Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newshounds/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Newshounds

This is a self-nomination, and also the second re-nomination for this article. For the past nominations, see archive 1 and archive 2. This article has also had a peer review. This article is very stable, has been given a clean up, has had more details on its controversy, and I have also included some information about it being possibly nominated for an award this year. Review of this comic however are hard to find. ISD 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Unfortunately, I think this article needs some significant cleanup before it's ready for the FAC process. For example:
  • The lead is currently composed of 14 sentences arranged in 7 paragraphs making it very difficult to even read; the same is true of the Scenario section. This makes it seem more like a list of facts than coherent prose.
  • The Stories and Controversy sections are quite sparse, and [again] lists. I would try to really incorporate these as text and expand on each one. If they cannot be expanded, you may want to question if it's important enough to include. (Also, the statements in your lists are not sentences, so they should not have a period after each entry.)
  • The books section: How about adding some information like how many were printed, how well they sold, etc.
  • External links: Just one link to newshounds.com is sufficient, you don't need to link up their individual pages.
  • Out of 32 references, 26 come from newshounds.com. There needs to be a lot more independent references for an FAC. If there are no quality reviews/discussions about Newshounds, I have a hard time seeing it as an Featured Article in an encyclopedia.--Will.i.am 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per 1a, which asks for compelling prose. One or two sentence paragraphs should be combined into larger ones, and lists should be rewritten as prose. I also agree with William about sources. You mention in the article that Newshounds is included in a book called "The New Subversive Online Cartoonists", but I notice you haven't used that as a source; that sounds like a place to start. Also, the note about the cub scouts strip causing anger is sourced to a forum where one guy says he was offended. That's not encyclopedic, so there's no point in mentioning it. -- Bailey^(talk) 02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object A grand total of five references don't come from the comic's web site, and three of those five are the same interview. ISD, you've nominated this for Featured Article status three times in the past four months- I certainly appreciate the eagerness and the commitment to improving the article, but perhaps you should take some time off from self-nominating Newshounds. -- Kicking222 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, ISD, you have the most userboxes of anyone in the history of mankind. This is certainly unrelated to Newshounds (and also certainly not a criticism of you), but just something I felt like mentioning. I mean, has anyone (including yourself) even read through them all? -- Kicking222 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object Very few references, for an article of this length, that are not from Newshounds (this point has been brought up before on both previous nominations!). Are you sure you addressed everything from previous nominations? CloudNine 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)