Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glee (season 1)/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 Dabomb87 04:40, 8 August 2010 [1].
Glee (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator: CycloneGU (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, quite simply, it is a very succinct summary of the entire first season of Glee, a show on the FOX network. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria and deserves to be considered among the best. Frickative (talk) has been extremely diligent about ensuring that the material in the article is well-sourced, and even after completion of the first season has taken the time to add tidbits such as releases of DVDs covering the entire season. He has even disagreed with some of my own mid-season edits (I can't blame him). In short, this is a great summary of the season and I think this and other articles related to the television series might be worthy noms. Even if voting disagrees, I would like to see it among the good article candidates and help work the article into featured status. CycloneGU (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you consult the primary contributor (Frickative, presumably) before nominating? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I moments ago posted a memo on his talk page. I earlier brought up the idea, to which he replied, "It's been on my to-do list since season one ended, but I just haven't quite gotten round to it yet - I think it just needs the episode summaries tweaking and it should be ready." Personally, I think it's ready as it is, though any tweaking is always good for any article. I've asked him to look in here. CycloneGU (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, this is featured article candidates; I believe you meant to nominate this at featured list candidates based on your comment at User talk:Frickative#Time Warp? and other television-show season articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree primarily because it's an article about the entire season with a fair amount of prose and other details. An article such as List_of_Glee_episodes would be more likely to be an FL candidate. However, that will be in constant production as Glee is now planned for four seasons (FOX so far has ordered three, not sure about the fourth). Would it still be a list entry in your opinion? CycloneGU (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many other TV season FLs have "a fair bit of prose"; see 30 Rock (season 3), The O.C. (season 4), and Desperate Housewives (season 1) as examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note taken. In that case, if the article is deemed "not ready", I'll renom. there in the future. I've done some work helping out with the Glee section in general a few months ago, however, and now I want to figure out what is needed and help fix up the article as well. CycloneGU (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to submit the article for peer review then. Should I take this as a formal withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, then. I clearly missed that step. Pardon my error, my first time trying to promote an article. Let's see what Frickative says. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate a couple of days to apply some of the fixes I've been meaning to get around to for some time, but I'm happy for the FAC to be withdrawn. A peer review submitted early next week, followed by an FLC, would be ideal. Frickative 04:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As she says, then, consider it withdrawn for the time being (but it will be back when she's ready). I mistakenly thought the article ready in any case, but I will take the comments below and look at it myself as well. CycloneGU (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate a couple of days to apply some of the fixes I've been meaning to get around to for some time, but I'm happy for the FAC to be withdrawn. A peer review submitted early next week, followed by an FLC, would be ideal. Frickative 04:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, then. I clearly missed that step. Pardon my error, my first time trying to promote an article. Let's see what Frickative says. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to submit the article for peer review then. Should I take this as a formal withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note taken. In that case, if the article is deemed "not ready", I'll renom. there in the future. I've done some work helping out with the Glee section in general a few months ago, however, and now I want to figure out what is needed and help fix up the article as well. CycloneGU (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many other TV season FLs have "a fair bit of prose"; see 30 Rock (season 3), The O.C. (season 4), and Desperate Housewives (season 1) as examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree primarily because it's an article about the entire season with a fair amount of prose and other details. An article such as List_of_Glee_episodes would be more likely to be an FL candidate. However, that will be in constant production as Glee is now planned for four seasons (FOX so far has ordered three, not sure about the fourth). Would it still be a list entry in your opinion? CycloneGU (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, this is featured article candidates; I believe you meant to nominate this at featured list candidates based on your comment at User talk:Frickative#Time Warp? and other television-show season articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to mention it looks more like an FLC than an FAC. No dabs; ref 49 is dead, few others do funky things but ultimately go where they're supposed to; and four of the refs are bare URL's. In general, I'm seeing a nomination that isn't ready for either of FAC or FLC. Courcelles 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed ref. 49. It's working now. Nonetheless, possibly moving to peer review instead, didn't realize had to do that step first or where to go for that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.