Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dawson's Creek/archive1

Dawson's Creek

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Sandy 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An FA for over an year, the article has some issues that needs to be resolved.


 * 1) Article is way too long per WP:MOS, 74 KB could use some heavy trimming especially the Synopsis section
 * 2) This type of article requires inline citations
 * 3) No fair use rationales, and several of the images are in PUI and others are used for decreation, which violates WP:FU
 * 4) Trivia section should go as it's unencyclopedic
 * 5) Fails 2A with some rather strange paragraphs like


 * Dawson's Creek's ultimate impact was far broader than the Nielsen Ratings would imply, alluded to in such disparate places as Jim Borgman's comic strip Zits, a Maureen Dowd column about the Republican leadership of Congress, and the film 10 Things I Hate about You. It made stars of its leads and now seems ripe for the kind of academic analysis its former lead-in Buffy the Vampire Slayer has already been subjected to.'

Not up to FA standards Jaranda wat's sup 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jaranda's comments. Over the past six weeks, a small amount of copy-editing has been occurring; the pace needs to accelerate dramatically to recast the many illogical and/or faulty sentences. Tony 07:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Jaranda's comments entirely. They seriously need to be addressed, especially criteria 2. a. and 2. c. of "What is a featured article". LuciferMorgan 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Message left at User talk:Jaranda. Sandy 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Move it down to FARC, only a few typos and link repair and also some extra expansion of the already too large Synopsis section happened, doesn't look like it will be fixed. Jaranda wat's sup 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not much has been | done, I'm afraid. "Insipid" in the first sentence is POV. The word "show" is repeated far too often in the lead. The prose is generally undistinguished. I think it should go to FARC. Tony 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Main FA criteria concerns are length (5), fair use images (4), and writing (2a). Marskell 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove nothing much have been done to fix it. Jaranda wat's sup 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per Jaranda Niz 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Here's the diff since it was nominated: nothing happening.  Sandy 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)