Wikipedia:Featured article review/The West Wing/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified Scm83x, Hnsampat, WikiProject Television
This was promoted to featured status almost three years ago and a lot has happened since then. It hardly qualifies today as the production section and plot sections are way too short, it lacks an actual critical response section, it includes sections that shouldn't be in the main article (such as the "Presidential elections" section - that should go in plot) and a lot of the references are not accepted.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to complete Project notifications (see any of the FARs below for examples). Thanks! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 16:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this article is pretty abysmal. If you wish to take a break from this article please visit the Aaron Sorkin article and help improve the section in this article specifically about The West Wing. It is in need of organization and a severe copyedit. I have been significantly improving this article. Sincerely, Homely Features (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Agree with above by FunkyVoltron and Homely Features. These above points have not been addressed. In addition to comprehensiveness, there are serious referencing issues. There is a bit too much overweighting on the in-universe stuff, and not enough on cast/crew/production info. Cirt (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't there too many non-free images? DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Way too many. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove then, fails criterion 3. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.