User:Parent5446 Bot/Task Lists/WikiProject Television

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is the best quality now it has ever been in and I can think of no further improvements that can be made to further bring it to FA standards. Redfarmer (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The authors of the book source are Morris Bright and Robert Ross. Thus, the abbreviated citation should be something like "Bright and Ross", not "Bright & Morris". BuddingJournalist 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

• Capitalisation needs to be fixed in the headings, for example "History and Development" needs to be "History and development" and "Supporting Characters" needs to be "Supporting characters". This needs to be fixed throughout.

• Fixed

• Overlinking in the infobox. Roy Clarke, James Gilbert, Bernard Thompson, Sydney Lotterby, Alan J. W. Bell and Ronnie Hazlehurst are all linked twice in it.

• Fixed

• Single dates like 2008 should not be linked if they are on their own.

• Fixed

• Ref 110 isn't formatted properly.

• Fixed

• I'm not sure that Amazon is counted as a useable source.

• I'm more than willing to remove these references; however, are they invalid as a source to the DVD release dates? Redfarmer (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• On second thought, I can see where you're coming from on that. Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think "Awards and nominations" could be prosified.

• Done.

Aside from this it looks pretty good. Gran² 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

The character section is far too long, and has many unsourced statements. I'd suggest renaming Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine to List of Last of the Summer Wine characters, and splitting off some of the character stuff from the main to that list. The table of recurring characters seems excessive and unnecessary when it already has a main list. The DVD release table is also unnecessary, the dates are already in the episode list where they belong. No need to repeat in the main, let the prose standalone. See also section violates the MoS as it repeats multiple links already wikified within the article. The third paragraph of the "Casting" section is missing a citation. The template for this series seems extremely excessive and unnecessary. Everything already wikified from the main, so its just cluttering the bottom of the article. Ditto on the ELs, several of which are already used as sources. The ref section needs tweaking, as Notes are really refs while Refs is also a single ref being used a bunch of times. Refs 12, 36, 76, 84 and 89 all appear to be being used as references, when they are unsourced notes that do not provide actual referencing for their respective statements. Also could use a copyedit. The lead has a rather large run on sentence, and there are some other minor prose issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've completed all the suggestions you have given and will continue to look for possible copyedit violations. If you have further suggestions, please let me know. Redfarmer (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are still a few statements missing citations: last paragraph in "Filming"; last paragraph of "Documentaries"; last part of the first paragraph of "Spin-off"; the last two paragraphs of "Other media"; . Some other ref problems: Ref 101 - IMDB is not a citable, reliable source. Another source needs to be found. Ref 91 is missing publisher info. Ref 24 is missing date and author information. Ref 7 is missing format note (since it is a Word document). Ref 93 was improperly formatted, but I fixed that one cause I couldn't figure out how to type out what needed fixing and have it make sense. :P All cite books should be using the "ISBN" field not "ID=ISBN" where the ISBN is included, and book citations should at least have the month of publication if the full date isn't available.

• Nothing wrong with filming; everything referenced from the reference at the end.
• Documentaries fixed.
• Spin off fixed.
• Other Media fixed.
• Ref 101 replaced with more reliable sources.
• Ref 91 fixed.
• Ref 24 fixed with date. However, BBC did not publish the author info for this obituary.
• Ref 7 fixed.
• ISBN fixed (that was added by a newbie the same day you did the review :P)
• Dates fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few minor MoS issues left as well, particularly in "Other media" where several sentences have the citation before the full stop instead of after. In the minor nitpicky department, where there are multiple refs, they should be in numerical order (so [4][19] instead of [19][4]). :) Has the article been copyedited yet, as both of those should have been caught in that process.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed Other Media. These were done by the newbie the same day you reviewed the article. He's adding good information; he just needs to be coaxed on formatting.
• Fixed ref ordering. The one you specify was the only one I saw. Redfarmer (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Almost done. I missed one too, in Specials, last two sentences of the first paragraph. I....I....oh, no, I think that all I can find! ;-) Well, except the notes/reference thing, but I can't think of another solution for it. Oh, not anything that bothers me, but some folks have been complaining about 3 column reference layouts of late, so two column might be something to consider.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed specials.
• Fixed reference columns. Redfarmer (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: In the filming section Holmfirth is referred to as a village while the linked article indicates a small town. Need to check which is correct. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the real real real picky department, shouldn't it be "Reference" since only one is listed? (Normally I'd have changed this myself, but wanted to make sure there wasn't some MOS reason or something, just making sure I'm on safe ground here.)
  • Fixed.
• What makes http://www.summer-wine.com/indexbackup2.htm a reliable source? Looks like a fan site to me.
  • Not a fan site. Official site of the Summer Wine Appreciation Society. Its president, Clive Eardley, has had quite close connections to the show for almost two decades. Eardley and other members of the society have, over the years, received full cooperation from Roy Clarke and Alan J.W. Bell, been granted exclusive interviews with the cast, been the first to receive news on Summer Wine, and been granted exclusive on-set access during filming. They have often been the only source of news for what is happening on set during filming.

Okay, so it's a official site of a fan club? Still, we need something a bit more to show it's reliable.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The story of the society can be found here. Clive Eardley is used as a source by the Huddersfield Examiner here and here. The society is given coverage by the Summer Wine Exhibition, a project supported by cast member Tom Owen here. The late Ronnie Hazlehurst trusted them with the production and distribution of a "best of" collection of his Summer Wine themes[1], which was distributed in commercial shops for a time. Not only are all of the cast members of the society, but the BBC asks the society for advice in filming new episodes. These are the guys you go to when you want information on Summer Wine. They're the ones who get the exclusives from the cast and crew (such as interviews with Tom Owen, the late Brian Wilde, Peter Sallis, Norman Wisdom, and Robert Fyfe, because they're trusted. Redfarmer (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.phill.co.uk/index.html a reliable source?
  • You're right on this one. Replaced with a more reliable source.
• Current ref 11 "British TV Comedy: Last of the Summer Wine" is lacking a publisher.
  • See above.
• What makes http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/index.htm a reliable source?
  • Once again, you're right on this one. I'm removing the information this referenced for now since I can't find a more reliable source.
• What makes http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/ a reliable source?
  • TVShowsonDVD.com is a news source for DVD releases and is quite accurate. They originally garnered attention when their pressure--both from them and their readers, was largely responsible for causing Fox to release Family Guy on DVD (back after it was canceled the first time). They now have connections to many of the major distributors. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And, I should add, they were recently acquired by TV Guide.

that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the feedback. Please let me know if you see anything else. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion I am not sure in how far this is necessary in the first place, but I'd like to see the same refs combined into one via the <ref name=bright_ross_24>Bright and Ross (2000), p. 24</ref> and <ref name=bright_ross_24 /> way. This would cut down on a lot of redundance in the Reference section. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The only problem with this is that almost all of the references are referring to different page numbers in the book, making this impractical and impossible. Redfarmer (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've simplified what I could, which is not much. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You've done exactly what I meant. I'll give the article a closer look over the next couple of days as time permits. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose for criterion 1a (prose). I encourage you to read the awesome User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (it was a big help in my first FAC), because redundancy and awkward prose including comma overuse are the weekest point of the article. Still, take everything I noted below with a grain of salt; I happen to mess up at times too. I have only read through the intro, the production section and the characters section, but I'll review the rest as soon as the article got a copyedit throughout, which will probably take you a few hours but it's worth it (i.e. the prose issues are not unfixable).

• Support Although the article still has half a dozen or so prose hickups (which I was not able to fix for various reasons), I think the prose is now good enough for FA status. It can't hurt to ask another editor for a new copyedit though. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Sorry, poorly written. This needs thorough surgery before resubmission. Here's just one portion as an example, with a multitude of issues I could analyse:

In 1972, then-head of BBC Comedy Duncan Wood watched a programme called The Misfit, written by Roy Clarke. Clarke impressed Wood with his ability to inject comedy into the script at the same time since The Misfit was supposed to be a drama. He approached Clarke and inquired about his interest in doing a sitcom

TONY (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Could you be more specific about what you don't like about this paragraph? I wouldn't be here if I could see what you're seeing about the article. Redfarmer (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image:LOTSW-title.jpg has no copyright tag. The copyright holder also needs to be identified per WP:NFCC#10a.
  • Image:Summerwine2003.jpg has no source or copyright holder identified.

Kelly ^hi! 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are lots of issues with the prose. I realize you may not readily identify the current issues, but frankly, that is the primary reason for a substantive peer review before coming to FAC. Additionally, my random source spot-check was not promising: You can't use a primary source for a statement like "... the longest-running sitcom in the world." Random prose issues:
  • "Brian Wilde replaced Bates as the quirky war veteran Foggy ..." Illogical, since Bates did not play Foggy.
  • "The cast has grown from a handful of people to an ensemble ..." A handful of people is an ensemble. Your description of the show from the start is the very definition of an ensemble cast.
  • "Although reception of the series is mixed, with some feeling ..." Avoid the "with <noun> <verb>-ing" construction.

These were just in the lead; Recommend withdrawing to work with a copy-editor and get a good peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I've tried to get peer reviews and copy edits before with absolutely no results, so you can understand if I'm a bit skeptical of the peer review system. I've plead with editors to help me the past six months and only recently have I had other editors making substantial edits to the article. I've opened two peer reviews in the last six months only to have both closed, one with no comments and the other with only an automated bot list. I've received more feedback from this FAC then I have from any other method in the last six month. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might find peer review improved since you last tried it. There is now a volunteer list where you can locate people interested in reviewing/editing by topic. I do empathize, but FAC is not the place to bring articles up to par. I recommend you withdraw until it is ready. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, how is a documentary on the show a primary source? Redfarmer (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How would I know it's a documentary? You used the {{cite episode}} template but didn't provide much information so I assumed it was a special episode of some kind. If it's produced by the same company that produces the show, it's a primary source. --Laser brain (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-nominator - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have successfully brought this article to Good Article status. I feel that I have brought this article to an even higher standard since it became a Good Article. I have compared this article to similar Featured Articles (at their time of promotion), such as Pilot (House) and The Last Temptation of Krust and I believe that this article is of the standard of those similar article. If this article currently does not meet the FA standards, i'll happily make changes. Jamie jca (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see no major problems. Looks well written and referenced. Support. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Comments

• Numerical ranges need to use an en dash, per WP:DASH; an example is: "18-49"
• "until August, 2006 when" — unlink lone months and years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
• "filmed in March, 2006." — same deal as above

Gary King (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs some polishing. Some examples of problems:

• "Pilot" is the first episode of the first season of the American situation comedy 30 Rock, which premiered on NBC on October 11, 2006 in the United States.[1] It aired on October 10, 2006 on CTV in Canada[2] and October 11, 2007 in the United Kingdom.

Strictly speaking, it didn't premier in the US; it premiered in Canada (assuming those dates are correct).

• Fey, as well as appearing as Liz Lemon, acts as the series creator, a writer and an executive producer for the series.

Awkward.

• The continuity section is sloppy. It's just a list of unrelated ideas. It at least needs some sort of topic sentence, and better transitions.
• ...and prior to the meeting Jonathan (Maulik Pancholy) tells Liz to "put on some decent cloths and go talk to them."

should that be "clothes"?

• Her various characters were Greta Johansen, The Girlie Show cat wrangler,[4][11][12] Maria, a maid,[5] Elizabeth Taylor,[13] Blue Man, a hallucination who can only be seen by Tracy and Liz,[14] Pamela Smew, the leader of a sensitivity training group,[15] Barbara Walters,[16] Vlem, a prostitute,[17] Martha Blanch, an anti-Girlie Show protester,[18] and Dr. Beauvoir, Liz's doctor.

How many of these list items are just appositives? For example, is Vlem the prostitute, or did Dratch play a character named Vlem in addition to an unnamed prostitute? To make things clearer, you might want to use semicolons to separate one item from another.

• Is it really necessary to quote all those reviews? A few insightful comments should be sufficient. I know the WP:FICTION crowd is serious about including real world information, but just because a review exists doesn't mean you have to quote it in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think i've address these comments. I've removed the continuity section because on re-reading the section, it does come across as sloppy and it is pretty trivial anyway. I also shortened the reception section. Does the section need anymore removing? -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that section needs more trimming, but it could use some smoother transitions between sentences. Keep in mind that my comments were just examples of problems. I haven't read every single sentence. It might be better to withdraw the article for now, and let a good copyeditor work his or her way through it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs a lot of work. Simple grammatical errors (note the missing apostrophes in the first paragraph of the lead, misplaced comma: "It introduces the character, Liz Lemon", etc.), repetitious sentence structure, awkward phrasing, informal writing ("various insane stunts"), and many typos tax the reader. Continuity section is a bunch of unrelated trivial ideas cobbled together, which have little to do with the show's continuity. Production section could surely be expanded. Reception is listy and ungrammatical. I'd suggest withdrawing this for now. BuddingJournalist 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll look into these problems now. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've started to try and work on these. I'll keep trying. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S. I just noticed your post to Raul's talk page about withdrawing; if you'd like to withdraw this FAC, just post a note saying so on this page, and someone will come along soon to archive it. You can then work on the article at your own pace, and bring it back here whenever you feel the article meets FA standard. BuddingJournalist 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, thanks. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• One link (Arizona Republic) is showing up dead with the link checker and it is dead on clicking it.
• Current ref 26 "D. Allen, Marc "Polished Rock Rolls On" is lacking a publisher.
• What makes http://www.tifaux.com/ a reliable source?
• While its not wrong to link to IMDb for Director's GUild awards, wouldn't it make more sense to link to the DG site itself?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, but i'm just looking to replace the TiFaux source. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find one. Only another unreliable source. I've removed the paragraph. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All done! Yay! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to withdraw this article from FAC please. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the delay; I'll withdraw it now. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through. I hope to see you back as soon as the article is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television, User:Raul654, User:HeirToPendragon, User:Fyre2387, User:The Placebo Effect, User:Dylan0513, User:Parent5446, User:Herald Alberich, User:Rau J, User:Y BCZ, User:Redsparta

Since its passing in January 2007, the article has become filled with a lot of non-reliable sources, particularly from two Avatar fansites: musogato.com and avatarspirit.com. It also has several unreferenced sections now, which appear to be original research or fan theories. All of this badly violates criteria 1c for featured articles. It also had links to copyvio material. I've removed the most blatant (MP3 downloads), but may still have links to unofficial episode transcripts. There are so many links to these two fansites, in particular, that I do not think it can quickly be fixed or replaced with more valid sources, so sending here. Collectonian (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of {{fact}} tags to the influences section. One paragraph in particular, which dealt with the focusing of qi during element bending, was sourced with the name of an avatar episode. I removed the source and placed a tag on it because it did not even come close to supporting the very specific statement. However, an editor replaced the source stating the specific statement was a direct quote from avatar (see here). However, it was never put into quotations, nor was it noted (in the actual article) which character spoke the line. This amounts to plagiarism. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know whether I was just looking at one part of the article, but the prose seems to be a little on the confusing side. There seems to be some number of redundant phrases. Even if I'm wrong, I'm sure the article could use a good copy-edit. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have removed the links to episode transcripts from the reference template, but I will go now and remove them from old references. I will also directly quote the qi part, which was spoken by King bumi in The Return to Omashu, an episode in the shows second season. Rau's Speak Page 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when I looked back, the article has no links to episode transcripts. And many of the links to AvatarSpirit are for interviews, which I do not see how a site could be unreliable on that unless it is made up. And that site always cites a sources, so I doubt that they made it up. The links that aren't transcripts are news reports, such as Convention information and information directly from Nickelodeon. And for Musogato, I do not see how translations and article scans of interviews are a bad thing. Rau's Speak Page 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If AvatarSpirit is citing its sources, go to the sources to get the original version. Article scans of interviews is not the same as the original (can be manipulated, and possibly a copyright issue as they are not a journal service with permission to republish the articles online). If they are all giving their sources, again, go to the sources, get the original, and cite it rather than a fansite that does not meet WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thinking about it, nine out of ten times AvatarSpirit does not provide a source other than "Nick said it". So yea, I drop that from my argument. One of the Musogato interviews were from Nickmag, how do we get the original for that? Rau's Speak Page 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which interview? Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The same interview is cited from that site twice: [2]. Rau's Speak Page 03:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does he give the publication information anywhere? Like which issue, date, etc? If you can have that, enough places that aren't reliable sources mention the article that you can relatively safely presume it was published and cite the magazine itself. Collectonian (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into it. I never actually thought of that..... Rau's Speak Page 04:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for comaprison, here is a diff between the current version and the version that was promoted to FA: [3] — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 11:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of letting us see the old version of the article, the point of wikipedia is the improvement of the article. A revert of that scale would diminish the articles quality. And a lot of discussions on this project seem to die. Rau's Speak Page 18:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, the Aang article has a direct reference to the original magazine article. So if you want to copy that reference you can. I believe it is ref sixteen. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask, what is still wrong with this FA? I have noticed the orignal nominator hasn't said anything recenty.The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the issues have been addressed. Collectonian (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean none of the issues have been addressed? We basically shot down the fansite one and I personally just removed unsourced material and sourced other material. I do not see how that is not addressing the issues. Rau's Speak Page 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He asked what was still wrong. I was just giving him a short answer. The issues have not been completely addressed yet, so all of the problems are still issues that have not been resolved. Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what is still wrong? Looks pretty good to me. The information is sourced and references are accurate. Rau's Speak Page 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Avatarspirit is still in use — non-RS fansite. Still has unsourced content, some tagged as needing sources, some that have dead link sources. It also has excessive non-free images per WP:NONFREE. Collectonian (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AvatarSpirit is being used for interviews. What policy does that violate? Show me where the unsourced content is and I will source or remove it. Also don't say some, there is only one. And all of the links in the sources are good, I checked them. Rau's Speak Page 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the fighting styles, I am sourcing that now. Rau's Speak Page 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AvatarSpirit is a fansite, and violates WP:RS (and parts of violate WP:COPYVIO making it a bad link to begin with). It can't be used for anything.Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its being used for an interview with the staff. I do not see how referencing their interviews violates any of that. Rau's Speak Page 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You really are one stubborn user, Collectionian. I think you should take a visit to WP:RS when you site it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of fansites in that guideline (emphasis on GUIDELINE; sorry to have to use CAPS). Avatar Spirit does not just decide to make up interviews from thin air. That is preposterous. In addition, how exactly are the interviews a copyvio. I am very interested to find out. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch the attitude already. WP:CIVILITY is a policy. I didn't say the interviews violate copyright, the site itself does with its transcription section. Those are not authorized and they are copyright violations. You have no idea if the interviews are real or not because the site does not meet the qualifications for being a reliable source, and being a fansite it never will. And FYI, RS is "just a guideline" but one that supports the verifiability policy, so it is not just a guideline you can ignore. If it isn't a reliable source, it doesn't meet V and doesn't belong, period. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its an interview. And because of that I do not see why any of the others matter. Rau's Speak Page 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't a reliable source, and linking to it can be seen as a copyright violation due to the illegal transcripts, illegal MP3s, etc. As they aren't a news source, peer reviewed, etc, there is nothing to say the interview is a good one, conducted properly, and is factual. Since as it doesn't seem to be sourcing anything not already sourced elsewhere, why even keep it at all? Collectonian (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• ding* only picture i can find with all 7 of them but i doubt we want to use it. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One, nice find, I forgot all about that. Two, we aren't linking to any copyrighted material I do not see how that applies. And if the only excuse for it not being reliable is that they are a fan site, then you need to do one better. WP:VERIFY states that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued". Those are the only mention of peer reviews in the entire policy. After that, we drop to the guideline WP:RS, which has no mention of fan sites at all. Rau's Speak Page 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rau J, consensus there has supported that fansites are not reliable sources, multiple times, and that linking to a site that deliberately violates copyrights is not appropriate at all. That was agree in recent discussions over some anime sites that included links to fansub downloads, Ani-DB. All links to it were removed and its templates deleted as it was agreed that linking to it even for the info pages was a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Collectonian (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately while it shows all, it isn't clear enough to meet the other image use requirements. Also, keep in mind that a character image isn't necessary here. As pointed out in non-free, the individual pages already have images. Collectonian (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:COPYVIO, I just read the entire page and there was no mention of link to sites that have copyright violating material. And where is the consensus that states that it does? Rau's Speak Page 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong short cut. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, particularly the second paragraph of the Linking to copyrighted works section. If you want, we can start yet another discussion on why you feel we should link to a site that violates US law and go against that policy, but why not just find better sources.Collectonian (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I will personally remove all links to information on Avatarspirit, and any information that becomes unsourced as a result of it. Rau's Speak Page 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we link here, considering its an archive? [4] — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because its an archive of the same site, which still would have the same problems. Collectonian (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ding) May i ask why hosting some copyrighted material invalidates the interviews they did themselves to which everyone else will point back to them for that info? The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it violates WP:Copyright. It doesn't matter if they did the interview themselves, they still deliberately violate the copyrights of the property owners. They also aren't really a WP:RS so the value of the interview is questionable. Collectonian (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SO just beacuse they hosted some copyrighted material, every piece of info on there site can't be used? Even if it isn't copyrighted material? That seems a little off to me.... The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that policy. In the court trial that the policy cites, the defendant had actually posted information that was copyrighted, they did not link to an illegal site or anything like that. There is no proof or examples that says linking to a site that posts illegal content is against US law. Furthermore, the policy specifically states "It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine." Therefore, it would be acceptable to use that link I provided a couple of lines up. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and personally I kind of like that image. We definitely need some sort of image in the characters section. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you disagree with the policy is, frankly, irrelevant. The Wikimedia Foundation chose to have stronger copyright policies than US law, as is within their right. It is their website and we are bound by their rules, same as with non-free. And no, an image is not "needed" and many series FAs and GAs do not have them.Collectonian (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant Mr. I-cite-policies-and-guidelines. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, yea, If we deem that not using ASN reduces the quality of the article, then we ignore it. Rau's Speak Page 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A — its Miss, B - WP:CIVIL, C-ignore all rules doesn't apply here. It doesn't prevent anything. The site adds no real value to the article. And, some policies can not be ignored, no matter what. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means to actually understand what IAR really means. It does not mean you get to ignore copyright policies, and it does not mean you get to ignore the consensus of community. IAR is not a "do whatever I want because I don't like your policies" card. You may also want to look at WP:POINT, which is what your last edit was an inappropriate form of. Get over it. Find a valid, non-copyright violating source, or leave it out. Collectonian (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the "mr.", and I was civil. And I read what it means before I cited it. I genuinely feel that not using ASN reduces the quality of the article. And IAR means "Ignore All Rules", that means everything; policy, guidelines, consensus; everything. And my WP:POINT has no bearing on my last edit. Rau's Speak Page 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IAR does not mean everything. If consensus agrees that IAR doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. If one could just invoke IAR to do whatever they wanted, we wouldn't have policies, guidelines, and people wouldn't get blocked for vandalizing articles. Articles wouldn't be deleted for containing copyrighted info because one could just claim "its better than nothing" and links to copyright violations would not be something that gets you a single warning before blocking (which it does). If the content from ASN were geniuinely valuable and would improve the quality of the article, the plain and simple truth is that it would exist elsewhere in other, more reliable, non-law breaking places. That no other sources are available for the information brings into question whether it is even factual, must less valuable to the article. Collectonian (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And what consensus declared that IAR didn't apply? I know of another source for the information but that site (though an official news source) has links to copyrighted material as well. Giving examples of the musical score. Is that site not allowed either? Rau's Speak Page 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple discussions at WP:Copyright that such links don't belong, period. What's the new source/link? If it is an official news source, they are likely to have permission to actually include examples (allowable use), versus ASN which has no permission. Collectonian (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that ASN doesn't have permission. Considering that they receive high quality trailers from Nickelodeon themselves, I think that if Nick had a problem with them having copyrighted material it would have been taken down. (This interview has a lot of the same information, and then some.) Rau's Speak Page 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because if they had it, they would state so. They don't, and do not give any note that the transcripts are official or otherwise. Where as that article gives a proper disclaimer, notes the tracks were provided to them, and are only providing short samples (20-30 seconds) for review purposes. That site could be used as a WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Later tonight I will organize a new comprehensive section with information from that site. I know of no other sites that have information, nor do I intend to look. If someone else finds a site, they can add the information. Rau's Speak Page 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an exact example of something I believe Raul654 said. It went along the lines of "The more time that passes, the less plastic Wikipedia's policies are, and the harder they are to change." Unfortunately, that is the sad truth. Does anybody realize the value of what is being lost here. There are at least ten interview on ASN that have tons of valuable information, all of which have been used in multiple Avatar articles, not to mention that these sources have been reviewed many times and let by (ASN was cited during this article's FA, during Aang's GA, and during many PRs). I do not see what consensus you are pointing to, because I have had tons of editors say "ASN is not reliable", and after I said "the sources are interviews", they were always OK with it. The only thing that is coming in the way of this article and ASN is a policy. Oh, and just so you know, WP:IAR does apply here. It even says in WP:WIARM that IAR can be used if there is an actual explanation that can justify the stray from policy. And there is an explanation. This site has a lot of information. If RauJ does not come back with a lot of information from his new site, I am not going to care what that policy says, because this article is suffering and I will not allow the suffering to continue. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. And the indents are getting ridiculous. Rau's Speak Page 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you want to use it, use it, but it is valid grounds for the article losing its FA status. Up to you. You don't want it to be FA, then IAR and use unreliable, inappropriate sites as reference. If you want it to remain FA, quit complaining and actually do the work necessary to fix the article back to FA quality, including using proper, reliable sources and removing anything that can't be sourced from a proper source. This whole thing is getting utterly ridiculous. Collectonian (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please move this RFC to the talk page; FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• never mind, I'll do it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian: I still have no idea what you are talking about. Nowhere in WP:FA? does it say that an article's sources must comply with every guideline in the book. Nor does it say that WP:IAR cannot be used in a FA. Furthermore, as we've said before, these sources are clearly reliable. The only thing you seem to have against them is the fact they have "illegal" episodes transcripts (and maybe soundtracks) and the fact that it is a fansite. But not every fansite is unreliable. In fact, you'd be surprised how reliable some fansites can be if you analyze them closely. Keep in mind it is in fact the fansite's goal to put reliable, true information about the show on its site. Besides, it is not like we are citing a forum or something, we are citing an interview. As for the supposed "illegal" links, only Collectonian, me, and Rau J have been commenting, and all of our opinions are biased. So I suggest we wait for somebody to respond to the RFC before making a call on that one. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent, that is a horrific signature length to edit around; would you consider shortening it? Concerns about reliability of sources should directly engage WP:V wording; anything else is hot air. Please justify sources specifically per WP:V policy. Further, the last time I read WP:COPYRIGHT (and WP:EL) they were very clear: we don't knowingly link to sites with copyright violations. Period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I called WP:IAR, not using the site is disregarding a very large amount of information that was acquired through interviews. I find that wrong and degrading of the quality of the article. Rau's Speak Page 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't jeopardize all of Wiki for one article to violate a copyright. That is an absurd stretch of IAR. Have you read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL on the reasons why we don't link to copyvios? If these interviews were so important and notable, why can't you find the originals or find them in some usable form without violating copyright? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And amid all this childish hollering and arm waving, can someone please put up the exact URL we're talking about, and the text it is being used to cite? It would be helpful to be able to make an informed opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Avatarspirit conducted the interview themselves. These are the originals. Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. We were using them for information on the musical score of the show. And is anyone else starting to feel like a douche for forgetting why we are here? Rau's Speak Page 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to provide some clear information that others can follow. If they conducted the interviews themselves, where is this copyvio? And what is the text being cited to these interviews? Who owns the interviews, are they hosted on a reliable source, and where is the copyvio everyone is talking about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sandy, based on this comment by Collectonian,[5] it isn't that a link to material that is a copyright violation is being used to cite text. Collectonian seems to be under the impression that because the website has copyrighted material on it that nothing on the website can be used. The links from the fansite that are being used to support text are not copyright violations, but are rather interview conducted by the website itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobblhead :-) So the RFC question is, when the website hosts other pages that contain copyright vios, is it OK to link to any pages on that website... is that correct? If that is the question, my understanding is no, but I honestly don't know if that specific question has been explored. I do recall reading somewhere that the very fact that a website would host a copyvio renders it, by definition, a non-reliable source. Don't know on which Wiki page I saw that, but that is my understanding of why the source would be disqualified as reliable. Still want to see what kind of text is being sourced (and still want to remind the article editors that there are other deficiencies that need attention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit[6] seems to cover the text that is being supported by links to AvatarSpirit.Net. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Text cited to alleged copyvio site (no one has yet shown us the copyvio, this is like pulling teeth)

Avatar features an extensive original musical score, written by composers Benjamin Wynn and Jeremy Zuckerman, founders of the Track Team.^[1] According to an interview with Jeremy Zuckerman, the team had been hired by the creators due to a roommate story.^[1] Benjamin Wynn had been roommates with Bryan Konietzko while he and DiMartino were creating Avatar. The creators decided to hire Wynn and Zuckerman to do the score, having complete faith in their ability.^[1] Because the instruments are chosen based on timbre, and not culture, the music in the show is composed of both Western and Eastern instruments.^[2] Chosen for its intimacy and gentle sounds, the Kalimba is used in the more serene moments.^[2] The sound of the sunghi horn, a fictional instrument that first appeared on the show in the episode "The Waterbending Scroll", is also used in the musical score of the show. It is described as having a sound like an instrument that is part reed and part brass.^[3]

So, besides the sourcing question, help me understand why this prose is engaging, compelling or brilliant? Why don't you all stop fighting over one site for a few days, focus instead on bringing this article to standard, don't put up half-baked RfCs that waste community time, and see how this issue works out once you've cleaned up the rest of the article? Doesn't it trouble any of you that you're basing everything about the music score on one source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It does now, I never thought of it. But we do have a second source that I had every intention to use to rewrite the musical score section before this was reignited. Rau's Speak Page 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll see what I can do. BTW, if I find the time to copyedit the whole article, the revisions will be posted tomorrow. I cannot guarantee the inclusion of any edits between now and then, but I will try. (For my own reference, this is the revision I am working from.) — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just one last thing: I don't understand how linking to ASN is a copyvio. Could somebody please explain? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that in the past, a US court has said it is illegal to link to sights that contain copyrighted material, an dwe need to avoid any law suits at all. Unless we email AvatarSpirit about this asking about it. But i don't know exactly what we could ask them. If they can remove the copyrighted material so we can use them a source on wikipedia and provide proof they had the interviews( I think some are in mp3 form actually)? The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm not getting. There is nothing in copyright law that says linking to sites with copyrighted material is illegal. There is a law that says linking to copyrighted material itself is illegal (like if we linked directly to the mp3 files or transcripts, which he have done before, but they were removed). So what is the problem? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a lot of MoS deficiencies and unformatted and incorrectly formatted citations, so you all might want to stop arguing and start bringing the article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, but that was mentioned in the original post, so we didn't know that was a problem. We will get right on it. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I copyedited up to the Influences section. Is it at least a little bit better? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is reference quality (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - still has referencing issues, including large amounts of unsourced content and some non-WP:RS sources. Article also badly fails to follow the TV MoS and no exceptional reason given/demonstrated for not following it. The non-free image issues have been fixed, and article has improved during this FAR, but I do not feel it is back to being FA quality yet. Collectonian (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article is able to be elected an featured article. Have references reliables, good quality and style. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Comments

• Remove links from bold text, or remove the bold, per WP:TITLE
• References go after punctuation, not before, per WP:FOOTNOTE

Gary King (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Get rid of the spaces between the years and the en-dash.
• "six seasons and 134 episodes" - perhaps "six seasons comprising 134 episodes" for clarity?
• "association with/distributed by" yuck - prose please.
• I'd put the season synopsis at the end of the list.
• Season 5 region 2 - no release. Why not?
• Title column is far too wide (could be half the width) and compresses the other columns unnecessarily.
• Don't over-wikilink things - the tables aren't sortable so one link per article per section as a max is enough.
• What makes http://www.whoosh.org a reliable source? Looks like a homemade site with no pedigree (but happy to be corrected).

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from Collectonian (talk · contribs) (a primary contributer)

• Most of the "souces" are not reliable at all, with the built being from two self-published fansites, ausxip.com and whoosh.org
• DVD releases for Region 2 and 4 missing refs
• Lead does not meet WP:LEAD nor the established guidelines seen in other featured lists

Where to start...First off, the lead is ridiculously short for such a long article. It does not mention anything about the shorts of DVDs located near the end of the article. The prose is a little bit short, though not the main problem the article has. For the table itself, it is not very appealing. Every part of the table is a different shade of gray. Even the place where summary text is placed is gray, which is not a good contrast of colors. In addition to all of this, the article has no sourcing for pretty much anything in the article, with particular concern toward the DVD section. Also, the article seems to have mini-trivia sections at the top of each section. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delist per short lead, which does not even give the premise of the series; however, this list is very easy to save. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This list fails criteria 1c of the FL criteria in that it can not be claimed to be factually accurate when it is lacking in references. The two general references cover the episode list itself, but the entire lead is unreferenced. It has been tagged for this issue since February, but it has remained unaddressed. At this point, I feel it should be delisted. Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For hour long episodes, the summaries are rather short too.
• TV.com isn't a reliable source, as it is user-edited, just like IMDB
• What does need referencing? I would say the Directors, Writers and airdates. The writers and directors are covered by the HBO website.
• The TVWoP gives airdates, but is it a reliable source? Who are the recappers? Is it a user-edited site, or are they Bravo employees? Perhaps TV Guide's website would be better?
• The lead does need citing; I don't mind doing that. I've found a few relevant references already, though I haven't seen a single episode, so if it needs expanding, I'm not the best person for that job.
  • Y Done -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know parts of TV.com are user edited, but are the actual airdates/episode lists? Good question on TVWoP. The recappers are a set group of people who are paid for their work, and new recappers apparently have to go through an interview process just like any other job (I never knew that until I just looked them up, wow). So that would seem to make them professional reviewers and so I'd say they meet the reliable source requirements. Collectonian (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried searching the site for an "About Us" or similar section, but didn't see it. I'm not sure about the airdates and episode lists at TV.com. The recaps and everything else in the "white space" are user-edited. I'm not sure about headers and stuff, but to be safe I think it should be replaced with something solidly reliable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this List stand now? Does it meet the criteria yet? For me, I'd still like to see lengthier episode summaries, but is that a FL requirement. Unfortunately, I can't do them as I haven't seen the show and after today I won't be able to access the internet for a few days anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is looking better (though 86 needs to be unbolded :P). Proper episode summaries are an FL requirement for an episode list. Unfortunately, I've never watched it either, so I can't tell if they are including relevant plot points and resolutions, or if they are teasers. Guess they can be checked against the excessive episode articles, though, to see. Collectonian (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I left it bold because most of the American drama episode lists have the number bolded. It doesn't bother me which was is correct, as long as there is consistency across the board. I'll leave it for someone else to do the summary checks. I'm moving out of my apartment today and tomorrow, but my new one won't be ready until the 9th because the previous tenants trashed it. I do get new appliances, paint and carpet though! :) Anyway, it means I won't have internet access until about the 12th. :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No major changes have been made to this article in the last two weeks. It was brought here based on the fact that it failed the old WP:WIAFL criteria 1c ("Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.). I think this has been addressed, and now meets the revised criteria.

I am still concerned with the summaries. Are they teasers or summaries? I haven't seen a single episode so I don't know. Are the of an adequate length for an hour long show? Looking at the summaries of Lost (season 3), another hour long show (although it's actually 45 minutes because of commercials), I would say they're too short. But that isn't why it was brought here. The newly revised criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". It does cover the scope, but does it do it comprehensively? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be reviewed before it is nominated for featured status. It is an amazing show and I think it is good enough to be featured, but should be reviewed first.- JustPhil 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • arguably
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 00:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• As Andy suggests, it can be improved by removing excessive links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)