Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DuMont Television Network/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

DuMont Television Network

[edit]

A well-written and comprehensive article on the now-forgotten television network, during TV's "Golden Age" (1940s-1950s).

I did not write this article, but I think it exemplifies good writing on Wikipedia. The prose is well-written in a way that I think is easily accessible to people not familiar with TV industry terminology without being "dumbed down". I did add the references and notes, and a few details, during this article's peer review, so in that sense, it is a self-nom.

Wikipedia has never had a featured article on a TV network; this is one of the few Good Articles in that subject. I've asked for suggestions during the peer review and from members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations team and this article is the result, with an expanded lead, inline cites, and wikilinks on difficult terminology. 34 "Citation Needed" templates were placed on this article during Peer Review, and each of those now has at least one citation. Please support this article on an oft-neglected subject; don't mind the cobwebs! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. already had another ref there anyway. No reason to object for this reason now, right?
Removed, and replaced with a different source.
This was just a mistake in the editing process. Reference now points to the Pittsburgh TV station page. Thanks.
Full title now included, thanks.
Published by Temple University Press, as now stated in the article. Thanks.
Replaced this reference with two more appropriate links, including AT&T's website. Thanks.

Sandy (Talk) 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The UCLA Film and Television Archive is the title of the web page of the UCLA Film and Television Archive.
The title is Collections - Early television. The publisher is The UCLA Film and Television Archive. Sandy (Talk) 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarke Ingram is an acknowledged expert on the DuMont Network [1][2]. If Mr. Ingram is widely used as a reliable source (and he is) there's no reason his web-site isn't also reliable.
It's still a self-published, AOL members website, and he is described as a "Dumont buff" - not good enough to satisfy me it rises to the level of WP:V and isn't just self-published <whatever>, sorry. Sandy (Talk) 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Unplugged" paper was to specifically address the statement "It would be another two years before the West Coast could get live programming, but this was the beginning of the modern era of network television.", but I guess a different source could be used, because the primary focus in that paper is the Midwest coaxial connection.
Thanks for those fixes to the page! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but Gimmetrow's marvelous ref fixing script gets the credit. Sandy (Talk) 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, please thank Gimmetrow's ref fixing script for me. :) I believe I have fixed everything you objected to, except for your objection to Clarke Ingram's site as a reliable source. Mr. Ingram is well-respected in the field of broadcasting, and has been in the business for decades.[3] It would be difficult to find a better or more comprehensive source on the DuMont Network, a network which is not well-remembered and which has been defunct for over 50 years. Ingram's site is also the #1 ghit for "Dumont Television Network", and was most likely the first site on-line to mention the duMont network. If you have objections to other aspects of this article which would prevent it from becoming a Featured Article, I will gladly modify the article accordingly, to the best of my ability. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the article's overall quality, I'd like to give it my support. I have one major hesitation, however. While your argument on behalf of Ingram is persuasive, I don't understand why it's not possible, before FA status is awarded, to verify all the information he provides by reference to Ted Bergmann's book The DuMont Television Network: What Happened?, which Ingram himself characterizes as authoritative.—DCGeist 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is required, I will verify all of the information by reference to Ted Bergmann's book, then, and include the refs. But it will take me a couple of days to order and receive the book. I should note Mr. Ingram uses Mr. Bergmann as a source on his site, and that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Bergmann are in contact with one another, as indicated here, but since there are still lingering doubts about Mr. Ingram's site, all I can do is acquiesce.Firsfron of Ronchester 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Just to be clear, I don't have particularly serious doubts about Ingram's site. But whenever you can verify, you really must verify. One of North America's greatest cultural critics, Jane Jacobs, inspiringly left a major error of anthropological interpretation (one that happened to be shared by many specialists in the field) in the main text of her final book, Dark Age Ahead, so she could direct the reader to a note that begins: "I have learned yet again (this has been going on all my life) what folly it is to take anything for granted without examining it skeptically...." She was eighty-eight years old and one of the most respected writers in the world when she did that. Not only may you discover an error Ingram has made either directly or in interpreting Bergmann (or a slip you have made in interpreting Ingram), who knows what else you may discover during the process of verification. Vital or just intriguing information that Ingram overlooked? A more appropriate area of emphasis? New lines of inquiry? It's worth it--not to satisfy Sandy and me, but to do the best by both the article and by what I apprehend to be your admirable goal of being a truly diligent researcher and contributor.—DCGeist 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, of course. I've ordered the book, expedited, and will add the references and anything else that must be added as soon as it comes in. Please please please check back in a few days. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I look forward to it.—DCGeist 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've replaced the references which used the DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site with references from Bergmann and Skutch's book, where applicable. You can see here the changes I've made. Almost all of the DuMont Web Site's claims were substantiated by the text, with the following exceptions:
  • Bergmann claimed KCTY-TV in Kansas City broadcast for only three months, while Ingram claimed two. I've used the Bergmann number, with reference.
  • Ingram claimed the DuMont kinescopes were stored at an ABC network warehouse. Bergmann makes no mention of what happened to the kinescopes. "Television Heaven" says the kinescopes were picked up at the loading dock in trucks, taken to the river, and dumped into Upper New York Bay. I've removed any mention of ABC there (unverified), and referenced "Television Heaven" for the rest.
  • Ingram claims ABC required advertisers to buy a must-buy station line-up. Bergmann doesn't mention ABC's sales tactics here (which was a surprise, given his advertising sales position at DuMont at the time), so I've removed the unsupportable passage, reworking the end of the paragraph to reflect the missing sentence.
  • The only DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site citation that is left in there is the link Ingram makes between DuMont and Fox, because that comes directly from his site. If even this is still unacceptable, I will remove it.
  • I've added the link to the List of DuMont programs, which is mostly still red (sorry).
If there are further objections, please let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another look - improved, but still not there:

  • Websource references and footnotes need full bibliographic info and last access date, example, The DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site and Space Hero Files: Captain Video and Garvin, Glenn. "Who Killed Captain Video? How the FCC strangled a TV pioneer". Reason, March 2005. (latter has full biblio info, but no last access date).
  • Please put Refernces in alphabetical order.
  • All book citations need page numbers, example, these need to be split out by page, Bergmann (2002), p. x in the footnote, with the book listed in the References: a b c d e f g h i Bergmann, Ted, and Ira Skutch. The DuMont Television Network: What Happened? Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8108-4270-X. Same for all books.
  • Another footnote with no biblio info, no last access date: ^ DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site
  • Please double check all of your references, and provide page nos for books - the above list is samples only.
  • I see a lot of uncited text, so please run through again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for looking, Sandy. Thank you for your patience. I tried to match the citation sytles to Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style as closely as possible. I've included pages numbers whenever possible. I used the citation templates for the reference section. If I counted correctly (not saying I have, this late at night), there are 47 in-line citations now. On my monitor, that shows up as roughly one citation per inch of text, or one cite per every few sentences. I tried to cover everything. DCGeist says below I shouldn't add too many more citations, but since you wanted more, I figured maybe a compromise, and added more. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your first three references, completing two as examples only of information that still needs to be completed (publisher, access date, and one title doesn't agree with the website, so I'm not sure what's up there). With respect to references, I don't count, tally, or look at density per line or page or whatever - I look at facts that should be cited in the text. I added a couple of sample cn tags at the very bottom of the article, so as not to muck up more of your article with tags. Also, for those of us not familiar with the industry, would you mind defining terms like O&O the first time they're encountered? If you feel that the wikilink is sufficient, I won't object, but it would be helpful to clarify lingo for general readership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fixes, Sandy. For web site references, I have fixed each one so that they appear to resemble the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Web_sites_and_articles_.28not_from_periodicals.29. The examples do not show "publisher". For Footnote [2], The Forgotten Network is a book. The first chapter is available online in PDF format. There doesn't appear to be anything on WP:CITE about how to treat books which are partly available on-line, which was why I was treating it as a book, but with an external link. I didn't think the "retrieved on" date would be required. Thank you for including it.
An example of how to cite a book that is also available online is on the same page (above) where you found the inaccurate example of how to cite a website. If you read the rest of that page thoroughly, you'll find ample links and references to adequate information about citing websites, which always include mention of the website publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The full book isn't on-line, only the first chapter. If I understand you correctly, you are stating Wikipedia's own citation example shows an incorrect example of how to cite a web-site. This, frankly, puzzles me, as this example has been on there, unchanged in format, for over a year. Despite modifications to other parts of the page, this has remained the same. It appears to me, then, that on-line sources do not require a reference which includes publisher.Firsfron of Ronchester 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I am stating. Since "it's a Wiki", I don't know why you find it so surprising that one poorly-placed example may be wrong - happens all the time - made worse in this case by the fact that even the example is to a long-dead link. Every other link or reference you can follow on that page (or any other page about referencing) will lead to a correct referencing style for websites, no matter which source, style, or version you choose, including the cite templates. I don't believe you will find a referencing style anywhere that does not indicate the publisher of the website in some form or another. You are sticking with one example (in contrast to numerous other links on that page to correct samples) even if it holds up your FAC. Since you staunchly defend your sources (below), I don't understand the reluctance to identify them with a correct referencing style. Also, there is no need to escalate the FAC to the kind of dialogue you and DCGeist engage in below - wouldn't it be easier just to complete your references? <click - unwatch> If you do so, and want me to have a second look, pls ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The article has improved greatly with the addition of some book sources in place of websources, but since you haven't identified most website publishers, I've re-examined them. I appreciate the work you did to replace the AOL members webpage with book references, but I find that most of the other websources you don't provide a publisher for are self-published websites that don't appear to rise to the level of reliable sources. The article is still heavily based on self-published, non-reliable sources. If you would have identified the website publishers earlier (by correctly referencing the websources and identifying publishers), this problem would have been more apparent sooner. Excluding the Ingram personal website, which you've explained:

  • a b Dean, L. DuMont TV - KTTV TV11. Larry Dean's R-VCR Television Production website. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Radio Ranch Media Production website appears to be a personal website/hobby that doesn't meet RS.
  • a b c d e f g Spadoni, M. (June 2003). DuMont: America's First "Fourth Network". Television Heaven. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Television heaven is a site where anyone can sumbit an article, doesn't appear subject to fact checking, and doesn't give indications of meeting WP:RS.
  • ^ Merlin, J. Roaring Rockets: The Space Hero Files. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. slick-net, AKA Drew's World of Choppers, doesn't appear to be a reliable source.
  • ^ a b c d Jajkowski , S. (2001). Chicago Television: And Then There Was... DuMont. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Chicagotelevision.com appears to be a self-published, personal website, hobby.
  • ^ Jajkowski, S. (2005). Chicago Television: My Afternoon With Red. Retrieved on January 6, 2007. Another Chicagotelevision.com
  • ^ Ransom, Mike (1998). Tulsa TV History Thesis - KCEB. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Tulsatvmemories appears to be a blog.
Response: They have a blog; they are not a blog. Their blog is at a completely different site: http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/tulsatv . Sandy, you must by now be able to tell the difference between a web-site and a blog.Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must switch to a Strong object as it appears that your reluctance to reveal the publishers on your sources highlights a larger problem with reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles in the title bar sometimes differ from the text at the top of the page. For example, Ref [5] only has the word "Television Heaven" in the title bar, but that is the name of the web-site. The title at the top of the page itself, however, says "DuMont: America's First Fourth Television Network". I have taken this to be the actual title of the page, as otherwise, all the pages on the site will have the same name.
I have included wikilinks on difficult terminology as I feel this article isn't really the place to go into explanations on what "O&Os" are, or what coaxial cable is; I do understand your reason for requesting this. At the same time, explanations tend to clutter the page and cause sentence fragments, which detracts from the prose. I honestly would prefer to wikilink most terms. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy of Dwaipayan, per WP:MOS, "The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses", so I will object to not spelling out what the O&O abbreviation refers to on the first occurrence, per WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I cannot agree with the statement that so many "badly sourced, error-filled articles on radio and television currently reside on Wikipedia; your work here really stands out and, I hope, will serve as an example to others contributing in the field" is a good rationalization for promoting to FA an article that does not appear to use reliable sources, and do not believe that would be a good example for other articles in the radio and television. Since you have several reliable sources, I feel confident you can rework the article to reflect information from those sources, rather than personal, or self-published hobby websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just about there. Sandy and I are looking at this through different goggles: I don't see a lot of uncited text at all. The tendency of some editors to cite every single declaration of fact or analysis is counterproductive--such articles are difficult to read and thus fail to serve Wikipedia's primary purpose: informing its readers. Citations are required for (a) direct quotes [and, though the Wikipedia guidelines doesn't explicitly state so, specific, substantive paraphrasings from unique sources] and (b) matter that is challenged or likely to be challenged. They are also desirable for (c) information that would be difficult for an interested reader to verify, even after looking over the sources you already provide, and (d) matter that you have discovered is reported incorrectly elsewhere in a major source or in multiple minor ones. It seems to me you've met that standard--with the exception of the one place I tagged while doing a light copyedit. Please don't go into citation overkill...you've provided very good sourcing now and any reader truly interested in the topic should have no trouble verifying the information that appears--if...
...And here I do agree with Sandy...you help out by providing page numbers for the citations you do give. It's not a standard requirement on Wikipedia yet, but it really should be. The contributor found the cited information on a specific page--there's no good reason not to tell the reader what page that is, as is done in any well-referenced published text. Sandy is right again, of course, about rationalizing the References list.
Response: Thanks for your comments, of course. I've provided page numbers for the books I used to verify the information. It doesn't seem to be a requirement, as many respected FAs don't have it, but I see the common sense in having the page numbers there. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One question and one cavil:
(1) What is the basis for the division between DuMont's "better-remembered programs" and the three also-rans listed below? In some cases it's obvious, but how, for instance, was it determined that With This Ring is among the better-remembered shows while Captain Video (described as "hugely popular") is not?
Response: there is no real division between the two. These were all among the more popular series, unlike, eg, Serving Through Science, which was aired before almost anyone had a television. The line was, I believe, simply meant to break up the list into more readable prose, and I retained it during copyedit, as the FAC reviwers don't like lists. If you all would prefer, I'll remove the line in the middle. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) I strongly believe there is entirely too much Wikilinking on Wikipedia. Wikilinks are meant to help the reader, to guide them to elaborations on material of particular relevance to the article, to explain perhaps obscure terminology, and so forth. What reader coming to this article would need to have it clarified what New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or World War II are? Linking such terms distracts the reader from the links that are really important to the article and the areas of interest specifically associated with it. (I find all the individual year links unhelpfully distracting as well, but I know some people are devout believers in these piping to these "19XY in Z" pages. Oy.) I am a very firm advocate of this: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Ultimately, this is your call, and certainly not important enough to bear on the question of supporting the piece for Featured Article status.
You're of course correct that I should not have linked to United States; I've seen this before on FAC. There's probably no one who doesn't know what the U.S. is, so no real need for a wikilink there. I also removed the wikilinks on WWII, New York, and Los Angeles. I retained the link on Chicago; as Wikipedia's readership is supposed to be global, there may be those not familiar with a city that is slightly smaller. I also retained the "19xx in Z" links, as the automated peer review suggested I keep those if they specifically refer to the article in question. Last I checked, they did. Hope this is alright! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it one more pass and I know I'll find it an easy support. Best, Dan—DCGeist 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support So many badly sourced, error-filled articles on radio and television currently reside on Wikipedia; your work here really stands out and, I hope, will serve as an example to others contributing in the field. Terrific job.—DCGeist 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. The prose needs fixing throughout. Take the opening:
"The network was hindered by the prohibitive cost of broadcasting, FCC regulations which restricted the company's growth, and by the company's own partner, Paramount Pictures. Despite several innovations in broadcasting and creating one of television's biggest stars of the 1950s,"
    • The first sentence, a three-item list, has "by", nothing, then "by" again. The second sentence has different grammar for two items (try "the creation of"). Can "own" be removed? Further on, it wasn't the programming, but the recordings of the programs, that was destroyed, surely?
    • Further on, what exactly is "well-remembered"? "Well regarded"? "appear in TV retrospectives or are mentioned in passing"—mentioned in passing where?

Tony 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, particularly for the specific suggestions on ways to improve the text.
  • I added "by" and removed "own", though I do not understand the rationale for removing "own" (though of course I do not object). "The creation of" was substituted where you suggested.
  • As for "programming", Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "programming" as "a. the selection and scheduling of programs for a particular period, station, or network. or b. the programs scheduled." It seems to be a valid usage of the word.
  • The full sentence reads "The network is not well-remembered today, prompting several TV historians to refer to DuMont as the "Forgotten Network"." It seems to me the meaning of that sentence is fairly clear already, but I have changed it to "largely unremembered"; if this is too clunky, I can revise it.
  • "Mentioned in passing" has been clarified; I was trying to use summary style, to poor effect. Let me know if "mentioned briefly in books about U.S. television history" is too clunky. I'm open to futher suggestions.
  • This opening was written by me in response to the comment during peer review that the lead needed to be expanded. I did not write the majority of the rest of the text, and only revised it during the Peer Review process when user:Ruhrfisch gave many automated suggestions and also suggested your editing exercises. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was a big advocate of the article's GA candidacy, and I think Firsfron has done and is doing great work on this article. When I saw the first two objections, I was worried about its FA chances, but now that the above problems have been addressed, I feel that the page passes all requirements of WP:WIAFA. It is well-written and well-sourced, it's comprehensive, and in short, it's got everything I like to see in an FA. -- Kicking222 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm almost ready to give my support to this candidacy.Support. Firsfron has done a fantastic job in making this article FA-worthy, and has also made several modifications during this review that have strengthened an already-competent article. There are, however, a few concerns that I have, and being a member of the Television Stations Project, as is Firsfron, I wanted to be able to provide alternative suggestions, hence the delay with my input:
    • In the opening section, first paragraph, the article originally stated that "The network was hindered...and by the company's own partner, Paramount Pictures." The use of the word "own" was disputed, but I thought that the wording conveyed a sense of surprise that the company's partner was one of its hinderances. When the word was removed, so was the sense of surprise. I suggest adding the word "even" to restore that sense of surprise: "The network was hindered...and even by the company's partner, Paramount Pictures."
Response: I've added the word, and hopefully that will be acceptable to these other reviewers. I agree that it should be somehow emphasised that DuMont's partner, Paramount, hindered the company.Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opening section, second paragraph - the use of "latter-day obscurity" seems awkward, but I haven't been able to think of a suitable alternative. Also "...has prompted several TV historians to refer to it as the 'Forgotten Network'" is a broad statement that seems to need a reference. Other than David Weinstein, has anyone else referred to it as such?
Comment: Yes. Weinstein's book is The Forgotten Network; in Television's Greatest Year: 1954 R.D. Heldenfels says "DuMont is the Jesse Garon Presley of networks, a sibling that died young and was lost in the mists of memory... for most viewers DuMont is as forgotten as Faraway Hill and Rhythm Rodeo and Chicagoland Mystery Players".[4] However, I can't add that as a cite, as the Dumont Historical Web Site has been judged as not an acceptable reference. I've added Weinstein's book as a reference. "Forgotten network"+"DuMont"-"Wikipedia" gets 2,780 hits (though mostly duplicates). There are, of course, many references which are titled things like "Remembering DuMont", "Remember When", and the like, but I would argue that if you have to go out of your way to "remember" something on a web-site or in a book, it's mostly forgotten. Also, I went to the library and checked out a reference book called On Television, which purported to cover U.S. television from invention to circa 1970 (when the book was published). DuMont was only mentioned in one single short sentence. Seems forgotten to me, but I'll rephrase if I must. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I come up with something better for "latter-day obscurity", I'll suggest it. Otherwise it's not a show-stopper for me. As for the "Forgotten Network" reference, just trying to be a pain in the butt before anyone else does. "Forgotten Network" is certainly the correct phrase; I was just wondering if anyone else had used it, as you cite "several TV historians". Whether by blog, website, or formal source, IMO, if someone accepted to be a historian, says that it's a "forgotten network", that's sufficient backing for your statement. I guess sometimes, the WP:RS guideline isn't perfect. Perhaps if you change the word "several" to "at least one notable", making the sentence "...has prompted at least one notable TV historian to refer to it...", with the reference to Weinstein's book... Again, not a show-stopper for me. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "at least one notable" as you suggested. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Origins section, third paragraph - the references to "coaxial cable hookups" is unclear. The first reference implies hardware or networking, so when the second reference states that "One of these hookups was the announcement of the U.S.'s dropping of an atomic bomb...", because the announcement is not a hookup, the wording doesn't fit. Was the hookup permanent or transitory? From the first reference, I would conclude that it was the latter. Also, "announcement of the U.S.'s dropping" is awkward. I believe this alternate wording would fit better, assuming that the cable hookups were transitory: "One of those hookups carried the announcement that the U.S. had dropped an atomic bomb...".
Response:I have changed the wording as you requested.Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same paragraph, I would remove the parentheses from "and DuMont's best friend", plus I would change "the official beginning of DuMont" to "the official beginning of the DuMont Network", as DuMont Labs was already in existence.
Response: adjusted as requested, I believe. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will make one minor edit to the article, removing the comma prior to "and DuMont's best friend" to improve readability. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Programming section, third paragraph - I corrected a spelling error (separate instead of seperate) in the second sentence, but in the same sentence, the use of the word "shot" twice seems redundant. As "kinescopes" is wikilinked, is there a need to explain that it is a film shot from a live television screen? If so, then perhaps "originating from the East Coast" is better than "shot on the East Coast".
Response: "Shot" was indeed redundant; replaced as suggested. These suggestions are very, very helpful, BTW. Going the article over and over, even with many people, you soon lose track of what's redundant or not so clear... Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting myself in your shoes. It's easier for you to make corrections if I'm telling you what I have in mind. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Programming section, fourth paragraph - I believe that "the lavish DuMont TeleCenter opened" works better than "the lavish DuMont TeleCenter was opened".
Response: Changed, thanks.Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Programming section, second to last paragraph - Edie Adams' testimony in the Television Heaven reference doesn't mention any timeframe for the destruction of the DuMont kinescopes, nor is there any reference to any warehouse. Does another reference provide that information? Also, there is still a reference to ABC in the article that should be removed.
Response: Well, here's the thing. The site says Adams stated someone "had three huge semis back up to the loading dock…filled them all with stored kinescopes…drove them to a waiting barge…made a right at the Statue of Liberty and dumped them in the upper New York Bay" What sort of a building has a loading dock and is large enough to store three semi truck loads of films? Still, the only reference I could find which actually mentions the warehouse is the DuMont Historical Web Site, which has been objected to, and although several on-line sites mention people seeing the kines until the early 1970s, these are comments submitted by retired TV/radio broadcasters and the like, on web forums, so I have reworked this sentence, removing all reference (I hope!) to ABC, a warehouse, and the 1970s, per your comment. Thanks Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a show-stopper. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added reference. Although I cannot give a page number for the reference (as I don't have the book, and it's been out of print for years), you can see it's listed here Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Got a late break here - in the second paragraph of Halted at the start, in the first sentence, "Boston (or Philadelphia...) and Cincinnati" changed to "Boston (or Cincinnati...) and Cincinnati". Does Philadelphia need to be restored, or should the parenthetical comment now be removed? dhett 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, good catch. The source mentioned applications in Boston, Cleveland or Cincinnati, not Boston, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. When I changed it, I removed the wrong city. It's fixed now. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. User:SandyGeorgia has made many objections to this article's FAC, several of which relate to WP:RS. I admit when I decided to work on this article to prepare it for FAC, I wasn't certain I could find reliable sources for a company which has been defunct for 50 years. As mentioned in the article, the network has largely been forgotten. Sandy has specifically objected to Clarke Ingram's site. Ingram has been in the TV/radio broadcasting business for over 20 years (link provided above). Sandy has objected to Larry Dean's site as a reliable source. Mr. Dean has been in the radio and TV broadcasting business for 26 years[5]. WP:RS states "Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics." I wonder how many more years it will take before these fellows are considered "reliable".
Sandy has objected to the Tulsa TV memories site, calling it a "blog". The Tulsa TV Memories site is not a blog. This page is researched and referenced/footnoted. The fact that a well-respected FAC reviewer like Sandy, who has been reviewing FACs for a very long time, cannot seemingly tell the difference between a blog and a web page with in-line citation scares the fuck out of me. It scares me because I would like to submit other articles for FAC, but in a hostile environment when any well-referenced and footnoted web page can be claimed to be "a blog", it makes me very leery to submit further articles. This sort of thing (FAC reviewers rejecting sources on a mistaken basis) is counter-productive to the FAC process.
Unless I misunderstood Sandy's comment above (and this is quite possible), s/he has claimed that the example citation for a web-site used at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Web_sites_and_articles_.28not_from_periodicals.29 is incorrect. It's been there, unmodified, for over a year, so you'd think this would have come up before. The page is frequently updated, but the example has remained unchanged. WP:CITE claims Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style lists "several examples of APA and Harvard referencing techniques".
Without further clarification of what Sandy means by saying the WP:CITE examples are "incorrect", why sources written by veteran professionals in the field are not reliable, and why works with sources and footnotes are "blogs", I can only support this article's candidacy and scratch my head in puzzlement. I realize that an article which is objected to by both Tony and Sandy (as this article is) stands a snowball's chance in heck of actually reaching FA status, but I cannot "fix" what doesn't appear broken. So there you go. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absolutely correct. Sandy's original urging of a more rigorous verification process was wise and entirely justifiable, but unfortunately Sandy now appears to be Wikilawyering. Specifically, what I perceive as a counterproductive insistence on a rigid vision of WP:RS leads me to conclude that Sandy is "Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines," and is also in effect "Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." I want to be clear that I do not say this as a personal attack--Sandy has been a very valuable contributor to the project; for whatever reason, the thread's been lost here.
Care has now clearly been taken to base the article on good, strong sources, both online and published. The online sourcing is plainly not based on random, first-Google-hit sites, but on information sources where similar care has evidently been taken to provide correct information. Is there a guarantee that all information on those sites is perfectly correct? Of course not. Of course, as I'm sure Sandy knows, many sources that pass the rigid WP:RS test are themselves replete with incorrect information.
Much more important and helpful than applying some sweeping and abstract WP:RS policy is to directly and critically examine the quality of each source: if the information it contains about independently verifiable material is uniformly correct, there are satisfactory odds that the unique information it contains is correct; if labor and care has been taken with its literary composition, proofreading, and presentation, there is a good basis for belief that labor and care has been taken with its factual reportage. The spirit of WP:RS is that contributors work hard to base the content of articles on the best referencable sources available. The relevant principle it expresses is to find expert and knowledgable people in the pertinent field who have written about the specific facts being addressed.
Incredibly, Sandy objects to two fine articles written by Steve Jajkowski, archivist at Chicago's Museum of Broadcast Communications, because of a judgment that is essentially about the financial status of the website on which Jajkowski chose to post the pieces. That seems to me Wikilawyering of the clearest sort. If one is interested in the spirt of WP:RS in this case one would see what information one could find on Jajkowski (I easily found professional references to him and to his professional work in the field), actually read the articles, peruse a sample of the rest of the site's content, and come to a conclusion based on examination and inductive reasoning. To suggest that Jajkowski runs an unreliable "hobby" site is pettifoggery.
Similarly, slick-net.com is no thoughtful researcher's notion of an ideal source in the abstract, but let's see how it's actually used in this case. Any intelligent examination of the material actually cited suggests in every way--evident labor, impressive breadth and depth of detail, clear design, good composition, good proofreading--that this is a reliable source for the subject matter in question. Still, maybe the specifc information that's being cited could refer to an authoritative published text and the website reference could be added to the note as a supplement. So...what is the statement in the text of the article that the citation refers to? That Captain Video and His Video Rangers was "a hugely popular kids' science fiction series"! As a fact easily verifiable in any of dozens of standard works covering the field, that doesn't even require a citation at all. Yes, the article could reference any TV encyclopedia for this simple fact if someone ever thought to challenge it, but the article does something much more useful in the absence of such a silly challenge--it sends the reader to a carefully constructed website with a wealth of information about the show. That's great. What a boon to the Wikipedia reader. (By the way, if one cares to check if the reference webpage has any errors, it certainly doesn't appear to. Every bit of information in my 20th edition of The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows that appears on the webpage appears accurately. The name of the show's lead writer appears differently (Brock vs. Brockhauser)--independent sources indicate that he was variously credited and the website uses the same version of the name as that used by the producer and director of the show, who was interviewed by the site. That's right--this source that Sandy says "doesn't appear to be a reliable," actually interviewed one of the primary participants in Captain Video. Oh...actually the site interviewed a total of three participants in the show, as well as the children of the show's deceased creators see "Space Interviews". Here's a challenge: find a source meeting Sandy's technical interpretation of WP:RS that evidences even half so much effort at being a reliable and detailed source of information on Captain Video.)
Yes, the conceptual guidelines of WP:RS are crucial in helping the many inexperienced researchers who wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but when they are applied narrowly in specific cases to deprecate worthwhile sources of information, their purpose is lost. In conclusion, I believe in the spirit of what Sandy is after--providing good, strong, referencable sourcing--and I believe this article embodies that spirit very well. Anyone who cares more about specific evidence and learning than about general policy and lawyering should appreciate the value of what this article brings to the Wikipedia project and to the readers it serves to inform.—DCGeist 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/DuMont_Television_Network/archive1&oldid=1089733463"