Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bigipedia/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 20:11, 15 December 2009 [1].
Bigipedia[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article is of a high enough quality, despite the length. Also, I want this article to be the featured article for April Fool's Day. Over the past few years all of the featured article on April Fool's have been American subject, so I think something from Britain would make a good change. Also, as it is a Wikipedia related subject, I think it will be of interest. It is currently a GA and it has already undergone a PR. ISD (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article strikes me as a bit short (although there are shorter FAs around). Therefore, would it meet criterion 1b : It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context?
Anyhow, the alt text on the Bigipedia logo might need a little expansion - mention the ears and the eyes that differentiate it from the actual Wikipedia logo.Also, the "episodes" section needs a little bit of cleanup, perhaps some refs."Product" section consists of one sentence - perhaps you should combine that with the main body of the article.- I.M.S. (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article strikes me as a bit short (although there are shorter FAs around). Therefore, would it meet criterion 1b : It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context?
Oppose - very sorry. Yes, there are shorter FAs but they are comprehensive. It seems to me that there is much missing from this short article. Based on only eight sources, the article tells the reader little about the writers, producer, actors and there characters. Linking alone is not enough for a featured article. The production section, which is really about development needs expanding. Having read this, I am left with all sorts of questions such as what else has Pozzitive Productions done, do we know how much the BBC paid them, are the actors famous for anything else, what was the date of Doody's first meeting, who is Doody? Links can be helpful, but I suspect many readers will click but not return. I do not like opposing FA candidates, but standards have to be keep up and this article is not ready to be featured yet. Graham Colm Talk 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In no way does this post imply a "support" or "oppose" - I'm afraid I second some of the opinions GrahamColm expressed above. Try expanding it as much as you can, take it through a peer review, then come back here and re-nominate it if you feel it's ready, posting all the changes made. It's a nice article, but definitely needs some expansion to meet criterion 1b. Very sorry - I.M.S. (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - what I was suggesting is taking it through another after you've expanded it. If you feel that will take too long, and you are a competent copyeditor, then take it back here in a few weeks (if this nomination is unsuccesful). It's not over yet, however - you've still got a while to work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some of my questions and responses to your questions:
At the very least you could use the episode itself as a reference for the "Episodes" sections. Although plot summaries do not always require references (see some Movie FAs), it would be good to at least back up the claims made.I think phrases like "There is love in the air" should be avoided, as a summary exists, well, to summarize and not to sell a product.The line "online dating service Bigiromance (which does not exist)" - does this refer to it being non-existent within the Bigipedia universe, or within real life?
- I've carried out some improves to the section. Sorry for using the British Comedy Guide as a source again, but I cannot find another similarly accurate source. ISD (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading through the comments above, I find myself in agreement with User:GrahamColm. I wish that I had made my yearning for more detail more explicit in my rather thin peer review of this article. I hinted at this yearning in my general comments about audience reactions, listener statistics, and possible inclusion of a sound file. Reading the revised version, I still find myself wondering whether this series is the end of Bigipedia or whether the BBC is planning a second series. My suggestion is to withdraw the article from FAC, to flesh it out with anything relevant you can find, and to return to FAC when you've taken the article as far as you can. Nothing would be lost by doing this, and you have plenty of time before April Fool's Day. I'd be glad to do another peer review of a more complete article later. Finetooth (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
Current ref 4 (Mahoney..) lacks a publisher
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment: Considering that the BBC Comedy links to the British Comedy Guide, I would consider that proof that it is reliable. Also, it is closely monitored by a select group of editiors. I am not sure about Audible, so I've swapped to the BCG as a source. I've corrected ref 4. I cannot seem to find audience reactions or listener statistics. Concerning sound files, the production company Pozzitive has posted a collection of clips on YouTube, but whether Wikipedia can use them I am not sure, and even then I don't really know how to make sound files. Concerning whether or not there is a second series in the making, I could always ask the producer/director David Tyler on his Twitter account, but I don't know if Twitter is a reliable source. I could however always give the BCG the source and then they could use it. ISD (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. The best method is a mix of all of the above. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Merely showing that some other site links to them, doesn't show reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenative support: It short, very short...but I like it (ooch, horrible reason ain't it?), and it's properly referenced; if Eaglyth's comments are resolved, I'm ready to support. (btw, if you can talk to him through Twitter, why not use it to see if you can't get more info/reliability statements from him)? ResMar 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: One image: File:Bigipedia.jpg: TV program logo (fair use/logo), used as main infobox image. Good usage, good rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.