Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saturday Night Live/archive1
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): StewdioMACK (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article exemplifies Wikipedia's quality articles. It is very well-written and conveys as much information as needed about the show without getting too lengthy. It is also concise and well-phrased. The article is quite stable and does not go through too much change from day-to-day. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think this is a valiant nominator on what looks to be a well-sourced article but there isn't much history of prior review here and the nomination is curious to me. So I looked at http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl editing statistics for the article Saturday Night Live and didn't see the nominator StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) on there in any of the top contributors, which includes Darkwarriorblake, Water78, Bry456, Mainly.generic, Everyking, Deej30, TMC1982, Acps110, Rillian, IanManka, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. That got me more confused, so I went back through the article's edit history 500 edits which goes back to 24 March 2013 -- and there's no edits in there by the nominator StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) whatsoever. It seems extremely odd to have an article nominated to WP:FAC by someone with no contributions to the article itself and no prior quality improvement history to other articles in general. I note this same user nominated G.I. Jeff to GA candidacy with zero contributions to the article itself. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for the article Saturday Night Live to be WP:FA quality, but unless the nominator is seriously willing to chip in and do a lot of quality improvement and responses to this FAC discussion, this nomination might unfortunately be a waste of time. — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Cirt. It is a requirement of the FAC nomination process that the main editors of the article be informed of said nomination. I note also that there are a couple of fact tags and several other uncited statements on the page. Unless some of the main editors want to get behind the nomination in the next 24 hours or so and undertake to address any issues, I'll be archiving the nom as premature and/or out-of-process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would I need to be a top contributor to nominate the article for peer review? That way we could get some consensus on quality. Then I could message one of the top contributors suggesting a second nomination. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing the FAC and going instead to Peer Review is a very good and constructive idea. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if we're agreed on that course of action I'll treat this as a withdrawal request and close this nomination. I'd hope some of the major contributors participate in the peer review as well, so that after getting comments and improving the article you could organise a small team of potential FAC nominators who would have the inside knowledge to help shepherd the article through a second review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Go ahead and close the nomination, I'll start a peer review and message some of the top contributors. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if we're agreed on that course of action I'll treat this as a withdrawal request and close this nomination. I'd hope some of the major contributors participate in the peer review as well, so that after getting comments and improving the article you could organise a small team of potential FAC nominators who would have the inside knowledge to help shepherd the article through a second review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing the FAC and going instead to Peer Review is a very good and constructive idea. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would I need to be a top contributor to nominate the article for peer review? That way we could get some consensus on quality. Then I could message one of the top contributors suggesting a second nomination. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Cirt. It is a requirement of the FAC nomination process that the main editors of the article be informed of said nomination. I note also that there are a couple of fact tags and several other uncited statements on the page. Unless some of the main editors want to get behind the nomination in the next 24 hours or so and undertake to address any issues, I'll be archiving the nom as premature and/or out-of-process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.