Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Born This Way (Glee)/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 Nikkimaria 01:25, 22 May 2011 [1].
Born This Way (Glee) edit
Born This Way (Glee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the criteria for FA status. It is a well-written and comprehensive article, and it took a lot of work to make it look like the way it does presently. Hopefully if it is not quite at FA level, then I can be able to fix the errors. - DAP388 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning oppose: No one would love to see a Glee-FA more than me, but this isn't ready just yet. The article received a extremely cursory GA review, and an active PR is apparently waiting for comment. If anything, the article needs a copy-edit or two from someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. I see typos ("signficantly" in the lead, "counsellor", "transfering", "acknolwedges"... etc.) throughout, WP:DASH issues here and there, and slight inconsistencies in the sources (why are sites like Twitter italicized?). The prose is also clumsy and redundant in places. One example straight from the lead: "This episode.... This episode...". Perhaps consider withdrawing the FAC for now to finish the PR and solicit an expert copy-editor? María (habla conmigo) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think that could be in order. Haha forgive me, I'm a bit impatient since I've did the peer review about 2 weeks ago, and it's been archived. I think I can wait. How far is it from meeting the FA criteria? DAP388 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read the article in full (merely skimmed), but the quality of the writing is a big deal around these parts. :) I'd say, get a couple reviews and copy-edits (again, from unfamiliar eyes would help), then you'll be on better footing for FAC. You can submit the article at WP:GOCE for the c-e if you'd like, and/or ask editors with FA-experience to look over it. The prose and little niggling MOS issues was what jumped out at me, so that's all I'm commenting on at the moment. If you'd like to withdraw, just make a note on this page and someone would take care of it. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think that could be in order. Haha forgive me, I'm a bit impatient since I've did the peer review about 2 weeks ago, and it's been archived. I think I can wait. How far is it from meeting the FA criteria? DAP388 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close/Oppose - I understand you're impatient, but there's an open PR (it's not currently archived, although it looks like it was at one point?), so this can't yet be at FAC. Even if you were to archive the PR right now, I would still suggest you not nominate this yet, as per Maria the prose is problematic, and on a quick glance I also see WP:MOS issues and some inconsistencies in reference format (I didn't check the reliability of the references, just looking quickly). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I can agree with you guys that it doesn't meet the criteria just yet. You can close the discussion. DAP388 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, doing that. Make sure you don't remove the template from the talk page - the bot'll do that for you when it goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I can agree with you guys that it doesn't meet the criteria just yet. You can close the discussion. DAP388 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 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.