Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony/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 00:37, 3 December 2007.

Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this article is ready for featured article candidacy. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, it is neutral, and it's stable. Statler&amp;Waldorf 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a good start, but this is far from featured article quality. Might I suggest you take a look at some other show articles like The Simpsons and base Statler and Waldorf on that? The episode section is way too big (it should probably be split into an another article entitled "List of Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony episodes"), and you need a plot section, citations for the List of Balconisms, among other things. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What would go in a "plot" section? How would you want one to cite the balconisms? The source for each is given in the episode section. Statler&amp;Waldorf 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some plot summary for the entire series? Again, I'm not familiar with the series, but you should take a look at The Simpsons and some other TV show FAs and model the article upon those. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The show didn't have stories or plots it was a collection of commentaries, reports, editorials, interviews, brief sketches and commercial parodies. Each episode was about 3-10 minutes long. The form and structure was nothing like The Simpsons - it was more like At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper or Entertainment Tonight... but with puppets. Statler&amp;Waldorf 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support Remark: It doesn't matter if it's "far from featured article quality"; if that was the case, we would never pass much. It simply needs to meet current criteria to a sufficient degree, which this does. Good work! Leranedo 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the basis that it's acceptable.


 * Oppose—2 (MOS breaches), 1a. Here are a few examples at random from the lead; the whole article needs work. New people required who aren't so close to the text.
 * Hyphens cannot be used as interruptors. See MOS on dashes.
 * "multi-award winning webshow"—Another hyphen required.
 * A sentence that starts with "Plus"?
 * "Characters that frequented"—are they robots? Tony   (talk)  02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.