Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Seinfeld Chronicles/archive2


 * 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

The Seinfeld Chronicles

 * Nominator(s): -- Music 26/  11  20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to a lack of reviews (one review within a month, a 'cautious support'), this article was not promoted during the previous nomination. I hope this time around the article will receive more attention, as I believe it meets all standards for promotion.-- Music 26/  11  20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as last time, on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – engaging and thorough. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick comment: On the second and third paragraphs under the Reception section, the first mention of Ken Tucker is unlinked while the second one is linked while being described as The Philadelphia Inquirer critic. The first mention of Tucker should be linked with the description of Philadelphia Inquirer while the second mention should be unlinked without the description. Otherwise this article receives a Support from me.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed ;) and thanks for your support.-- Music 26/  11  10:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK ( 2 points, FUR? Done)
 * File:Jason_Alexander_Crop.png - all 3 source/author/permission links appear to be dead.
 * File:Sein_ep101.jpg - could you elaborate on the "fair-use" rationale? Simply illustrating something usually isn't enough for "fair-use"; specifics and importance of the interior scene are never mentioned in the article. The scene also looks like a normal episode scene without any special or even iconic value (identification, critical commentary or iconic value would be among the most common of valid rationales).
 * Other images are OK (CC) with source and author info, and no signs of Flickr-washing. GermanJoe (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At the currnt moment I am unable to adress these issues but I'll fix them over the weekend ;).-- Music 26/  11  13:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy couple of days, I've removed both images. I wasn't able to find an image of the pilot that would qualify as fair-use. I coulnd't find an alternative source for the Jason Alexander pic either, so I replaced it with an image of Ricards.-- Music 26/  11  15:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for addressing those questions. All images are OK now. (if a non-free image is no longer in use, you can tag it with template:di-orphaned fair use to request deletion - done already, just fyi). GermanJoe (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I realised the image would be orphaned yet I thought the adding of such a template would be done by a bot.-- Music 26/  11  13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review: -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is Dennis Bjorklund and why should his Seinfeld Secrets book be considered a reliable source? Looks self-published.
 * Same comment about his other book you cite. Praetorian doesn't look like any kind of serious publisher—who is this guy? Do you have any mainstream sources referring to him as an "insider" or "expert" as he claims?
 * The Brandon Gorrell book seems to be self-published. Why is it reliable?
 * Mixture of date formats used in References (see Retrieved dates on web site refs vs. other dates).
 * Will deal with these comments this weekend, thanks for taking the time to review :).-- Music 26/  11  15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you around? We need these comments addressed before considering promotion... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator hasn't been around for almost three weeks. I was originally planning to see if anyone wanted to take over the nom and deal with the source review concerns (which are not trivial in this instance, being primarily about reliability and not formatting) but to be honest the nom hasn't attracted the depth of reviews I'd have expected after being open so long, so I think the best option is to archive it. I hope the nominator will return some time, deal with the sourcing issues and bring it back to FAC to perhaps make it third time lucky. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.