Big style errors"... I would appreciate specific examples so that any error can be rectified. As it stands now, the article is consistent with the MoS: italicization of book titles, words as words, and the television series; quotations for episode names, etc. The only possible faux pas may be my JMS quote in the etymology section. The quote italicization may have been brought up in peer review, but the user refused/failed to/forgot to clarify her comments so that I could fix it. To be safe, I've changed it. Let me know of any specific errors so that I may fix it accordingly. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to constructions like this: "Spoo, as we now know, it first appeared in the first episode of the science fiction television series Babylon 5, when it was briefly mentioned by the Narn Ambassador, G'Kar[1]" - that sentence is screwy in several ways and for some reason makes me feel like it resembles the annoying wrong answers on standardized tests. Avoid use of "we", for instance, and make sure you have subject-verb agreement. Also, move footnotes to the end of the sentece, as they get quite jarring in the middle breaking up commas and such. Scott Ritchie 21:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahhhh, OK. I've ditched as we first know it. I've gone through and made sure the subject-verb agreement is OK. I've also moved all the footnotes to the end of all the sentences, and after punctuation as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Still some annoyances. EG: "The creatures are raised on ranches on planets with moist and chilly climates, not really because the creatures thrive in such environs, but because it produces the best level of paleness in the creatures' skin." - "not really" in explanatory prose is far too casual a tone for an encyclopedia article. I don't quite have the time to find every single error in the article and point it out to you, but in general the speech style of the article is far too casual and reads almost like a conversation in slang. Scott Ritchie 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Nor am I asking to have every single error pointed out. Though I disaggree with the characterization that it is written as a "conversation in slang," I'm going to try to tweak the prose a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe (I hope) I have illiminated the "annoyances", (adverbs=bad, right?). Let me know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, here are the differences between the version to which you were referring and the article now, encompassing edits by Tony and me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Barely encyclopedic sci-fi minutiae. Please focus on improving and FAC:ing the main article Babylon 5 instead of these whimsical cruft projects. / Peter Isotalo 09:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Are there more than "deserving" articles? Certainly there are subjects of greater importance running the gammot from science to politics to history and everything in between. Personally, I'd be absolutely elated to see B5 and JMS FAs - but I've run into the problem that I know so much about these subjects that I never know where to start. Yeah, Spoo is whimsical, but it's not like there is no precedent for this. Ultimately, every subject deserving an article is deserving a featured article, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not a policy discussion nor an objection, so there's no need to point out precedents. It's an attempt to make people concentrate on articles that actually matter even to those who aren't die-hard fans or perhaps don't even like sci-fi to begin with. This is a good example of an article that is'nt particularly helpful when you don't possess prior knowledge of the subject. / Peter Isotalo 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not an "attempt" at anything. I wrote the article, felt it fit the criteria, and nominated it. And I vehemently disaggree with your assertion that prior knowledge is needed to understand the article - its text and language are clear enough so that anyone may read and understand what is going on. Everything that needs explaining is taken care of in the text, and there are numerous pipe links to aid those who wish to explore facets of the Babylon 5 story further. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm making the attempt, not you. It's a reference to my comment, not the article. As for prior knowledge, you're not in any way contradicting me. If the first thing a user without prior knowledge of the series has to is to click a link, then it's pretty obvious that Babylon 5 is the priority article. / Peter Isotalo 06:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony's concerns:

Stongly oppose—Superficial and poorly written. Tony 15:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As to "poorly written," can you elaborate? Are you referring to possible technical flaws which may have been overlooked, errors in syntax, grammar, spelling? And how is it superficial? Is this in reference the nature of the subject, or is it (somehow) not comprehensive enough? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not, unless Tony1 can tell us why. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; here are a few examples of poor writing at the opening. Long snake that needs breaking up: 'The show's creator and executive producer, J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote the episode in question (as well as most of the series), was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated (such as GEnie, CompuServe, and USENET).' Overall, the number of parenthetical phrases makes the article hard to read.

"J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of the episode in question, was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated."
I also cut back on the parentheticals throughout the text.

Opening sentence, 'fictional Babylon 5 universe'—tell us what it is: TV, film, novel?

Added to the intro.

Commas missing, e.g., 'Spoo as we now know it first appeared ...'

Fixed.

'among' better than 'amongst'.

Fixed.

'Derived from the alien worm-like creatures of the same name, spoo is generally considered'—What, it comes out of their bodies?

Derived -> Made.

Get rid of 'generally'.

Though the generally is actually part of the canon per the JMS post referenced, I have removed it.

'... spoo has taken on various meanings outside of the Babylon 5 universe and fan community as a neologism, from day trading jargon to computer programming.' The status of the last phrase is unclear (you can work it out, I guess, but readers shouldn't have to backtrack and ponder over the text. 'outside OF'—get rid of the redundant 'of'.

I've ditched the superfluous of. I'm not entirely sure how to clarify the sentence. There's a term for what may have happened with spoo. I think its called divergent etymology or some such, but for the life of me I cannot find the exact term. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole text needs thorough editing. But beyond that, the topic is inconsequential compared with 'the best that Wikipedia has to offer'. If it had been written in a cleverly humorous way, maybe; but there's nothing special about it. Wikipedians want to display their FAs with pride. Tony 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

-

Your efforts at improving the article are appreciated, but in answer to your question, yes, there are still many improvements required before the prose is of FA standard. Everywhere I look, there are things like: 'exorbitantly ridiculous volatility' (this is meant to be written in an authoritative register; this phrase is inappropriate unless, for example, it's trying to be cleverly humorous, which it's not);

It is meant to be "cleverly humorous." That you do not find it so does not deligitamize it as at least two others here seem to think it is humorous.

'two hundred spoo'—now we suddenly learn that it's a discreet thing as well as a substance; this should be made clear earlier, and by the way, please use numerals for 10 and above;

From the intro: "Although it is a universally loved foodstuff that is an actively traded commodity, the creature itself is regarded with contempt by the races that consume it." (Emphasis added) From the section called "The Creatures" (emphasis added), the first sentence starts "Spoo, the creature" (emphasis added). Based on that, I don't know how one can "suddenly learn that it is a discrete thing as well as a substance."
Re: numerals, "two hundred" -> "200"

'Unlike other products, not only is the product itself'—can you avoid the repetition so close after?

the product itself -> spoo

Why is 'very' italicised?

Hmm. Fixed.

Can we have a metric equivalent for non-US readers?

Ummm... a metric equivalent... of what, exactly? The only thing that goes into spoo units is "It is never explicitly stated what the price of spoo is and what unit of measurement is used in its trading."

'like the flavor (whatever that is), but will not openly admit to such,'—the parenthetical phrase is unclear in status and meaning; 'such' is a problem.

Yes, that is unclear. Fixed: "'like the flavor, but will not openly admit to it."

'cannot block the sheer volume (and volume) of sighs'—hello?

Volume as in quantity and volume as in loudness, which is clarified through the pipelinks. Another cleverly humorous passage. I will change it to "sheer quantity and loudness," if it presents a huge problem.
Scratch that. I have fixed it. Now, simply, cannot block the sheer volume of sighs. -JOG 9/15

'to to'—fresh eyes needed to pick out slips like tat.

Fixed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

These are only examples; you really need to find someone who's good at cleaning up text. It's a relatively superficial topic for featured article, and thus needs to compesate by being well written. I'd love a bit of clever humour in this article, if it can be achieved smoothly. (It would have to be done wryly, and bring a smile to the reader's face, but here I'm probably asking for something that I probably couldn't do myself, I realise.) Life's a spoo sandwich, eh. Tony 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-

It's considerably improved, but I've just gone through the first few paragraphs, down to Kill 'em, and made about a dozen alterations. The pictures could do with some brightening, but that's less important. Tony 00:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC) PS Jeffey, when you write 'There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article ...', I think you mean 'There are no spelling OR grammaTICAL mistakes in the article'.

Re:"Grammar": Heh, yeah, thanks. More evidence that I ain't the best writer in the world! ;) -JOG 9/14
Tony, you said it wasn't very important, but I've gone ahead and made the lead images brighter and considerably clearer. Comparing the various versions, they were murky before (something I didn't know how to fix until today). Now it makes the whole article look better. As usual, excellent suggestion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The top pic was still murky—have a look now, and either remove the new image or complete the info and copyright stuff on the image page.
Copy-left info added to your upload; I've also fixed the tags on the second and third images from {{screenshot}} to {{film-screenshot}} (I just noticed the old tag was obsolete)
Can you delink the red links?
I've delinked two of the red links (Zappa), leaving just one (Babylon Park), as I may still create an article for it once this is complete.
Dude, how can you misspell 'misspelt'? You did.
(I'd probably misspell my name if it wasn't at the top of the screen...)
It's better than it was, but I still don't think it's crash hot; in view of the persistence, hard work, and bona fides of the author, I'll reluctantly change my vote to neutral. Next time, if there is a next time, please dish up something that's polished before it gets onto this list. Tony 00:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Like I said on your talk page, it's all about the Peer Review. Thanks for your work on Spoo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Query: Your objection was written, referring to Tony's initial objection (which was clarified and answered after your objection), and Scott's objection, which I have answered (though I'm still awaiting a reply). Do to the unspecific nature of the objections you pointed to at the time of your objection, as it stands your objection is not actionable. Do you have any specific actionable objections to the article, as it stands now? Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, support. I was referring to the inproper grammar and styling, but it seems to be fixed. It's a fun read! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I have no problems with the idea of a featured article on this topic, but there are a couple problems. It needs a longer lead, I think -- two paragraphs would be good. The Spam picture needs to be either explained or removed (one could photoshop the word spoo onto pretty much anything; I guess I understand the point of using spam -- because spoo is like a science-fiction version of spam, I guess -- but not everyone will get that). Tuf-Kat 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've got a pretty thorough justification and explination on the image's page, however, in hindsight the image should have a more direct connection, and it has been appropriately excised.
The lead has been beefed up a bit and split up. Not significantly longer, but it does contain more info going into the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks much better! support Tuf-Kat 04:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spoopport! — JIP | Talk 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Page is brief for an FA. Most of its references are to Usenet and blog posts, so the same as with GNAA applies - there's a distinct lack of reliable sources. Still isn't well written - and I'm damned sick of people practically asking the objectors to fix the objections for them in this area. For one, there are basic spelling and grammar errors still in the article. Ambi 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
1) Length is not an issue for FA's. As noted, it is longer than more than a few FA's.
2) Two USENET posts and two Compuserve posts are referenced - these posts were by the creator of B5 and Spoo, and are entirely relevant. Two other USENET posts go towards usage and the etymological history of the word. Also referenced are six websites, two books, and six episodes of B5. And there are no references to any "blog posts." Most of the content on the creature / food is from the show and one of the canon posts. The comparison to GNAA is painfully innapropriate - while GNAA may not actually exist as stated, spoo actually exists within the television series just as reported (just like Daleks exist in Dr. Who or Felix the Cat exists in cartoons - both FA, by the way.) I'm sorry, but all the references are reliable.
3) There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article as it now stands. I don't see how this objection is actionable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Length is most certainly a reason to object to FA status, particularly when it is as short as this. Remember, they're supposed to be our best work - and this is way too short to be so. You state that there's shorter FAs in existence - I'd like to see proof of this, and I'd be tempted to put any such FA on WP:FARC instantly.
Look at my intro here - AEJ Collins (recently-ish promoted, recently main page'd) is the first thing I mention in reference to length. Spoo's longer than Battle of Aljubarrota, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (survived FARC), England expects that every man will do his duty, Franklin B. Gowen, John Day (printer)... and of comparable length to many more. Length is not an issue, comprehensivity is, and Spoo is decidedly comprehensive, whether or not you believe that the legit references are legit.
Secondly, I stand by the objection about the quality of the references, and thirdly, I strongly suggest you run the article through a spellchecker (as I just did) before calling my objection unactionable, else you look foolish. Ambi 13:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
For the nth time, I have run this through the spell checker in Word - here is what it caught:
-Spoo - this is painfully obvious
-Straczynski, Zappa, and Capp - proper names
-G'Kar, Londo, Skeletor, Mac and Bo - Characters' proper names
-Fandom - See here
-wanna, em and Jello - Both from direct quotes which I will not modify to preserve their accuracy, Jello also being a proper brand name
-Narn, Centauri, Technomage, and Pak'ma'ra - Fictional races from B5
-Boxtree - Proper name of British publishing firm
-Spoohunter - title
-Blogger - one who maintains a 'blog - occurs 45 times in Blog
-Syndicomm Python Offline Orchestrator - that's what they want to call it
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I liked it on Peer Review and the constructive criticism that it has received here has made it even better. Well done, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and thanks to everyone else. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It mentions day trading jargon in the intro, but never explains that aspect. Fieari 18:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Real-world Etymology of the Name ... Stock and bond day traders have begun to use spoo in refererence to S&P 500 futures" (something needs to be done about the non-standard capitalisation of headings, though). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: ALoan has fixed the headdings. (Thanks). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • [Comment] Uh, Wario is not 'crufty'. Cruft is not synonymous with video game content, cruft is excessive information for a game or a movie or a book or whatever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Calling either page crufty was by no means intended as an isult. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I never said as such. But cruft is not synonymous with a fictional event/character/area/item/etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - A great article on an obscure topic. Comprehensiveness , not size, is the correct FA criteria to cite. As far as I can tell, this article is comprehensive, so it's small size is not an issue. Size really only comes into play when there isn't enough to write about a topic that it would be better dealt with as part of a larger article, or at the other end of the spectrum when reading time is adversely impacted. --mav 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks nice. An enjoyable read, and interesting. --Matt Yeager 06:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems comprehensive and well referenced. Besides, having a FA on fictional food is... well, it's Wiki, I guess :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)