Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NoitulovE/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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

NoitulovE


Alrighty, let me preface this by saying that this is my first time through FAC, though I've commented once or twice on other entries. Our article on noitulovE is currently a Good Article, and has been through Peer Review (albeit without much comment, but I suppose that could be taken as a good thing). It is&mdash;bar none&mdash;the most comprehensive resource on the topic, online or offline, and is by far the best article on a television advertisement on Wikipedia (though I plan to work on that!) There're no WikiProjects or even guidelines on how to create an article on such a topic, so I've cribbed heavily from guides on writing about television episodes and films. Ok, so on with the show. Let me know if there's anything that needs changing, particularly in regards to copy editing (I know I have a tendency towards verbosity, as this nomination kinda shows), and I'll do what I can to fix it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments, to get the ball rolling. All-in-all, this looks a great article;  the Guinness ads have been pretty good for a few years now, but I've never seen this one (I should click the links to see it, I think).  The points are:
 * "24-35-year-old", I think, should be "24–35-year-old", but I'm not sure (the age range being a range)...when I hit "preview" here, I'll see if it looks odd that way or not. (Yes, a little odd)
 * I'll wait for an MoS guru to weigh in before doing anything on the 24-35/24–35 issue. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The en-dash is actually correct, but it does look awkward. I've reworded the sentence to remove it! Bluap (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the "Dreamer" link in Production->Background buys you anything. It points to a disambiguation page, which doesn't include any Guinness adverts.  Is there an article on the Dreamer ad that should be linked & piped instead?
 * I'd started to knock up an article on Dreamer way back in October, but got distracted by a series of other projects and never got past the lede. Made a quick stub of it for now, with an aim to expanding somewhere down the line. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the policy/guideline on scrolling boxes? I'm thinking of the awards box;  a nice way of preventing the article being overwhelmed with a huge list, but just as scrolling ref lists are frowned on (something to do with printing the page out, if memory serves), perhaps this box will have to be unscrolled.
 * Bah, I thought I'd found a good "pseudo-image" with the scrolling box, but hadn't considered printer-friendliness. Switched it to a collapsible table, though they don't play nice with references when collapsed. Shame, I liked my scrollbox. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency with quotation marks around "Good things": cf "Good things..." concept in Production->Background and Good Things... campaign in Legacy.
 * I'd aimed to use quotation marks when referring to the strapline itself, and none when referring to the campaign as a whole. Looks like I missed one though, fixed! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are much better prose reviewers around than me, so I'll leave that side to them, other than to note there were a couple of places where I reached for the "edit" button, and then decided I wasn't sure.


 * That's it. Well done. Carré (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, a couple of points on the refs too, that I just noticed: #17 is a dead link at the moment, and is there a way you can add some text to the external links in ref#27 and #35? Carré (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Switched to dead-tree reference for #17; I verified that the article exists back in November using the University library, so no problem there. Expanded the external links on #27 and #35 to include the source. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - very well written but I have a few issues before supporting:
 * The entire Sequence heading is unsourced. I realize that the source is the commercial (primary) but articles where writers have to recount a plot normally require at least one secondary source.  Can you find any print or Web sources where someone summarized the contents of the commercial?
 * I did have a ref a while back for the section, but removed it to bring the section in line with the Film guidelines. Re-added it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the same heading, you say they patrons walked backwards out of the pub. They didn't.. the footage of their walking into pub is played in reverse.  Subtle difference, but it's one that illustrates how your personal retelling of the sequence based on only primary sources can be open to interpretation.
 * Switched to the wording used by CFC. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise, what is your basis for saying they were depicted as Neanderthals? Read Timeline_of_human_evolution, but I think it's disputed that humans even evolved from Neanderthals vs. various other species.  I know - it's just a beer commercial and no place for such debates.  But my point is that you decided those were Neanderthals in the commercial when the artist might have been depicting something else.  Need secondary sources.
 * While other evolutionary inaccuracies were brought up a while back on the article's talk page, I've not found anything written in a sourcable essay/article. But you're right, and I've switched neanderthals out in preference for the more generic "primitive hominids" GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the prose, I would de-link the commercials whose articles have not been created yet. The sight of all those red links is messy.  Alternately, create stubs if you think they are likely to become full articles in the future.
 * I do intend to create full articles on the entire Good Things... series at some point down the line. WP:REDLINK leads me to believe that provided that a verifiable article on a subject can be written (they can), and the link makes sense in context (they do), they should be left as is. Still, I'll see what I can do about knocking up a few stubs in the meantime. (edit: Swimblack, Surfer, Dreamer, and Bet on Black now done. Others to come.) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The source you commented out in the References heading creates a weird spacing issue between it and the External links heading. --Laser brain (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, you have addressed all my concerns - excellent work on this. --Laser brain (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing note, with more than ten days at FAC, the article has failed to gain significant support. An extended stint at peer review (seeking out editors in related topics and asking them to comment) might help prepare the article for re-approaching FAC. Good luck! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.