Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dumped/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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [1].

---

Dumped

Nominator(s): Dalejenkins |

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. It is already at GA and is stable. Dalejenkins | 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Lead is too short, per WP:LEAD. Also includes seemingly randomly selected information - why mention that someone left the programme voluntarily? --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• I'm pretty sure http://www.metro.co.uk/home/index.html?in_page_id=1 is reliable, but I'm a tad hesitant to dismiss it as such. Is there anything that proves its reliability?
• What makes http://www.tvscoop.tv/2007/09/tv_review_dumpe.html reliable?
• http://www.hecklerspray.com/tv-review-%E2%80%93-dumped/20079891.php seems to be a blog, so I'm skeptical about its reliability.
• More so with http://blogs.orange.co.uk/tv/2007/08/dumped-8pm-sund.html.
• Otherwise, sources look good. Links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. The article is interesting and informative, but it is not at present set up like a featured article.

• • Echoing the above comment re the lead, this needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, without introducing relatively trivial specific details, e.g. of the early leaver.
  • The statement in the lead that the viewing figures were "marginally less" than those of concurrent programmes is not borne out later in the article, where it seems that other channels achieved much larger audiences.
  • There are several lapses into the present tense: "11 participants...must live on a purpose-made rubbish dump..." Also: "...the real landfill site which is located...", and "Ray, the scrap man, visits the dump..." Incidentally, "11" should be "Eleven" at start of sentence.

• • This is the first paragraph of the "Production and format" section, exactly as you have it:-

Dumped, which was filmed in June 2006, was initially scheduled for Channel 4's Spring 2007 line-up. However, this did not occur and the programme was then postponed until the start the channel's period of "creative renewal", which was established due to the racism controversy that occurred during the 2007 series of Celebrity Big Brother.

Apart from its dubious construction and a missing word, I reckon that anyone unfamiliar with recent British reality TV history wouldn't understand what this paragraph was about. I suggest at the very least you delete the unnecessary words "this did not occur", and attempt a brief explanation of "creative renewal" (which doesn't need to be italicised).

• • Clumsy prose: The above sentence is one example. Another awkward construction is: "Jason was not working due to religious reasons, as it was the Sabbath" There are others. The article needs looking over by a prose expert.
  • American spelling: I saw "traveled" and "feces". An article about a British TV series, and which uses the British dates format, ought to have British spelling.
  • Listiness: You introduce the contestants in a list form - this could easily have been done in prose. Likewise, the main section dealing with the episodes is in the form of a table. There is too little by way of continuous prose to give a smooth reading experience - too many stops and starts.
  • Images: One only. I understand the problem, but I would ask what attempts have been made to seek apprporiate images, if not directly illustrative of the programme then related to its ecological theme?

The article does not appear to have had a peer review. I would strongly recommend this before it is returned to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note No response after 10 days does not suggest much commitment on the part of the nominator - who has been contacted. Should this still be here? Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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