Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/QI/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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]
  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/QI/archive1&oldid=149074953"