Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Today (Australian TV program)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Today (Australian TV program) edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I would like to receive feedback from other Wikipedia users.

Firstly, because I believe this article deserves some better attention and just basically needs improving. Secondly, to see if my edits (current and future) of the Today (Australian TV program) article could perhaps make this article become a Wikipedia:Featured articles. I would also like to receive posts from others, on what they think about the article, what needs improving and change, and also what content is good to stay. --Tjkirk (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This process is generally for articles that supposedly meet the featured article criteria, and although FA candidates do receive feedback relating to improvements to the article, it isn't a process like Wikipedia:Peer review. If you solely need feedback on the article, request a peer review. If you believe that the article meets the featured article criteria, then continue this nomination. Spebi 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Comments

  • This is not a full GA review as (a) it wasn't nominated for one and (b) I haven't considered all the GA criteria

General

  1. Inline refs are supposed to follow punctuation. The article is inconsistent.
  2. Images properly need a Fair Use rationale for each article in which they're used. There's a general one here for each and this may be a future problem. They are also used in an editor's User Space, which is an invalid Fair Use. They should be linked there with [[:image.....]].
  3. Otherwise well-referenced, enough citations.
  4. Article seems broad enough to cover its topic without deviation.

Lead

  1. broadcasted -> broadcast (this is both the past and present tense)
  2. celebrates -> celebrated (it's already happened)
  3. three hours -> this is restated in the same sentence "6 - 9am"
  4. sport -> sports

Format

  1. sms -> text message (sms is a technical term)
  2. onto -> on to (it's not one word)

History

  1. celebrates -> celebrated (it's already happened) (again)
  2. While, it -> While it (comma unnecessary)
  3. "was Sarah Murdoch and Kellie Connolly, both who saw a significant increases in ratings" (this is clumsy. It says they saw it but maybe did not cause it, which I think is what is meant. In any case, this is speculation, isn't it? Also, verb & noun numbers do not match. Could do with a rewrite)
  4. As of 28 May 2007 -> On 28 May 2007

Brand Extension

  1. First sentence is too long.
  2. Need citation for last sentence to justify reason for its cut.

25th Anniversary

  1. Needs rewrite to make it concise and clear. In particular, do any of the participants need Wikilinks?

Anchors

  1. Different problem! There's too much Wikilinking. WP:MOS says only once per section.

Bulletins and Regular Segments

  1. A lot of this section is just stating the obvious. It reads like a TV magazine listing. Does the reader need this much detail?
  2. How has the idea of providing the latest news been "critical" (a strong word) to the function (perhaps "success") of the programme?

Substitue Presenters

  1. Fix typo in this heading
  • Oppose - Main points - the lead is too short. Many parts are not referenced. Many of the references only consist of links and do not have their details filled out. The information is heavily biased towards the present. Almost 80% of the information is about the current presenters and current history.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is far from FA:
  • No references in "Format", "Brand Extension", "News", "Sports", "Weather" and "Traffic Watch" sections.
  • References 1, 3, 4, 7-10 and 14-26 have formatting problems.
  • The article is not comprehensive. There must be a Reception section. There must be a section how how the show is made.
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not yet of the required professional standard. Pick the blooper in the opening sentence: "Today, usually referred to as The Today Show to avoid ambiguity, is an Australian breakfast morning news program which has been broadcasted live by the Nine Network since 28 June 1982 and celebrates its 25th anniversary in 2007." And what ambiguity? Then the third sentence: "The program is hosted by Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson, who are accompanied by news presenter Georgie Gardner,"—"accompanied" makes me feel as though we're climbing aboard a carriage. And that disease "also-itis" is in evidence soon after the start. Please read MOS on the spacing of en dashes in ranges. Tony (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still needs quite a bit of work. There are some basic typos and grammatical errors. There is quite a bit more that could be said - very little about its rating problems in recent years, very little about the whole Jessica Rowe fiasco (and subsequent lawsuit), very little about the early history (both in terms of presenters and ratings), and not enough about the sort of content the show has. Rebecca (talk) 00:27, 29 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Today_(Australian_TV_program)/archive1&oldid=1138473967"