Wikipedia:Featured article review/House (TV series)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC) [1].
House (TV series) edit
Review section edit
This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive2. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes. I promoted so will not be participating in review. Original nominator appears to be inactive, Socks account for the majority of the edits, and the top contributor has not edited since 2010. I can say that the socks were entirely influential in my promotion of this article, and I agreed with the Opposer, who mentioned WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY. Image review by David Fuchs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been remarked I retired from Wikipedia a long time ago, but it so happened I noticed this today during a trip down memory lane. Looking over the article it is clearly visible that the article would benefit from some work to bring it up to date for developments in the show post-2009 as the show was still running at the time this article as promoted. However, it appears the majority of the article's main body is still of high quality, though an argument based on lacking quantity could be made. From the discussion you mentioned regardin WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY I can only judge that this is a question of interpretation, one which appeared to be ultimately resolved by the promotion of the article (i.e. majority rule). Yet if sockpuppetry was influential in this promotion (how unfortunate! Quick sidebar, I was about fifteen at the time and I remember spending a lot of time on this), I understand the grounds for reconsideration. All in all, I'd say what the article mainly needs updating and maybe some tweaking here and there. Having been absent for such a long time I do not consider myself in the position to judge whether the tilt in favor of the first 5-6 seasons is appropriate grounds for removal, but, again, as far as I can tell, general quality has not dropped significantly. Let me know if I can be of any further service, I'll check this page to watch the developments.--Music26/11 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include size and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No major problems found. Image review fine, and a random spot-check of about a half-dozen sources was OK too. I did some copy-editing. I thought that the detailed description of the opening credits was tedious, but not sufficiently so to bother shortening it. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright @TenPoundHammer: - I can see you supported this article in 2009 (and are the only editor from that still active now), can you have a look and offer an opinion on whether it has held up to FA standards? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no issues found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.