Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Garfield/archive1

Garfield edit

Nom & Support - Very good article, well written, and I'm a big fan of Garfield. I'd like to see it on the main page. And I'm suprised it hasn't been on there before. --AAA! 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, expand the lead to summarize the article and convert the trivia section into prose or merge it with the other sections as prose. Rlevse 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Poor lead; no talk of how or why Jim Davis started the strip; far too listy; dozens upon dozens upon dozens of redlinks; when you remove garfield.com, there are only about ten references, and huge chunks of the article are unsourced. -- Kicking222 14:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure you need so much detail on the supporting characters when List of Garfield characters exists. Jay32183 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Peer-review. Short lead, stubby sections, other are listy. Many problems. Not ready for FAC.--Yannismarou 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to peer review per above. This is not ready for featured article status. Never Mystic (t c) 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Has the potential to be a FA, but needs more work. The lead should be expanded and more information added regarding the concept and creation. The list of characters should be pruned too (stick 'em back in List of Garfield characters). The critism section should go or at least be fixed up, its mainly focused on some critics whining about the films and television show, with virtually nothing about the comic strip. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd lean heavily towards the fix up criticism section. Change it to critical response and include both the good and the bad, while focusing mainly on the comics as that was the original form. Jay32183 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]