Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2 Hours Doing Nothing/archive1

2 Hours Doing Nothing

 * Nominator(s):  Gerald WL  07:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an Indonesian man who became viral just by doing nothing for two hours. It then became a huge sensation, since many are bored due to the pandemic and they need something to keep them sane, a good example of the roller coaster of Internet culture. It was brought to GA in Dec 5, and received a (lonely) PR just recently. Pinging page creator and GA reviewer, if interested.  Gerald WL  07:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I'm going to have to oppose this nomination for a single, yet crucial reason. The criteria for an article to become a good article is largely, and I mean largely different than that for an article to become a featured article. To start, I believe this article is not "comprehensive", but rather, "broad in its coverage" (See GA#3 and FA#1 for what I mean). Plus, some could say some of the article's information could violate FA#6, which states that the article should "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the article is not comprehensive, which is "complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something." This article talks about all aspects about the video, the virality, the production, the legacy. And it does not go to vague details— I don't see how. The fact that it's short does not make it incomprehensive, if that's what you're referring.  Gerald WL  12:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with Some Dude From North Carolina. ~ HAL  333  23:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is not FA standard and there are numerous grammatical errors. Graham Beards (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you can give examples as to how it is not FA standard, that would be appreciated. I have done various grammar checks, and the PR lacks response, which prompts me to just go full-on FAC. I expect some kind of comments and not just a strand of vote.  Gerald WL  08:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "only in 2:20:39 did he placed himself" Graham Beards (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I changed it to "at"; the "2:20:39" is the video's timestamp.  Gerald WL  08:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the only error. Can I suggest something like this:

''The 2-hour-20-minute-52-second long video features 21-year-old Muhammad Didit Delon in his bedroom sitting on the floor against a mattress and staring into empty space. Apart from twelve seconds (at 2:20:39) Didit remains tense throughout. A viewer counted Didit blinking 362 times.''
 * Graham Beards (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I partially implied it to see if others feel good on it; I did not move the blinking thing to save space, and mainly because I think it's another alternative to the current that seems good.  Gerald WL  09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That was just an example. Other sentences are completely unintelligible: Vice considered it to be a trend in Indonesia, but found similar international videos such as "Doing Nothing For 8 Hours Straight", as well as Sitting and Smiling. You need to get an independent copy-editor. The prose isn't even up to GA standard. Graham Beards (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , exactly one of the many reasons I placed this for FAC. No comprehensive comments were given in the PR; GOCE's process is also slow. As for the Vice sentence, it refers to exactly what it says: although it is considered a local trend, it seemed to also be rampant internationally.  Gerald WL  09:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In that case, you are misusing FAC and you should withdraw the nomination. Graham Beards (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's not what I'm referring to in literal sense. I meant that, unless you're just passing by, I expect some comments and not just strand of vote. That way it's not just "Oh this is a lame of a FA, oppose", but also how it can be FA in the future, if were to be not nominated. I did some adjustments, see if you find that fine. Also, please indent your comments.  Gerald WL  10:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unwatching. Graham Beards (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope that's not a sign of WP:UNCIVIL.  Gerald WL  10:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Gerald, I admire your attitude in nominating this article, and the polite but firm way you have defended your position above. Nevertheless, the article is clearly not FAC ready. Among other issues, is quite right to insist that the English and grammar need attention. In terms of actionable comments, I would suggest you:
 * Submit it to GoCE. I am aware that there is a waiting list, but am grateful that it exists at all. FAC is not a forum for carrying out basic copy edits.
 * Find an experienced FAC nominator who is prepared to mentor you, and then listen to what they say.
 * Review 10 or 12 further FACs. Not only will this and the ensuing interchanges give you a better feel for what is required at FAC, but you are likely to build up some goodwill such that editors are more likely to look the article over prior to resubmission - either at PR or less formally.

I look forward to seeing this back at FAC, subject to appropriate improvements and the usual two-week waiting period. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)