Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Have I Got News for You

Have I Got News For You

Article is no longer a featured article

Almost entirely lists, innadequate lead section, and no references. Comprehensive? maybe, I have no idea, but the lack of prose and sectioning is troubling. - Taxman 16:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree. Only a small part of the content is a list ("Highlights" does have bullets but can hardly be called a list - all prose). The "overview" makes a very good lead section. Thus only a few minor tweaks required, best not throw baby with bath water here. Pcb21| Pete 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it's a list of prose paragraphs :) In any case they are disjointed and the article has no overall narative arc. No article would pass FAC like that today. An overview section is deprecated, and is not a lead section unless well, it is in the lead section. If it does qualify as a great lead section, then work it in there. I did think this one over, and wouldn't have nominated it if I thought it was close to FA quality. - Taxman 18:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Forgot to respond to your other points. References: I added one, not sure of the extent of written material on the subject since that book. The external links give a whole host of supporting data for those wishing to read more. I don't see problems with breadth of coverage. Pcb21| Pete 17:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, I'd much rather it be fixed up well than de-featured. Again websites can be listed as references too if properly used to add or fact check material. Create a proper lead section, fix the sturcture of the article, and add some more references (at least three) and I would vote keep myself. - Taxman 18:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of the three, this is clearly the best: if it were nominated now, it would stand a decent chance, I should have thought. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support removal — Matt Crypto 18:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Some comments: As much as I'm a fan of HIGNFY, I think this article is nowhere near featured quality at present. 1) Bullet point prose is, of course, problematic; 2) I have to wonder: what criteria were used to choose the "highlights" section? Are they simply the author's favourite bits, or is there some verifiable means that they are particularly well-known incidents in the show? 3) "Meaning that, as pointed out in a later episode of the show, he is the only person in the UK who can be called a "conniving little shit" without fear of being (successfully) sued for libel." — I'm not sure that is a correct inference, at least, not as far as the article relates. 4) There's no discussion about how much of the show is scripted, whether it's all improvisational, whether the best bits are edited, or what. 5) It seems a little short -- I would have hoped for...well, more. 6) There's no discussion of the different quiz types, like the missing word round, or whatever. The format of a typical episode needs to be described in more detail (the H2G2 entry does this well). 7) More screengrabs from the show? — Matt Crypto 01:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep. Keep. I'm hearing a lot of support for Keep.--Crestville 18:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with ALoan. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove entirely lists. Thechamelon 11:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Entirely lists? Are you reading the same article as me? Maybe half to two-thirds lists, and only by length not by volume. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Okey, probably not all lists but too much to be considered a featured-article.
• Remove. I like the show, but this article leaves a bit to be desired I am afraid. The prose sections need improving, and I think the "Highlights of the Show" section should be trimmed and probably reformatted. Rje 01:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, per Matt Crypto. Ambi 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• remove due to another wikipedia desease: Lists... (though a useful desease!) -Pedro 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)