Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red Dwarf/archive1

Red Dwarf[edit]

Nomination. I've been a fan of Red Dwarf for a long time now, having watched many of the episodes several times. Not only is the Red Dwarf article well written, informative and comprehensive, it also contains all the relevant citations and is probably one of the most informative resources for somebody wishing to know about Red Dwarf on the net. I strongly suggest that this article becomes featured, and hopefully, others will agree. Schizmatic 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: unless they are in an area with an unusual title, I cannot locate any references, which are required as per what is a featured article guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object lack of in-line refs -M^ask 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the citation troubles very soon. Schizmatic 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object list-weighty, lack of references, and no inline citations. AndyZ _t 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the lists branch off into another article, which breaks down the lists and describes them in more detail. The actual content is very good. Schizmatic 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - This article lacks in focus. The Scenario section is mostly about characters, who have their own section, which is actually just a link to another article. Similarly, the section about episodes is a link to a different article, but later, in the section "Talking Backwards," a whole episode is described without any real comment on why this episode has been singled out for description. There's no explicit discussion of fan reaction to the series. Esperonto words are listed under "Invented Words" (which they are, but not in the sense that the section is talking about), and there's a "Citation Needed" tag next to a claim made in that section (which is a questionable section to begin with; were invented words that significant in this series? Why?). I also question the use of the word "Series" to describe what I would call seasons of the show, although maybe that's a British term that I'm unfamiliar with. This article needs a big overhaul before it could be promoted; I'd suggest referring it to Peer Review. The Disco King 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason you don't understand the word "series" is that you are American; it's no fault of the article. Please also note that we use words like "colour", and extend them with "-ise", not "-ize", and things like that. There are internet sites that may help explain some of the differences you're having trouble with.

Object - This article seems to be somewhat fragmented and doesnt flow well, its also a touch too long, especially since there is a lack of references. The content is there it just need reorganising and tidying up. Second peer review suggestion. -- Lewis 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]