Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK)/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 03:52, 21 April 2007.
The Apprentice (UK) edit
Seems to match Featured article criteria Bravedog 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Shall we take a look?
Well written"-Yes, I suppose
"Comprehensive"-Agree strongly
"Factually accurate"-Lots of reliable sources
"Neutral"-Strongly agree
"Stable"-Definately
"a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections"-yes
"a system of hierarchical headings"-definately
"a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents"-Strongly agree
"images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly"-Agree
"appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"-agree Dalejenkins 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite simply it's too short. Buc 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Doesn't match the criteria actually. Fails 1c - please review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Contains absolutely no information on the creation of the show- how it was decided to create (or, at least, adapt) the series, who is in charge of production (directors, writers- and there are writers- etc.), and how contestants are chosen. No information about the popularity of the show- zero ratings information, zero critical reviews, and mention of a single award. Poor sentence structure in spots, especially in the lead. References are few and far between- there are none in "Format" or "The Board", and in particular, the latter section definitely needs some sourcing- and they are not properly cited, offering only the title of a work and not the author, publication/site, date of publication, and/or date of retrieval. In a couple of instances, the footnotes come before punctuation. Pure and simple, I would not even promote this as a GA, much less an FA. -- Kicking222 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Off to a good start, but contains no sections about reception or production. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Adequate as far as it goes I guess, but pretty unremarkable both in terms of writing style and content (I contributed some parts). Matt 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
- 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.