Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/QI/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 16:20, 3 August 2007.

QI edit

This is a self-nomination. I believe this article meets all the featured article criteria. It is accurate, stable, well referenced, with referenced images, and fits with the manual of style. ISD 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Some sentences appear to be non-encyclopedic/POV. For example "Davies is frequently mocked, albeit in a friendly fashion, by Fry"
Very few references, what is there is poor. IMDb, Blogspot and an internet forum should NOT be included.
The image summaries are weak, "It is very hard to find any other images featuring ___" is NOT a reason for fair use. See [1] for a good example. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I've tried to find some better references, corrected the fair use rational accordingly, and tried to improve the article style. ISD 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite Interesting (1) "one of the BBC's most successful shows" for this to be true we would need to see data for the highest earning/most watched programmes on the BBC, I doubt this would be one of them. Granted that this is one of the most successful shows on BBC2 and BBC4, but then only 4 people in the country watch BBC4 (me included, actually I watch it Quite Frequently). (2) "One of the most famous tasks" requires referencing for the fame. (3) "Some people have suggested" Who? (4) I would move the asides on the Duke of Westminster to a footnote. (5) The "Culture" and "Awards" sections are broken and choppy prose. They look like lists of trivia; I'd amalgamate them into one section and two paragraphs. (6) On criterion 1b: How many points are awarded for correct, interesting and obvious/wrong answers? DrKiernan 08:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite Interesting Response - I've corrected and edited the parts you had problems with. Some parts have been referenced, whilst some unreference parts have been removed. ISD 10:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks, that deals with my comments! I wonder if the "Awards" section could be expanded to include quotes from national press TV critics? DrKiernan 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being.

Images are generally too big and need detailed fair use rationales. A couple are probably dubious fair use at best.
"Highlights" is necessarily very POV. Who decides what is a highlight?
"QI has had an impact on British culture" - a fairly meaningless sentence (how much of an impact), and needs a cite.
Should there not be something on its reception (particularly critical reception)?
The references are very sketchy at best. There's a lot of primary sourcing, which may cause reliability problems. I know there's probably not much in the way of reliable sources on much of it, but are you sure there's not anything better out there?

Trebor 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Just a few things.
  - When you say the images are too big, do you mean in the the article? What are the exact problems with the fair use rationals?
  - Other than Wikipedia, there are no episode guides to QI with the same amount of detail. Wikipedia's episode guide talks about every question, so I believe the Wikipedia guide is the best on the web. ISD 09:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.