Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Steel's in Town/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 Karanacs 03:05, 16 June 2010 [1].

Mark Steel's in Town

Featured article candidates/Mark Steel's in Town/archive1

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article is of high quality. The article is already a GA and has gone through two peer reviews. Also, there are not that many radio shows which have been promoted to FA so I think that to get this promoted will expand Wikipedia's range of high-quality work. ISD (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–no dead external links, but ~~a dab link to Theatre Royal~~. Ucucha 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment Seeing as how there is no article on Theatre Royal, Dumfries, I've removed the link from the article. ISD (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that theater deserves an article, it should be redlinked, not delinked. Ucucha 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a redlink to the Theatre Royal page. Is that enough? ISD (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't (yet). Ucucha 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - The use of File:Mark_Steel's_in_Town.jpg is not needed to understand a radio programme, the very nature of the medium is that it can stand alone without the need for images, wp:nfcc not met, therefore WP:FA Criteria 3 not met Fasach Nua (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

~~What makes http://denofgeek.com/television/228037/mark_steel_interview.html a reliable source?~~
Otherwise, sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this interview does not in itself contain rumours, it is not a blog, not unduly self-serving, and it is authentic. ISD (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, the site appears to be managed by a reputable publishing house and may be assumed reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd be surprised if this was FA standard, as it's still quite sparse. I noted 20 sources in my peer review that weren't being used, and they've not all been made use of afaics. Fences&Windows 02:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.