Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Brother 7 (UK)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Big Brother (UK series 7)
Self nomination This article has been reviewed, and the concerns addressed have been met. I think it's time that WP:BIGBRO had a large achievement. --Alex (Talk) 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Seems poorly written. It's not enough to end every sentence with a footnote; it has to be well written and interesting too. I'll wait until our more knowledgeable reviewers and copyeditors speak up, but to me on first look it seems to be some way from brilliant prose. --kingboyk 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I feel like you use the official website far too much, especially for a tv show which is, when airing, almost continually in 3rd party media.—Abraham Lure 23:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Almost entirely referenced to one website (it's own); numerous short stubby paragraphs; still has an ongoing peer review, where it's only been one week; and as noted by Kingboyk, there's nothing compelling or brilliant here. It merely retells an already boring story. If the first two sentences in the body are indicative of the rest of the text, it's not enticing. "Of the twenty-two housemates introduced into the House through the whole series, fourteen entered on the launch night. This was more than in any previous series." "Introduced into" the house? "Through" the whole series? Which number was more than any previous: 14 or 22? Is this sentence trying to say something like: There were fourteen housemates when the series started, growing to a total of twenty-two participants—more than any previous Big Brother series. I'm not sure what the sentences are trying to say. Sandy 23:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Please don't say the story is "boring" even if you think it is. Firstly "boring" is probably the wrong word to use, and secondly the whole point of this review is to see how it would do as a FA, not what you personally think of the show. It isn't the place for personal opinion, and while I respect it may need rewriting in places, it is only "boring" if you have the opinion that it is. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Alex: my "boring" referred to the story line of the show, not your article. But you've still got to work to get compelling, brilliant prose from the material dealt you by Big Brother. Sandy 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fails 1(b) and 4. I don't think the article is anything like analytic enough. The largest part of it simply consists of a summary of the events in the house. Almost all the references are to the C4 official website. For a featured article I would expect extensive press references and more discussion of the differing views on reality TV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The differing views of reality TV are probably best left to the main Big Brother UK article. --Alex (Talk) 09:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Right. But this article is presented without any background or context at all. The first occurence of the word "task", for example, is "Sam and Aisleyne, were introduced[2] as part of the Meal or No Meal task (see Week 2)", and then (Week 1) "The first task was "The Big Brotherhood"". I know the BB format, but assume your readers don't. Sloppy writing abounds: "George walked from the House on Day 13 as he didn't want to be famous.", "All the housemates (with the exception of Bonnie, Dawn and Glyn) became members of "The Big Brotherhood"." (what the hell's that?). "This series saw the largest number of housemates to leave without eviction, with three exiting the House. This beat series 3, where there were a total of fourteen housemates and two people walked;" Is is a contest for how many leave without "eviction"? "Walked"?? --kingboyk 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Move to peer review. Poorly structured. Doesn't provide context. Far from brilliant prose. Not an interesting read. Sorry, but tis true. --kingboyk 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- It has already had a peer review, where it received mstly positive feedback, and the negative areas were addressed. Could you please provide examples for your above statement? --Alex (Talk) 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's currently on peer review (according to the notice on the talk page anyway), and yes I have read the PR. This article is way below FA so I'm not going to give a detailed analysis on FAC. I'll post the above comments and a few other points on the PR. As it currently stands, you should be looking at GA first as the prose doesn't need to be so brilliant. However, even for GA you'll need to provide more context. --kingboyk 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but it wasn't helpful that it was only thse who had helped with the article reviewed it. Do you suggest I delist this? --Alex (Talk) 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be best. This article can get to FA, but it's some way off. It needs severe copyediting and restructuring. I think you should aim for GA first which isn't so strict on brilliant prose. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I hope you can use the advice here and on the PR to make a really great article. --kingboyk 11:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but it wasn't helpful that it was only thse who had helped with the article reviewed it. Do you suggest I delist this? --Alex (Talk) 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's currently on peer review (according to the notice on the talk page anyway), and yes I have read the PR. This article is way below FA so I'm not going to give a detailed analysis on FAC. I'll post the above comments and a few other points on the PR. As it currently stands, you should be looking at GA first as the prose doesn't need to be so brilliant. However, even for GA you'll need to provide more context. --kingboyk 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
