Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stark Raving Dad/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 17:53, 7 August 2010 [1].

---

Stark Raving Dad

Stark Raving Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Stark Raving Dad/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Stark Raving Dad/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Stark Raving Dad/archive3

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one I've been slowly pecking away at for about two years, and never got around to nominating (until now). It's about one of the most famous episodes of the show, and I feel it meets all FA requirements. I'll be around for 6 days, then will be going away for 8 days. After I leave, Theleftorium, will take over addressing concerns for me. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources comments:
• Chris Turner book lacks publication year and publisher information
  • Fixed.
• "Halstead, Craig; Chris (2003)" - seems an odd way of stating the author. In the citations the book appears as "Halstead & Cadman"
  • That was a mistake on my part. The template said "last2=Cadman|last2=Chris". I have fixed the error.
• I imagine there should be a colon or something in the title Michael Jackson the Solo Years
  • Fixed.
• Why isn't the Richmond and Coffman book listed with the references? There are more citations to it than to either of the listed books.
  • Moved.

Otherwise, sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You appear to be in the camp of not having references in the lead. If that's the case, move the ref for the airdate into the infobox.
  • The last paragraph of the lead is a bit short and may want to be integrated into one of the longer ones. Or you could remove it entirely and let the reception section speak for itself.
  • The lead is an almost verbatim copy of the first paragraph of Production. Perhaps you could summarize it a bit more in different words? This might help in accommodating the above point as well.
  • "He was directed by James L. Brooks" --- probably can be trimmed out
  • Ref #27 does not appear to be about what it's supposed to support...
  • In Cultural references, it's a bit unclear who "Michael" refers to sometimes, the character or the real person.
  • No !vote until comments are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I've made quite a lot of changes to the article. Please take another look now. :) (Note: I will not be online again until late in the evening on July 28). Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment—In the Reception section, you mix contemporary reviews (i.e. those from 1991) with later, retrospective reviews. These should separated (as in, mention "In a 2009 blog for Slate magazine..."), as that would highlight how reception towards the episode and its themes has changed. 114.143.172.245 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.