Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chaser's War on Everything/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] The Chaser's War on Everything

Check external links

This has been worked on by a stack of editors, including myself, for a while now. Recently it's been a bit more stable, but it retains a high quality. A recent peer review is available here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment
  • Some refs are missing publishers and publishing dates.
  • "On the 14th of November 2007" - not correctly formatted
  • Image captions shouldn't have fullstops if they're not complete sentences.
  • "The entire team of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything on July 14, 2006." "Chaser member Chas Licciardello along with Chris Taylor (right) and ABC crew, doing an Ad Road-Test on Godfrey's vacuum cleaners." "Imitation insecurity passes used by The Chaser to breach the APEC Australia 2007 restricted zone." All are descriptions and not full sentences. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "the first thirteen episodes" - should be "the first 13 episodes"
  • The important thing is consistancy. Why are other numbers in the article that are one or two words not worded? Epbr123 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "on 17 February 2006 at 9.45 pm" - should be 9:45 pm
  • "to appear in court on 4 October 2007[40];" - ref belongs after punctuation
  • "on stage in his musical 'Dead Caesar'." - italics needed, not apostrophes.

Epbr123 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the first para that indicate the density of problems throughout.
    • "satire group"—unidiomatic. "satirical" would be better, but a repetition.
    • Audit for commas: more are needed for easy reading (either side of "The Chaser" in the second sentence, for a start).
    • "Knight is however a writer for the show, and Firth did roving reports for the show from the United States, until he left the group to start his own satirical newspaper in mid-2007." "However is better at the start of the clause, followed by a comma. "For the show"—ungainly repetition. "Did" is a little tired. "His own" would be OK if satirical newspapers had already been raised as an issue in relation to the other members. Replace with "a".
    • Why is that little-known country "the US" linked? I can just see all of our readers interrupting their progress and rushing to that article.

Then: MOS issues aplenty, like the period in the caption. And do not refer to it as "ABC": the is always required unless it's an epithet. It's not American ABC. Tony (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly Y Done - I've gone through about 90% of the article trying to fix such problems. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Be consistent with italicising titles. I spot three Sunrises and one Chaser's War On Everything left plain. If you must link articles on countries, only do it once - there's no need to link every inclusion of "United States" etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Italics. Some instances of shows that aren't italicised as of yet (as pointed out by GeeJo) and all newspapers (e.g., The Age, The Courier-Mail, etc) cited in the article must also have italics. Spebi 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Kiyarrllston 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: "fines to parking inspectors" is not a "reason"

Oh wow...your one reason for opposing took me all of one edit to resolve. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not formally name a reason for opposing. - let us do away with formalities.
Kiyarrllston 05:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
PS was my oppose invalid for the period of time where it had no examples?
PPS is my oppose invalid now?
PPPS "They instead broadcast scenes[,] where the members were seen[,] as arrogant" - seems horrible phrasing - perhaps "Channel 7 broadcast scenes that they judged made the Chaser crew look arrogant"?
PPPPS Sorry if this is a bit annoying - would changing my vote from "Oppose" to "Weak Oppose" soften the impact of my behavior? Please believe me that it has nothing to do with you - Although I believe we have "met" before... - and we did disagree... (would me supporting make you feel that it wasn't about you?)
PPPPPS Oh! Happy New Year!
Oh, sorry, I figured that comment in the "PS" was part of the oppose (since it was in the same edit). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
PS I'd say yes.
PPS I'll deal with this stuff, so yeah, I'd think so...
PPPS Y Done
PPPPS I don't think it's about me or anything like that. Our last meeting was on my last FAC ;)
PPPPPS Same to you :)
  • Neutral can I do that? I just wanna comment - as I said on msn, the whole show content section seems to need a cleanup and is very OR-ish. Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Relevant discussion here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I know. My argument still stands. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions Is IMDB a reliable source? (I somehow thought this website can be edited by any users) Also, ref 29 & 42 don't work for me, please check them. PeaceNT (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - I fixed the refs. IMDB is only being used to cite an awards list, which as far as I'm aware is reliable - if an alternative, more reliable (I'm aware of the issues with that site) ref can be found, I'd suggest replacing (and would be happy to do so). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done - I've linked to the official AFI announcement of the 2006 award winners including TCWOE and Hansen. --Canley (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wheaty Oppose
- I'm guessing that, as often happens, the plot does not have any available references - so when the article says "Seeming to replace "In Other News ...""- this "seems to" is actually "In the eyes of our wikipedian editor"
That would be a correct assumption. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"There was much debate surrounding whether or not to" - "much"? "whether or not"? - who debated with who? - I suggest "[person x] and [person y] debated whether to" or "[The group] debated whether to"
Fixed. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that the Reception section is comprehensive. - the "Awards" section seems to speak to a positive reception not truly mentioned.-Can you find reviews outside the "current affairs programs"?
I'll take a look - there isn't that much (that I know of) outside puff peaces by ACA/TT. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
--Kiyarrllston 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
PS:have you looked at The World Without Us FAC?
PPS:Thanks for reading this comment
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.