Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/200 (Stargate SG-1)

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 promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

---

200 (Stargate SG-1)

Check external links

Recently attained GA status. It has less references than the average FA might, but that's mostly since I relied heavily on DVD commentary for sourcing. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - images have incorrect fair use rationales (10c). Will ^(talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Fixed. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well-written, and not short of references - some Simpsons FAs have less. Will ^(talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose - Reference 1 returns a 404. May just be a temporary issue, but keep an eye on it. Main issue is with Reference 6, which is used to support the cost of the puppets and the use of CGI, but makes no mention of either fact. Feel free to strike this if/when those two bits get a cite (provided Ref 1 is working again). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Might have been an editing mistake. An old fancrufty version of the article (which I had been responsible for sourcing) gives three other sources for the puppet-related facts. I'll leave it to David to fix it. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference to the puppets, sgeureka was correct, i swapped around the article and the commentary; as for link #1, I can see it via archive.org or google cache, but they say that the website is just being fixed up and so that's why the links won't work. In the meantime, I've referenced the archived version. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. The prose reads clearly (and a damned sight more lucidly than I could manage), all contentious points are referenced, images are used appropriately (poignantly, even :P), and most amazing of all, you seem to have deciphered every code implanted into the MOS and written the article accordingly. I Support and look forward to the cries of "O NOES POP CULTURE" on August 18 :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, it has all that is needed for a FA. --Tone 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Covers material very nicely, well sourced. Clear, concise plot summary. Excellent work. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fixes needed; there is a lot of citation cleanup needed, see my edit summaries. Also, what makes the Ask Joe Mallozzi forum a reliable source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe Mallozzi is (was) SG-1's executive producer. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why is SG-1 sometimes italicized, sometimes not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When it refers to the show itself, it's italicised. When it refers to the organisation within the show of the same name, it's not. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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