Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dexter (episode)/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 SandyGeorgia 22:46, 3 January 2011 [1].

Dexter (episode)[edit]

Nominator(s): Thecheesykid (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the best TV series episode articles on Wikipedia. It is well written and provides significant coverage in all areas of the subject. It's well structured, free of unnecessary information, and uses several images. It is also fully referenced and sourced and is unbiased as it also represents those who disliked the episode in the reception section. ^____^ Thecheesykid (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)That Ol' Cheesy Dude, Talk to the hand![reply]

I just corrected WP:MSH errors, and see boatloads of incomplete citations, publishers and titles are needed on all citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them also need access dates, where applicable. Trebor (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for time being. I've included a mixture of points below, but the main issue is that the prose is not polished enough yet. Without commenting on content and sourcing, I think it needs a decent copyedit to tighten things up. Some specific points:

I'd always thought plot was assumed to be cited to the episode itself, without the need for inline paragraph refs (someone please correct me if wrong).
executive producing - I guess it should be "executively producing", although I'd prefer to see her mentioned as the "executive producer".
given the show a green light - wikilink green light to make it clearer.
to not audition - better as "not to audition" to avoid split infinitive.
roles[15], Robert Greenblatt and Michael Cuesta approached him with the script. - that should be a semi colon or full stop.
Hall was in New York and thinking of returning to theatre work, and had no intention of returning to television so quickly - double use of "returning" is clumsy.
Hall read various books on serial killers and the psychology of serial killers - double use of "serial killers" is clumsy.
fan of Michael C. Hall - wikilinking the same name very near to the first wiklink - not necessary.

The nomination is possibly a bit premature—at the least, it could do with a bit of tidying up of prose and references. Trebor (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Trebor, I've made all the corrections on your list. :) - Thecheesykid

My points were meant to be indicative more than absolute. The point is that I'm not studying the article in great detail, but there are still a number of issues with prose. A more thorough reviewer would probably pick up on stuff which I let slide. I strongly recommend a thorough copyedit; if you don't feel comfortable doing this yourself, then WP:LOCE might be able to help. For some further examples:

It was watched by 603,000 viewers, the highest audience numbers for a series premiere since Fat Actress aired in March 2005, beating the series premieres of Weeds, Brotherhood, Sleeper Cell and Huff[61]. - I assume it meant that Dexter beat the audience numbers, not Fat Actress, but the sentence is not clear.
An encore at 11:00/10:00c brought in 443,000 viewers - be kind to a Brit - I have no idea what those times mean!
the total amount of viewers - "number" not "amount" - viewer are discrete.
giving Showtime its' - "its" when possessive does not need an apostrophe.
A little less than 300,000 viewers - you use "a little less" in the next sentence. Viewers are again discrete, so should be fewer (although that would sound weird so maybe "Almost 300,000 viewers" or "A little under 300,000 viewers".

Trebor (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Many references are not formatted, or the formatting is incomplete. All online sources should show, minimally, a title, a publisher and a retrieval date. In this respect, 2, 3 and 4 are correct, while 6, 7. 8 and many others are not.
Formats need to be standardised. At present, for example, there are different formats used for retrieval dates - compare, say, 21 with 28
Refs 11, 16 and 63 are all dead links
Printed sources should be in italics. See, for example, refs 69 and 72, and check for others

I'll look again when these are fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images what is conveyed in File:DexterPilot.jpg that is not already contained in the caption "Dexter covers his head with plastic wrap and kills his victim." under gfdl text Fasach Nua (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 2 dabs- Brotherhood (TV series) and Hurricane season; 1 dead external link - here; and about a dozen external redirects. I did not fix these as they are too numerous; use the external link checker in the upper right corner of this page to see them yourself. --Pres N 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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