Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House's Head/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:14, 1 November 2008 [1].

House's Head[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I just got it up to Good Article status, so most of the minor problems are fixed. The lenght of the production section seemed a bit short, but I noticed Greatest Hits (Lost) which has a shorter production section. --Music26/11 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About.com articles are written, or at least checked by subject experts. At least, they were, last time I checked. - Mgm|(talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com discusses this. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting SandyGeorgia: "Anyone can write for about.com and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have these issues been addressed? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above issues have been addressed, I'm still working on the issues below.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. check.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show where they are used outside of Wikipedia, not that they are used in Wikipedia articles. Quite frankly, GAs are not often checked for reliable sources, and older FAs weren't either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for my late reply, I've been busy with school, anyhow, I think I took care of most of your comments. I've added some reliable sources that prove the references used in the article, I'm still looking for sources for the LA times forum and TV Squad, I would like to hear your comments on my work so far.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

I've deleted or replaced most sources you found unreliable, I think a few of them are reliable per the statements listed below:

Note: I'm referring to the websites, not the links themselves.

All the other minor errors are fixed.--Music26/11 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is why I hate TV Squad and BuddyTV when they are used in articles, because those reviews typically have nothing to say that is encyclopedic and editors are using them to bloat reception sections. See--" Jay Black of TV Squad quoted "I know that I spent the whole hour with the same goofy look on my face that Christopher Walken had when he saw heaven in the movie Brainstorm".[1] He also said that House is funnier then Two and a Half Men.[1]"--The first part tells us absolutely nothing about the episode, and the second part doesn't even seem to be directed at this episode but a general statement about the series. Critical reviews should be analytical, with context provided for explaination. If Critic A says Omar Epps's acting sucked in this episode, we need context as to why it sucked. Simply stating it doesn't provide any real value for the article. If the reviewer doesn't say why, then the review itself probably isn't useable. Please go through your critical reception information and make sure that it doesn't read like a promotional piece for the episode, or simply provide one-line statements that vaguely identify the reason why a critic might appreciate or not appreciate the episode. This goes all the way to LA Times and the other more professional news organization sources in the article. Even their critics can leave simple one liners to describe their feelings. It should not be the point of editors to find a single sentence that describes the critics opinion (because those are usually vague), but be able to paraphrase their thoughts. There is too much direct quoting going on. Quote as little as possible and paraphrase as much as possible.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I took care of most of them (in the "Reception" section), I left a few though, because they're pretty clear. I'd appreciate it if you'd took another look.--Music26/11 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for 1a at least - prose needs proofreading ("check for a the bus driver") and a lot of work to improve the fluency. Lead needs to be shorter and more focused: for instance, you don't need to explain the plot in that level of detail when the plot section is directly underneath, or mention to whom an award was lost. It should be an overview with minimal minor details. Trebor (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on that during the weekend.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Check out Pilot, if you haven't already, which is currently still a FAC, but I believe it is FA worthy. Anyway, look for key points like it's prose etc.

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Infobox image needs a stronger rationale to be there (and I wonder if that's the best one - I'm thinking it might be better to use one of the shots near the end of this episode where House has all the other docs with picture badges to try to recreate the scene before the critical flashback). Two free images are fine. --MASEM 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - 1a. concerned that there are serious issues with prose. All the content is there, I believe, but there are some glaringly bad sentences in there, i.e. "she either slapped a hand over her mouth. Or possibly screamed her my TV." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference TVS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/House%27s_Head/archive1&oldid=1138463224"