Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/60 Minutes/archive1

60 Minutes edit

This page is a major TV art around the world and is a good artical. It is considered by many to be the preeminent investigative television program in the United States. This page is also very popular amoung all users. Cocoaguy 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the page is down as a GA candidate here. I'd wait for the outcome and freedback from that before nominating this for FAC. RHB 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object While I'd love to see one of my favorite TV shows become an FAC, this is not ready. Like RHB, I'd suggest you wait for the GA outcome. Huge swathes of text are unreferenced, the article is quite listy, and the lead is inadequate. Gzkn 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object There is a mix of citations and external links (presumably as citations) and some sections, particularly the ratings and recognition section (it is very important there) have no citations at all. Other than that I think it could use more images, particularly in the format section where it says "a backdrop resembling a magazine story on the same topic". That could definitely use a picture. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, and send to peer review (GA does not an FA make). Mixed reference styles, listy sections including "pop culture", lack of citations, stubby short sections. Sandy (Talk) 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note for all who question the idea that 60 Minutes is note a GA look at this page Talk:60 Minutes. (added by Cocoaguy, nominator here)
Yes, you've passed 60 Minutes through GAC several times without actually reviewing it. See User_talk:Cocoaguy RHB 09:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The lead does not summarise the article. The article is listy, has numerous single sentence-paragraphs, few references and inconsistent reference formatting. TimVickers 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]