Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wishology/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 SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [1].

Wishology edit

Nominator(s): 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Wishology is ready for its first FAC. The article went through a successful GA nomination and two peer reviews. I have checked this article against the FA criteria, and I personally think it satisfies (i.e. refs, images tagged, etc.), though I could have missed a few things here and there (as with everyone, I'm not perfect ;D). The article prose may be an issue, as pointed out by H1nkles in the article's second peer review, but hopefully a few copy-editing suggestions will help remedy that issue as much as possible.

With all that said, I wish this article good luck. 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated at the above-referenced peer review

Thanks for your very detailed and thorough comments! I fixed them to the best of my ability and will plan to find a copy-editor as you suggested. 89119 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

and there have been no edits since then. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC; if the article is not FAC-ready, this is not the place for peer review or improvements, and articles that don't meet criteria shouldn't be nominated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did submit a request to GOCE here, but no one did any copy-edits yet, and I doubt that would happen any time soon. I know, I'm being a little impatient on that. Sure, FAC isn't peer review, but if people feel an FAC currently does not meet FA-criteria, they would leave specific critical remarks, and I think that criticism here would help improve the article closer to success in its next FAC nomination. 89119 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but Sandy's right: FAC isn't peer review, and this article isn't currently FAC-ready. Here are some specific concerns:

Awkward and unclear prose, grammatical errors, for example "parts 1 and 3 of Wishology was viewed". You might consider having someone from WP:GOCE copy-edit the article
- Fixed the grammatical error. As for the GOCE, that's what I'm trying to do so far. Again, if I'm being impatient because I'm requesting a copy-edit from the GOCE and nominating the article here at FAC simultaneously, I apologize. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strange shifts in tense, for example "The trilogy is written by...and was directed by..."
- Wow, did not see that. Anyway, that's fixed. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS issues, for example inconsistent italicization and capitalization
- I realize that FAC is not peer review as you just said, but can you point out any specifics please? 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over-emphasis on cultural references
- I personally think every cultural reference made in the episode is equally important, like how in Family Guy FA "Road to the Multiverse each of its own cultural references is equally important. Thus, every cultural reference that can be reliably sourced is listed in the article's "Cultrural references" section. For the Wishology article, the only reason why the article seems to overemphasize the "Cultrual references" section is because the Wishology episode just happens to have a lot of them, given that the episode is reliant on them and is three hours long (with commerical breaks). Anyways, do you feel the section still need to be be condensed, given the reasoning above? If so, which cultural references should be removed? 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy reliance on primary sources
What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Removed all references to toonbarn. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
- If you're referring to the source from a Brazil website, I hope I fixed it. I wrote "(Brazil)" next to the source's title. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies in reference formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review Everything is good from copyright and caption standpoints, however I'm not sure I like the George Lucas image being in the article, (actually I quite dislike its usage). It strikes me as having an image there for the sake of having an image there. He wasn't involved in the movie at all, his only relation to it is an akward tie in, that he created something that was referenced in the film. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the George Lucas image. The first peer reviewer of this article wasn't particularly tasteful of the image either. 89119 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 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.