Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Smoking PSA

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Smoking PSA

  • Nominated by: Thunderforge (talk) 04:29, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Previously nominated as a Comprehensive Article, but failed because after revisions it exceeded 250 words. There was also a Trash Compactor discussion about whether or not commercials like this one belonged on Wookieepedia. The discussion was closed in January with a decision to keep this page at least and no further challenges have been made to it in the last two months.

(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote JangFett (Talk) 17:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:59, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Good work. 501st dogma(talk) 23:41, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Winterz (talk) 23:10, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
  5. ACvote IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:09, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Asithol (talk) 22:21, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Object

501st
  1. You mention the space station in the body, and there is a redlink for it in the appearances section. Did we not deduce that them being on a space station was fan speculation?
    • That's a holdover from when the article did exist and the link didn't get removed when it was trash compacted. Fixed.
      • It still mentions a space station in the body.
        • Fixed.
  2. Could we get another quote for the Synopsis section?
    • We don't really have much to work with. I suppose I could use "R2-D2, you've found a cigarette!" but it's not really that evocative of a quote.
  3. I believe you need to mention somewhere in the article, once in the intro and once in the body, that the PSA was non-canon.
    • I've added it to the intro, but I can't find a good way to work it in later. Besides, I figure "C-3P0 directly address the audience" clearly puts it as non-canon.
      • You could add it to the development section.
        • Done.
  4. Context on R2-D2 should be given in the body.
    • What sort of context should I add?
      • Saying he is a droid should do the trick.
        • Done.
  5. Good work. 501st dogma(talk) 13:24, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks! -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • I have modified your replies here and put them in their corresponding places in order to comply with our standards. Please look into this edit and see how it's done ;). Winterz (talk) 21:52, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
  6. "The PSA consists of a sketch..." You sure this is supposed to be a sketch? Wouldn't skit be better?
    • You're right, "skit" is better. Fixed.
  7. "The 60-second version includes an opening where C-3PO is looking for R2-D2 and has him initially believing that R2-D2 is on fire before he realizes he is smoking a cigarette. The 30-second version starts immediately with C-3PO identifying R2-D2 as having a cigarette." This can probably be removed, as you describe both version in the synopsis.
    • Jang had asked me to do that in one of his suggestions. Since I've got two reviewers suggesting two opposite things, I'm not sure what to do :-/
      • I guess you can leave it then, but its still redundant.
        • In rereading Jang's comments, it seems like his big concern was that the information about a 30 second and 60 second version should not be limited to the infobox. Since we have it in the synopsis and development section, we should be covered then. I've removed it from the lead. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:31, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Can you ref the last sentence in the Development? Just using your first ref (1) will do fine there. 501st dogma(talk) 14:47, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
    • Done.
Jang
  • Please go more into detail as to what was cut from the 30 second video and the alternate takes. What are you currently using in the synopsis? If the 30 second video is different in comparison to the 60 second, then this should be noted in the article. Both are non-canon so one does not trump the other even though one is shorter than the other. JangFett (Talk) 13:44, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
    • Done, let me know if you have further suggestions. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • Instead of the tag, I think it would be better if you write out the 30 second version under the 60 second version. It would be better since the 60 second version shouldn't be exclusive to the synopsis section. JangFett (Talk) 15:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I've created two synopses. Let me know if this is more what you are looking for. -Thunderforge (talk) 17:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you possibly add another sentence or two in the intro? Just so it could be proportional to the body. JangFett (Talk) 18:36, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
    • I added one sentence to it giving a brief summary of the plot, but I'm not sure if it's redundant or not. If you have other suggestions, let me know. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:40, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
      • I think mentioning that the PSA had a 30 and 60 second version will be useful in the intro. JangFett (Talk) 17:19, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
        • Isn't this redundant because it's in the infobox already? I've gone ahead and made the change anyway. -Thunderforge (talk) 15:55, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
          • No, then it'll be infobox exclusive. Per common practice, anything in the infobox should be reflected in the article's main body. JangFett (Talk) 17:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
            • 501st above had said that this sentence was redundant. It seems like your main concern was that the information about a 30 second and 60 second version should not be limited to the infobox. Since we have it in the synopsis and development section, I think that we've already got that issue solved. For that reason I've removed it from the lead, but we can try to work out some consensus with the other reviewers if you still think it absolutely has to be there. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:31, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
  • I do remember that some might object to linking to IU links since this article is a real-life OOU subject. I wouldn't suggest delinking all of the IU links and replace them with real-life OOU ones, but you should go ahead and ask users who are familiar with OOU. The SH would be a good place to start. Otherwise, I'd suggest keeping the links in the synopsis (since clearly 3PO and R2 are in the galaxy) and remove the IU links elsewhere. I would like to keep the linking consistent. JangFett (Talk) 18:36, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
Winterz
  • Reload the infobox, you have additional fields there. Also, handsome work. Winterz (talk) 16:07, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
    • How do I go about doing this? -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • Replace the current template with {{Infobox_Movie/preload}} and then fill in the fields again or just press the "source" button on the bottom of the present template and then copy the fields from the Template page and fill them in again, replacing the current one. Winterz (talk) 21:56, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
  • Does this article need a {{Conjecture}} tag? Is there anywhere where the title of the piece is specifically called the "Smoking PSA"?
    • The video is not hosted on any official website (e.g. StarWars.com) and I can't find any official source regarding it, which probably isn't surprising given that it was released before the age of the internet. For what it's worth, unofficial sources call it a wide variety of names, so if there ever was an official name, it isn't well recognized. So it seems like it does indeed need a {{Conjecture}} tag. I've gone ahead and added it.
      • Cool, but you'll also need to adjust the article so you don't directly call it "The Smoking PSA" as if it's the actual name. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:51, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
        • I've made some changes to that based on how it seems other conjectural GAs do it. Let me know if you'd like for me to make further changes. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:58, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • "is fiddling with a strange device" Seems a little POV to me. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:39, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right, that can be reading a bit too much into this. I've changed that to a more generic "using an electronic device". -Thunderforge (talk) 22:28, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Asithol
  • The section labelled Development covers a lot more than development. It first talks about the development, then summarizes the synopses of the two versions, addresses the piece's canonicity, and talks about its possible 1997 re-airing. Other than the synopses, which mostly repeat information from the previous section, this information is relevant to the article, but not to Development. I'm not sure whether it's better to change the section heading to be more general, or to move the non-development info into new sections. (But there should certainly be at least paragraph breaks between the shifts in topic.) Asithol (talk) 21:19, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • I've moved the part about canonicity to a new section and removed the synopsis (which was more a summary of the different takes they used, but it does come across as a duplicate). Let me know if further changes need to be made. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • Definitely an improvement. The sentence about the possible 1997 re-airing still isn't really "Development," as the piece was developed over a decade ago by that point. But of the sections listed in the portion of the layout guide that Toprawa linked to, I don't see one that strikes me as really a good fit for this tidbit. Maybe the best thing to do in this case is just call this section Development and release? Not a huge deal to me at this point, but it would be good to have the section label accurately reflect what that section talks about. Asithol (talk) 23:14, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree the PSA is almost certainly noncanon, but the only support for this assertion in the article is the fact that C-3PO directly addresses the audience, which hardly disqualifies it: the Star Wars universe has audiences as well. Has it been officially deemed noncanon, or is this ultimately a speculative designation? Asithol (talk) 21:19, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • I have not seen any other source that mentions this PSA and its canonicity. It seems clear to me that C-3PO is addressing the television audience, rather than some in-universe audience, since the commercial was created first and foremost as a PSA for the real world. And as far as I know, this is the first time the canonicity of a commercial has been mentioned. The closest precedent I can find is Star Wars Miniatures: Legacy of the Force advertisement, but that has the added benefit of having characters from different eras. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's tricky territory without much precedent. The thing is, the {{Noncanon|legends=1}} template explicitly says "has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees," which does not seem to apply here. As far as deducing the spot's canonical status, if C-3PO had addressed "Citizens of Earth" or some such, it'd be clear-cut, but however much I agree that he's talking to a 20th-century television audience, I'm not sure the support is there in the PSA itself to state this definitively. So I wonder if the {{Ambig}} tag is a better fit: "has not been deemed to be definitively canon" is a pretty safe statement to make about this PSA. Then the Canonicity section can address the question in a NPOV manner. What do others think? Asithol (talk) 20:57, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks like we haven't had any further response for this in two weeks. How should we proceed on this objection? -Thunderforge (talk) 00:47, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, what is your opinion on the appropriateness of {{Ambig}}'s wording vs. {{Noncanon|legends=1}}'s? Asithol (talk) 23:06, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
            • After comparing the two templates side by side, it definitely seems like the non-canon one is better. After all, the author, licensees, and Lucasfilm have said diddly squat about this PSA. Now I bet if they ever did talk about it, they would undoubtedly say it's non-canon, but since they haven't said anything, we can't make the definitive claim that it "has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees". I've changed the template and modified the Canonicity section. Please let me know if I need to make further changes. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:01, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
              • I feel the need to point out that per Forum:CT:New canon policy, Template:Ambig will soon be repurposed to label subjects from unlicensed sources, which this is not, because with the death of the EU the notion of "ambiguous canon" no longer has any meaning. Therefore a different tag, or no tag at all, should be used.
                Master JonathanCouncil Chambers
                05:35 UTC TueMay 6, 2014
                • And excuse the stink, but I just had a brain fart: we actually use Template:Ambig and {{Noncanon}} only on in-universe articles. Those tags are not used on OOU media articles, where the canoncity should be indicated by an explicit mention in the prose. So the ambig tag should be removed.
                  Master JonathanCouncil Chambers
                  05:38 UTC TueMay 6, 2014

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Template:Ambig tag has been removed. Let me know if I should change the "canonicity" section of the article based on the new canon guidelines. -Thunderforge (talk) 18:35, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me, though others may feel differently, since we don't have an example yet of how Canonicity and BTS sections should handle the Legends announcement. That's something that will probably develop over time on the FAN, GAN, and CAN pages.
    Master JonathanCouncil Chambers
    07:29 UTC WedMay 7, 2014
    • Looks good to me, too. Asithol (talk) 07:37, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • One last small point. It is generally considered good style to define an acronym the first time it is used. "PSA" is used throughout the article, but the first use of the phrase "public service announcement" should make explicit that PSA stands for this. This was done in a previous revision of the article, but it's not in the current text. Asithol (talk) 01:39, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • This article is a mess. I'm going to go through this with you slowly, section by section. The very first problem is the referencing. This is a special situation where, unlike a book or a movie that is readily accessible on the open market, this article shouldn't reference itself, as in Reference 1. What you're really referencing are the two YouTube videos, which are basically your only sources of information for this subject. Those should be your point of references, not linking back to this article. Please go through and adapt every <ref name="PSA" /> reference note to instead reference one of the two specific YouTube videos. This also applies to the source field for the quote.
    • I'm not sure that switching the reference to the YouTube video is the right thing to do. First, The Star Wars Holiday Special is similarly inaccessible on the open market, but it cites itself as a source quite a few times. Second, the article does link to the YouTube copies, but there are also copies of it on other video hosting sites (I found five other sites on a cursory search). I don't think there's anything particularly special about the copies on YouTube that make them specifically need to be cited. Besides if the videos on YouTube were to disappear, the article would still be valid and could link to any of those other copies online. Referencing the commercial itself, rather than the specific copy of the commercial, seems like a wiser idea. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • Your referencing doesn't work because, unlike something like The Empire Strikes Back, where the reader can easily go to that source and verify an article's information, this article's information is entirely reliant on these Internet videos. If these videos didn't exist, you couldn't even write this article. That's where you're literally getting your information from, so that's where you need to source your information to. If a reader wants to see where this article's information is coming from, it does them no good to see the name of this article listed in a reference note, because it's as if this article is just perpetuating itself. They need to be able to see that the information is coming from a YouTube video, for example, so that they can go and check it, just like they would open up a film or book. And just because Holiday Special or another article does something doesn't mean it's ok. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:56, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll offer you a compromise. Make your reference note look like this: <ref name="PSA">Smoking PSA {{C|via [YouTube URL|YouTube video]}}</ref>. How does that work for you? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:04, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
        • Although I used YouTube, what would this mean for those who did not use YouTube? If someone used a copy on any of the other video hosting sites, would they create a new citation <ref name="PSA">Smoking PSA {{C|via [DailyMotion URL|DailyMotion video]}}</ref>? And what if they used an old videotape as a reference? -Thunderforge (talk) 02:02, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
          • [Originally in Asithol's section] I'm not sure whether it's better to address Toprawa's point about the video reference here, or in the section below that talks about it. The disagreement seems to come down to a philosophical point about what a "reference" actually means. Toprawa's position seems to be that it is a means for a reader to find the item in question, while Thunderforge's view is that it is a unique identification of the item, independent of where the item may be found.

            I believe that sourcing on Wookieepedia generally follows the latter model. A pointer to an obscure West End Games module with a small print run, for instance, is generally deemed sufficient as a source. That most readers would have trouble tracking down a copy of this module, and that information in this module may exist nowhere else—especially not on the Internet—is irrelevant: the source has been uniquely identified, and at that point it becomes the reader's responsibility to find the source if s/he wishes to check it.

            In this case, because the PSA is widely available on the Internet, absolutely, a link to the video (on YouTube or another service) should be provided in the External links section. But no Internet site is the actual source of the video, and thus none should be identified as such. The video itself is the source of the information it contains; sites on the Internet are merely mechanisms to find that source, and the two concepts shouldn't be intertwined. Asithol (talk) 18:03, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

            • Glad to have another voice in the conversation! I think you've analyzed our differences in opinion correctly and I would agree with your rationale. Perhaps it would be good to move it down to the section that way the discussion is all in one place and so that it doesn't look like this is an independent objection to the GAN. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:35, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
              • Ah, good point. I wasn't sure of the protocol on that. Move as you see fit. Asithol (talk) 05:11, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
                • Moved. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:40, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
                  • The community has agreed to embed the video itself within this article, so I'm satisfied with the referencing style now. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:30, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Asithol above, I'm also very concerned with this article's sectioning. I would suggest just sticking with our formal layout for published narrative works, which I think can safely apply to this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:36, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made some changes to this based on what I saw from that. I'd appreciate having the canonicity section double-checked; I'm not sure if I'm using it correctly. I've also removed the description of the shots since both of you seemed to view it as a plot summary rather than a description of the different takes. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • Starting anew with my review, I'm going to begin with a number of general issues here.
    • First, it would be better to move this article to "Star Wars Smoking PSA," as that matches what the rest of the Internet calls this video. If for no other reason, that will make it easier for people to find our article on search engines.
    • Second, this article should conform to the layout for published works as defined here.
    • Thirdly, all articles must have their titles in bold upon first mention in the intro. Once these three are resolved, I'll continue my review. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:30, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:09, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Idle objections over two weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:38, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 19:39, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
  3. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 19:49, July 6, 2014 (UTC)