Wikipedia:Peer review/Spoo/archive1

Spoo

This is the first "real" article I wrote for wikipedia, and after months and months of tweaking, and after a recent reformatting, I think that maybe, just maybe, it has a fighting chance at, at least, a decent FA-nomination. So, I'm looking for copy-editing and suggestions or fixes that it might need. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good article on a rather obscure topic (see the quote at the top of my user page) but - I sorry to have to break this to you, if you were not already aware - you are going to face rather virulent accusations that this is mere "fancruft".

I figured (from the beginning) as much may happen.

There have been a couple of massive bunfights over Starfleet ranks and insignia, which failed on WP:FAC twice, spilling much blood in the process (see first nom and second nom for indications of the sorts of objections you may face).

I'm familiar with both debates. Indeed I would have voted for the page, but the problem is that most of it is conjecture and original research.

The best you can do is to write entirely objectively, citing everything you can from published sources, and leaving out speculation unless its source can be cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which I do believe I have done. I've got 19 21 footnotes to various sources, mostly JMS posts and the show itself, and the only instance of conjecture (the fanon relating to spoo price volatility) is referenced as well.

I aggree, it's a bit obscure, but I feel it meets the criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the discussion above, I won't argue your deletion of my shmoo contribution, which you labeled unfounded speculation. I think the parallel is strong, and the evidence is suggestive of either a conscious tribute or an unconscious influence on JMS. But I agree that there's no obvious citation for it that I can footnote. --Smwpu85 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy, and thanks for your contribution. Before you added it, after the suggestion of (another?) user, I tried, to no avail, to find any specific reference by JMS to shmoo, Al Capp, or L'il Abner. While it is a distinct possibility there was some influence (though it is outside of JMS's previously acknowledged fraim of reference), there is no evidence to support it, and the etymology of the name as well as the evolution and uses of it throughout JMS's career indicates there is absolutely no relation between shmoo and spoo. I'll look through old interviews next, but chances are if he didn't mention it online it won't be anywhere else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason not to add a See also: schmoo and explain the possible link there... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very crufty indeed. But it shows how objective language and referencing can do miracles. Besides, being cruft isn't an actionable objection. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! See this FA, for instance --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it seems to have been copy-edited to a significant degree, it's stable, accurate, and comprehensive; it's uncontroversial, has a bunch of sources, isn't too long, and isn't too short (it's longer than AEJ Collins, for instance, even sans references), meets the standards of style and, I feel, has fine prose... Does anyone see anything actionable that could prevent a successful Featured Article run? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is on the short side the current use section which is currently written in bulletpoint form could definately be spun out into prose.

When I originally drafted the article, the section was planned as prose, but it was kindof choppy - so bullets seemed appropriate. I just put it into prose, per your suggestion, and rearranged a couple of references. It seems a bit short as a result, but entirely workable.

Also avoid single floating sentences - they make the text seem disjointed.--nixie 09:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the lead for the Etymology section? I've tried moving it around, but it only really works where it is. Or are you talking about the JMS quote in the same section? The quote is long enough to warrant indentation, but is easily recombined if it presents a major prose issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]