Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chaser APEC pranks


 * 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 promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009.

The Chaser APEC pranks

 * Nominator(s):   The Windler      talk   

I am self-nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is a good enough status now to reach a featured state. I have worked on it and I believe it meets the criteria.   The Windler      talk   11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Query Hi Windler, nice read, that's a great story that deserves a wider audience. But is "Surry Hills Police Station" really "Surrey Hills Police Station" or is Surry a normal alternate spelling there?  Were Spiel  Chequers  14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Surry Hills, New South Wales is correct. But Surrey is also the usual name for the English county.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks O simian one.  Were Spiel  Chequers  12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Query "Reucassel dressed as Australian native animals" surely either  "Reucassel and other members of the cast dressed as Australian native animals" or  "Reucassel dressed as an Australian native animal" and if the latter why not name the animal?   Were  Spiel  Chequers  14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Recassel wore one animal costume, then took it off and wore another one.   The Windler      talk   20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used.
 * Done, changed to "" quotes.   The Windler      talk   06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have direct quotations lacking source citations. I noticed the last sentence of "the Chaser" section, but there may be others.
 * I believe I have now done this, even if it repeats the source.   The Windler      talk   09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a number of sections that probably need citations, I noted the "current affairs", the "show ratings", "APEC security checks" sections
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * I've hopefully fixed most italics, using the work parameter and adding them.   The Windler      talk   06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of your references are lacking publishers and/or last acccess dates.
 * Fixed all, hopefully.   The Windler      talk   21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
 * Done.   The Windler      talk   21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 32 (The YouTube video) is this a copyright violation? And what makes it reliable?
 * It is actually a news report that was also on Youtube, so the original source was from TV. Removed link and sourced to original TV program.   The Windler      talk   06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 48 (the interview) has a retrieved on date but no web link.
 * That's because originally the file was on the internet but was removed, so linked back to original radio program, forgot to remove/thought it may have still needed the access date bit.   The Windler      talk   06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for reviewing this, I will hopefully address your concerns in the immediate future.   The Windler      talk   06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1b and 1c.
 * My comprehensiveness concerns from its last nomination have not been addressed. There is no information in the article about the preparation for these stunts. I realize you have not found the information but the article can't possibly be comprehensive without it.
 * The problem is, there are no third-party sources to research. And without having original research done (which is against Wikipedia policy) there is going to be little to put. And secondily, there is nothing more than there is already said. It was a motorcade, three hired cars, with camera crew, and someone dressed as Osama bin Laden inside. It was a joke, (see it here). I'll try and get a bit more and add it soon.   The Windler      talk   06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To Ealdgyth's point above, there are unsourced chunks all over. Most of the descriptions of the stunts are sparsely sourced, if at all. One could possibly make a case for primary sources, but we're not really even told if all of these stunts aired on the show.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your review, I'm getting on the sources soon. What "stunts" are you referring to??   The Windler      talk   06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant pranks, not stunts. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck my oppose above because the two issues have been addressed. I have not had time to review the prose. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has multiple issues with image layout, see WP:ACCESS about placement of images within sections. Normally I fix this myself, but in this case, it's a lot of work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have hopefully complied the images with the MOS:IMAGES and Accessibility. I have added alt text, and done most of the guidelines. Thank you for your comment.   The Windler      talk   07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Interesting and comprehensive, but the writing is not good enough to meet criterion 1a, as things stand.
 * Support. Changed from oppose, because my concerns have all been addressed. The article does a fine job of documenting an important series of events in Australian political and cultural life, with wider relevance concerning free speech, the role of the media (commercial and public) in political comment, and more besides.
 * I would advise against too much tinkering now. The article should be allowed to stabilise, unless some plain error is discovered. For example, I can't see how Although stunts that involved public locations, figures, and organisations were always a feature of the series is preferable to Although stunts involving public locations, figures, and organisations were always a feature of the series. Participial structures are handy for breaking up a uniform, almost paratactic succession of clauses with similar structure. It took some work to remove the surfeit of thats! :)
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N  oetica! T– 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #88aaff;" | Noetica's old concerns that have now been addressed
 * Examples:
 * "... were planned, coordinated and performed by ..."
 * "... received overwhelming recognition, acclaim, and criticism ..."
 * (Arbitrary variation in use of the serial comma, which according to WP:MOS ought to be consistent.)
 * "... for their then current television series ..."
 * (Ugly and unnecessary. Better simply to omit then current.)
 * "... relating to APEC; the most well-known and controversial being ..."
 * (Punctuation associated with being, and awkward wording. Try this: ... relating to APEC, the most notorious being .... Notorious perhaps covers both well-known and controversial.)
 * "... The Chaser's War on Everything, which broadcasted on ..."
 * (Broadcasted is possible, but broadcast is far more standard, and therefore preferable; either form as an intransitive like that is substandard. Try this: ... The Chaser's War on Everything, which was broadcast on ....
 * The whole article needs thorough treatment by an expert copyeditor if it is to meet criterion 1a. I'll be happy to do my part, but I'd like to see what other matters come up and are acted upon first.
 * (Broadcasted is possible, but broadcast is far more standard, and therefore preferable; either form as an intransitive like that is substandard. Try this: ... The Chaser's War on Everything, which was broadcast on ....
 * The whole article needs thorough treatment by an expert copyeditor if it is to meet criterion 1a. I'll be happy to do my part, but I'd like to see what other matters come up and are acted upon first.

– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N  oetica! T– 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your review. My English is not great, and if there was one criteria this article may not have made, it was this. I have tried at WP:LOCE a long time ago, but it's inactive and well, I doubt if I could fix it in time. I will work on the other issues raised above, and your appreciated examples.   The Windler      talk   06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * }

Support Oppose , 1a and 2a. As highlighted by Noetica, the prose isn't there yet, but I am fairly confident that if a good copy-editor can be found, then these problems will be solved. Of more concern to me right now is the insufficient lead. While you state what they were and why they were notable, there is no description of what happened. The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article and it doesn't do that right now. Some random prose examples: Great job by Noetica. My concerns have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Licciardello - the latter in costume as Osama bin Laden - drove" MOS breach, the hyphens should be spaced en dashes.
 * "both the name of the series and ridiculous text" Avoid peacock/subjective terms such as "ridiculous"
 * "they had gotten further than expected" "gotten" is very weak. Maybe "proceeded"?
 * "Furthermore to the major APEC security breach mentioned above" Wrong transition word. "In addition to..." The self-reference to the article is a bit unprofessional and unnecessary.
 * "The meetings culminated in Leaders Week" I think "culminated" is used in the wrong sense here. Did the meetings directly influence the fact that "Leaders Week" was held?
 * "The stunt was mostly well-received by the general public, despite strong condemnations from some public officials."-->Despite strong condemnations from some public officials, the stunt was mostly well-received by the general public.
 * "In addition, 87% of some 28,451 respondents" What does "some" mean here?
 * "In addition, talkback radio callers around the country were supportive of the Chaser by a significant four to one margin." Again, watch out for terms such as "significant". Let the facts tell the story.
 * "Notably, figures showed that the stunt was referred to in more than a third of radio calls on the topic of APEC." What makes this so important that "Notably" needs to be tacked on?
 * "There was plenty of criticism from the political front aimed at the program and its members following the incident." Unnecessarily wordy. Try: "The political front strongly criticised of the program and its members following the incident."
 * "furious at the stunt, because it could have resulted" this comma not necessary.
 * "In response to this "
 * "Downer also commented that" Generally, there are too many of these additive terms, particularly "in addition to". Audit throughout for these generally unneeded words.
 * "Whilst extremely popular" "Whilst" is archaic. Try the more familiar and simpler "While" Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your review --> May I ask, I asked a copyeditor to do a copyedit of the article and he shaved the lead down, just yesterday, the old lead is here. Could you perhaps check that lead. I'll get onto your random suggestions, and hope to get another copyeditor (for prose) soon.   The Windler      talk   05:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have hopefully fixed up the lead (may need a slight copyedit), to the length as suggested by WP:LEAD. And I hope you don't mind I strike your random suggestions out. Thankyou   The Windler      talk   08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, reviewers should be the ones striking out their comments, they decide whether an issue has been resolved. No harm done though. I will look at the article later. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, then. Lesson learnt. Thanks anyway. Feel free to uncross any of them.   The Windler      talk   23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is in regard to a few reviews: I have asked User:Noetica to give the copyedit and Noetica hopes to have that copyedit finished in three days from 07:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC). But User:YellowMonkey has given the article a copyedit, which will hopefully satisfy criteria 1a). But of course more than one copyedit is better than one. So some feedback on te quality of prose would be appreciated.   The Windler      talk   08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And I must thank User:Noetica for her his extraordinary effort for copyediting the article to hopefully meet the prose criteria. So hopefully those opposers to that criteria might withdraw or raise other opposition. Thanks again Noetica.   The Windler      talk   04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's his effort, SW! I regret that my name (in fact a Greek neuter plural) can mislead people. That was never my intention. I suppose yours is equally indeterminate, yes?
 * Anyway, thanks for the thanks. I support now (see above).
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N  oetica! T– 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I let that slip. I tried hard in my earlier comments to avoid the use of he or she because I was unsure and I don't like presuming things, but anyway, sorry. It wasn't as much as your name, but your signature seems very elegant and neat. In my case, I haven't had that happen to me that I can remember, I have a note of my real name on my user page, so... Thanks alot.   The Windler      talk   06:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (I also copyedited the article).  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


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