Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Degrassi: The Next Generation/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 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Degrassi: The Next Generation[edit]

SELF-NOMINATION I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it is of equal quality to other FAs about television series. Before I started working on the article, it was basically a character list with a trivia section. I used Lost (TV series) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) as guidelines to rewrite the page, it now includes production info, actor details, a response subsection, etc. All statements are now backed up by fully formatted references.

The article is pretty stable with regards to vandalism, considering the age of the article's subject's fanbase, any vandalism is removed immediately, as is incorrect information.

Any comments and suggestions to further better the article are welcome, but they may take a day or 2 to implement because I'm now forced to access the internet using a PDA. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now ~~Oppose~~. Just from a quick skim, the layout and writing need work. I see several paragraphs made up of one sentence, and one paragraph that takes up two-thirds of my page. There's a lot of repetition in the "special episode" sections with regards to the opening statement in each paragraph. After this is taken care of I'll give it a deeper read.-Wafulz 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wafulz. Hmmm... I copied the layout from the FAs mentioned above, so I'm not sure what's wrong there. I rewrote the intros for the paragraphs in the "special episodes..." subsection, and renamed it to "complementary media". With regards to the one sentence paragraphs, and the one that takes up two-thirds of your page, welll, I'm using a PDA, so it's hard for me to know which ones you're referring to. Can you point them out to me perhaps? If there's any other writing needs working on, please advise. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is the issue. I think this may be one of those times where a chart works better than prose. Also, it uses a contraction ("don't"), so that should be changed to "do not".-Wafulz 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to use a list or a paragraph is actually personal preference, and in my opinion that paragraph is not an issue. If it was converted into a chart, I feel that would be worse. However, this is all personal preference, and isn't supported by the FA criteria. Therefore, the paragraph isn't a legitimate concern. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "don't" to "do not", as for that paragraph, I'll wait and see if there are any other comments on it before making a table. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing your mind, Wafulz, is there anything (other than that table) that I can do to the article to get your support? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article has a few problems:
I see a few short paragraphs with only one sentence. This suggests it is not well written.
Many unreferenced paragraphs in "Main and recurring roles" section. One unreferenced paragraph in "Concept" section.
IMDB and message boards are not reliable sources.
References 4, 15, 58, 93 and 113 have formatting problems. References always go after a comma or full stop with no space in between.
Links like http://www.degrassi.tv and PAX should not be in the article except in references or the "External links" section.
Improve the article and try GA first.

--Kaypoh (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some that were able to be merged into others, there are some I just can't think a way to fix.
The paragraph in the concept section is the last one, right? would the cite episode template suffice, citing the first ep? As for the main and recurring roles section, the reference is the series itself, isn't it?
All I can say is that other FAs like buffy use imdb in the same context this article (ie producers previous work). The messageboard is at the official site, and the only cited pieces are from "ExecProducer", confirmed as Stephen Stohn in the series' official guidebook.
Done
Done
Thanks for your comments, so far. I've fixed what I can, please advise on anything else -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see a few short paragraphs with only one sentence. Some of them are unreferenced. I don't think the "Main and recurrent roles" is like the "Plot" section - if it is like the Plot section you can assume the show is the reference. The article needs a copy-edit but I cannot help you with that because my English is not that good. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well thanks for all your comments. I'll keep working on it of course, references aren't a problem; my skills in writing in-so-far-as expanding those paragraphs is! -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.