Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1

Television
I think this article is very in-depth. It includes a comprehensive history of the medium, technical details, and how broadcast practices vary from country to country. Denelson83 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. In short: this article is a mess. It should be decided what is to be told in this article, and in what structure. Some technical details are in the history section, or in the tv set section and vice versa. In detail: 1) No lead section. 2) The top image is horrible and unnecessary. It should be very easy to make picture of your own tv and put it there. 3) The history section is good, but could use a copyedit. Still, it has little recent history (widescreen, digital). These are mentioned in the "New developments" section, which should be integrated. There is also a US/UK bias in here, and there are no pictures of old tv's. 4) The technology section is vague and incomplete. It does not at all become clear how televisions work, and we only learn some stuff about the screen dimensions. I would expect a far more extensive explanation here, with a least a diagram to illustrate. 5) "Tv standards" is not a section. 6) The article also writes a bit about television programmes, but I think these would fit better in a separate article. The current "section" (3 sentences) on advertising is pathetic, and while there is a long section on networks this is insuffiencent and should be at television network or so. 7) The rest of the article is lists - which should be moved to other articles - or single section paragraphs - which should be expanded to full sections, or embedded in other sections. 8) There are no references, although there are many links and further reading.  Jeronimo 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. What he said, especially about the pictures. Generally this article feels like it was written by a whole bunch of people over a long period of time. Which I'm sure it has, but it shouldn't be so obvious, especially if it wants to be a featured article. Also, the section on video connections should be removed wholesale, or perhaps put in a seperate article. Oh, yeah, the section on harmful effects needs much better references than a few online news sources, I'm talking journal articles or reputable books. Also I don't think I'd support an article on TV unless it either talked in a fair bit of detail about TV's influence on culture and society or did so briefly with a link to a full article. Psychobabble 08:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I have similar concerns. I think this is a good basis for a featured article but needs more work. Perhaps Peer review is a better place to go with this one? I went out and found a decent PD image of television watching to replace that diagrammatic monstrosity, so that's fixed (and somebody else added a couple others lower down), but it still needs reorganization, major infills, and some polishing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The article is unbalanced and incomplete. Television is an industry, a social phenomenon and a technology. These aspects need to be separated in a disambiguation page, so that each can be treated fairly so as not to drown out the others. The subject is vast and one article can not do it justice. And right now the social aspects are a mere footnote to a long and in places quite technical piece. Haiduc 05:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object The article is not structured for the layman, providing many technical terms the average person may not know, thus detracting from one's ability to understand and fully comprehend it. Michael 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Umm... I may well object too, but I think this nomination expired about a year and half ago... Just saying... Mad Jack 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, I see. Michael 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's like going to a cemetery and wishing the people buried there would die Mad Jack 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Michael 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)