Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold Feet (series 1)/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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:48, 29 July 2008 [1].

Cold Feet (series 1)

Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk)

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it is one of only two articles on Wikipedia that provides a comprehensive explanation of a television season. The article was reviewed and copyedited by User:Nikki311 for it's good article nomination and was peer reviewed by User:Ruhrfisch in May. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do you refer to it as 'self-nominating'? Metagraph comment 12:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom means that he's nominating an article in which the user himself has worked considerable on. You actually don't have to say it, since its required. --haha169 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; although it's not completely redundant, it still says something that doesn't need to be said. I'd love to see someone nominate an FAC and actually say they have never edited the article. Gary King (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a little like ownership of articles to me to be honest. Metagraph comment 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Although I'm not familiar with the show, I'm not sure this article is a good enough overview yet. The material is there, it just needs to be detailed.

I'm not a fan of the "Episodes" section going before "Production"; putting the cart before the horse, perhaps?
As it stands now, the first prose paragraph of the article jumps right into the broadcast of the pilot episode. Wait, what? Where did the idea of the show come from? What influenced it? Who were the major writers/producers/etc? This information should come first, as should the production of the pilot.
The show's themes are mentioned in the lead (love, sex and commitment), but are not explained in detail anywhere else. See WP:LEAD.
All six main cast members returned for the series. Who? Remember, the lead stands alone; the six main cast members need to be mentioned before this. Perhaps a "Cast" section is needed?

That's it for now, but I'd be willing to give a more in depth review once the above has been addressed. María (habla conmigo) 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The episodes table appears first per the manual of style at WP:MOSTV. I've re-written the opening "production" paragraph to hopefully better explain how the pilot was intended to lead into a series. Production of the pilot itself is irrelevant to this article; it is all covered in the conception and production sections of the Pilot (Cold Feet) article. I've expanded the "casting" section to a "cast and casting" section and included the brief character descriptions from the lead. I've removed the "love, sex and commitment" line as, while it neatly sums up the storylines, it isn't elaborated on in the source so there's a risk of original research if I introduce it into the main article and try to connect it to the plots. More comments are of course welcome. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The writing is not yet at the required professional standard. There are word-nerds who've worked on UK TV articles; locate through edit summaries in the edit-history pages.

"They are held back"—vague. Why not run it on from the first sentence in the para "... other as they deal with issues ..."?
"The directors and producers made additional contributions, with the intent to keep the fiction in the programme as true to life as possible." "With the intent to" is pretty awful. Remove the first three words. Did Bullen's contibution skew it away from real-life? (The reader will wonder.) "the fiction in the programme" ... aren't they entirely fictional? Are there wasted words here? Are you just trying not to repeat "storyline" again? Better, "keep the plot"?
"Critical reaction to the first episodes was negative, with many reviewers not liking the characters and finding the comedy drama format unusual." This is the old "noun plus -ing" urchin. See this for help. Have we been told before about the "comedy drama"? Is this a compound item that is normally hyphenated? Is it a standard genre? (If it is, why were they put off? If it isn't, you need to announce it summarily in the opening para.)
became ... became.
"An average of eight million viewers watched the series each week." This is in the UK, is it?
OMG, the episode summaries sound so banal: I hope it's cleverly humorous; but it's not my role to criticise that aspect. "Karen returns to work in publishing and is tasked with editing the new novel by renowned author Alec Welch (Denis Lawson), for whom she immediately falls." This is awkward. "Tasked"? a new novel? The last clause has clunky word order. Look at allocating the information differently among the sentences, and changing the boundaries.
"Following David's attempt to sleep with Ramona and Karen ...". Ah, not what the reader thought it was going grammatically: "Following David's attempt to sleep with Ramona and Karen's attraction to Welch". Comma? Or some other solution? Tony (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Those were just samples from part of the text; the whole text is at issue. Tony (talk) 11:18, 28 July 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.