Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red Dwarf/archive2
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2020 [1].
- Nominator(s): MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the British science-fiction sitcom Red Dwarf. Airing its first episode in 1988, its noted as one of the longest-running British sitcoms in history whilst retaining its original cast, having aired its most recent episode in 2017 and preparing to air a feature-length television film next month. Besides that, it has managed to spawn a plethora of other media ranging from magazines to video games to an attempted American reboot.
I believe its reached the point where its quality can act as an example to fellow television shows/franchises on how to structure your Wikipedia article. All responses in regards to its nomination are welcome and I'll be very much alert on what you believe it needs additional work on. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: Yo. Actually, though, you've only edited the page about Dwarf 40 times, and have added no substantial amounts of prose. Incidentally, this nomination is meant to go at the top of the page, not half way down it 😃 cheers! ——SN54129 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by this, do I need to have made substantial edits to the article myself to rightfully nominate it? I didn't see that when I was looking up the process. Not claiming the article as my work, I only changed photos to be more appropriate and citations for accessibility. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Ah. I see this now, I apologize for my ignorance. Do you recommend removing the nomination? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by this, do I need to have made substantial edits to the article myself to rightfully nominate it? I didn't see that when I was looking up the process. Not claiming the article as my work, I only changed photos to be more appropriate and citations for accessibility. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would recommend withdrawing it and asking GoCE for a FAC level copy edit. On a quick spot check the prose doesn't look FAC ready to me yet. Looking at a couple more sections, some are pretty good, some are spotty. The poorer ones could probably do with some fresh and experienced eyes on them. If you decide not to withdraw, give me a ping and I'll look at it in more detail - it is possibly that I randomly picked the only two poor quality sections. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: (with apologies for the tardiness of this reply) Well; I'm not going to oppose just to get my name on Mike Christie's monthly stats chart, but this^^^ is an excellent offer, which I'd heartily recommend you take up. A "FAC-level copy-edit" from GoCE...who ever knew such a beast ;) !!! @FAC coordinators: please. ——SN54129 18:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would recommend withdrawing it and asking GoCE for a FAC level copy edit. On a quick spot check the prose doesn't look FAC ready to me yet. Looking at a couple more sections, some are pretty good, some are spotty. The poorer ones could probably do with some fresh and experienced eyes on them. If you decide not to withdraw, give me a ping and I'll look at it in more detail - it is possibly that I randomly picked the only two poor quality sections. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose from Lee Vilenski
[edit]- Aside from the fact the nominator is not a major contributor (and I'd recommend withdrawing) there is a lot of things staring out to me that suggests the article is closer to a WP:GAR than an FAC. Here's a small list of things I saw quickly:
- WP:LEDECITE
- MOS:LEDE says the lede section should be no more than four paragraphs
- Article in general has an issue with tiny paragraphs
- Sections run-ons. There's a total of 13 subsections of "Spin-offs", 11 in production.
- The lede says that there are 11 series, and an additional miniseries, but who made that quote that it wasn't a full series?
- Cite needed tag in body
- Unreliable sourcing
- Duplinks
- Do we need a table for the characters in the US Series? It could easily be done in prose.
- [111][112][113][114] - refbomb.
- No sourcing whatsoever for the ratings... Which only cover some series... And should really be a WP:SPLIT.
- Episodes needs sourcing
The above was just on a casual glance... I can't support the promotion of an article in this state. I love Red Dwarf, and I hope some of the above can help the article be improved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Coord note
[edit]Hi, as well as taking the above recommendations on board, you could consider trying the FAC mentoring scheme to assist in a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.