Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue's Clues/archive1

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 not promoted 00:05, 22 February 2008.

[edit] Blue's Clues

Check external links

Nominator: I am nominating this article because after passing its GA nomination, I felt it was a well-written article and that it was ready to move on. There are only a few flaws but they could be fixed easily and would not affect the process that much. I really hope that this article has hope for FA status. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure I understand why an article that admittedly has "a few flaws" is being nominated. Kmzundel (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because of the fact that EVERY article has a couple of flaws. No article is completely perfect. And I do not plan to lie and make this article an exception. In fact, the few flaws in an article is what makes people oppose a nomination until they are fixed. So far, unless you point out any specific flaws that prove this article not to meet FA criteria, then your comment is not constructive. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended by my comment. My comment has nothing to do with the article itself. My comment has to do with your *nomination* of the article. WP:FAC specifically states as the 1st step under Procedure "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria." Kmzundel (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment sounded like it was accusing your comment of offending me. I did not mean to sound rude or anything. I understand your basis and I assure you that, in the nomination, when I said "There are only a few flaws but they could be fixed easily and would not affect the process that much", that I meant the flaws would not have anything to do with the criteria. I just felt like I wanted to admit that the article was not perfect. Sorry again if my comment made me sound as if I were offended. If you have any specific oppositions against the article, please state them and I will be happy to fix them. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 15:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The references section needs to be changed. You have cited books using the <ref>Author, page</ref> but you don't include a bibliography, which should include the author, full title of the book, publisher, date and ISBN number (if applicable). If it's an internet site, it should have access dates (which you do include further up). Remember, when someone clicks a reference in the article, they will see the citation at the top of the page; they won't see the full citation you place above. I suggest you write out all the books in a new ==References== section, and above it, have a ==Notes== (or footnotes) section listing the authors and page numbers. Plus, I don't know what others think, but the "Format" section is perhaps too short. Can't it be integrated, or put under a subsection? PeterSymonds | talk 13:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I wrote out all the references. I know that the problem was the "Author, Page Number" and you suggested putting in a Bibliography but this way is a little easier. If you still think it should be your way, please comment. But for now, the references are fixed. Thanks for the comment. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And I went back and corrected the second reference that had this problem. This is no longer an issue with this article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I make the section a subsection in the development section. Is that what you meant? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't bother me how the refs are formatted, as long as they're all accessible. A number of experienced copyeditors should review the article against the FA criteria in the next few days. Best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you for the advice. The article should be copyedited soon. I sent a request to somebody who recently edited an article I was working on, Aang. In addition, I tagged the page for copyediting to possibly get more attn. to it to be copyedited. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling: that's what the tag says. The lead is also a bit weak. Basketball110 _{vandalise me} 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The tag is only there because an editor (the one directly above you) suggested it be copyedited so I tagged it to attract attention for it to be copyedited. And what do you mean by the lead is "a bit weak". Please be more specific. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The criteria of a featured article where are? P.s. Where are the criteria of a good article here? --jskellj - the nice devil 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you oppose the article so strongly, could you at least provide a less ambiguous argument instead of just "The criteria of featured article where are", which does not even make sense within itself. Please post a real argument before opposing the article.Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that by using such warped grammar, he's mocking the current state of the article (It's in serious need of copyediting). Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article is going to be copyedited soon. I contacted somebody. Don't worry. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Briskelly's oppose is not actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have doubts about the neutrality of the article. There is nothing negative in the Reception section, and statements like this need citations: "Blue's Clues revolutionized the genre". Epbr123 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sorry, but until {{copyedit}}ing duties are done, it won't stand a chance. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is going to be copyedited soon. I contacted somebody. Don't worry. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The licensing for Image:BluePeriwinkle.jpg is inappropriate, as the image constitutes a derivative work and user:Kowloonese, therefore, is not the sole copyright holder. A fair use license is needed and would be appropriate, as an image of Blue’s Clues characters could reasonably be expected to significantly increase our understanding of the article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, as follows:
  • I hate to reiterate what has already been said, but this really needs a copyedit that shouldn't be a huge job. Have you contacted the League of Copyeditors? As it stands, the prose is full of minor grammatical errors.
  • The article-writing guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs talks about two sections that seem to be missing here: a heading that gets into more detail about episodes, and a heading about production. I don't think this article can be considered comprehensive without those aspects of the show covered. --Laser brain (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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