Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ruby (Supernatural)/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:51, 15 September 2009 [1].

Ruby (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Ruby (Supernatural)/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria for featured status. User Peregrine Fisher and I worked hard on the article to bring it up to Good Article status, and I think it is good enough to be featured. Ophois (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical points: The image needs better alt text (it should describe what the image looks like, rather than what is in the image). Ref #18 is a dead link. Image meets copyright policy. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand how I can do that with a close-up image of the character, but I have altered it. Hopefully the new alt text will work. Ophois (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The alt text should be something like "A split image, with a top half shot of a blonde woman wearing a black top and jacket..." Stifle (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is that even necessary for a character article? I've looked through about half of the featured media articles, and - while most don't even have alt text - the ones that do either merely repeat the caption word for word, or do what I did, which is list the character and/or portraying actor. Ophois (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, alt text is a fairly new requirement, and the truth is that most editors—me included—struggle with writing high-quality alt text. Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on alt text; you might consult him. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Stifle's correct and made a reasonable suggestion (thanks!) for what how the alt text should start. (It should be brief, and shouldn't take much work to write; see WP:ALT#Brevity.) The existing alt text uses proper names and talks about ~~budget cuts and~~ seasons, all of which fails to conform to WP:ALT#Verifiability. Briefly: alt text needs to be verifiable by a non-expert who's looking only at the image. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - lacks sufficient detail with regards to development, portrayal, reception and in particular critical analysis which is sorely lacking. Could do with some Google Books/Scholar research and some more commentary information. Certainly it's a very well-written article, it's just on the small side.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=1&id=42554 deadlinks~~
What makes http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2009-7-26-supernatural-returns-to-haunt-comic-con a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm not an uninvolved editor, since I helped with the GAN. But, I think Hitfix can be considered reliable for the statment "Kripke has said that Ruby's goal of separating the brothers and turning Sam to the "dark side" was intended from the beginning." While they're not a no-brainer as an RS, other RSs seem to believe them for interviews and such.[2][3][4][5][6] I would say based on that and that the statement is non-controversial that it's an acceptable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the deadlink, I've ordered the Season 3 companion guide, which hopefully will have the same info in it so that I can source it. If not, I will remove that data. Ophois (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found an archived version for the deadlink. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? Ophois (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to read WP:ALT#Verifiability? The alt text still fails to conform to that guideline, as it contains claims (proper names and season numbers) that cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image. Eubulides (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It now says "A split image. On the left is the head of shoulders of an attractive blonde woman in her early twenties. On the right is an attractive brunette in her late twenties with her arms crossed." Hopefully that works. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could describe their hair too, and which direction they're looking. Not sure if that matters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.