Talk:The Apprentice (UK Series One)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Apprentice (UK Series One) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 19, 2008 |
 |
The The Apprentice UK WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to The Apprentice UK, and The Apprentice (UK Series One) has been identified as one of these articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This is a talk page for discussion of the article about The Apprentice (UK Series One). It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not The Apprentice (UK Series One) is a "good" or "bad" program; or finding out what "this and that" are; or what will happen after "something".
Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages. |
Contents |
[edit] New Banners
The Apprentice Series 1 and 2 has its own banners! Dalejenkins 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't take offence but I've reverted your addition. I really don't think we need a large box which tells us that all but one contestant was fired. The candidates are already named immediately below this infobox,and the box therefore adds nothing to the article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Todo
Further to discussions on the main page:
- Remove trivia section
- Clean up some of the tasks
- Include information on ratings, reception, etc.
- More citations
Anything else? --Fritzpoll 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Fritzpoll, I've cleaned up the tasks, and improved formatting in line with all the other series. I've also checked and corrected where required, the appropriate grammar. δ²(Talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Move?
- A little move, but would it be better if the title was "The Apprentice (UK Series 1)", as many others use numbers. --AxG @ ►talk 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- They previously were numbered as you describe, however we came to a consensus that the series numbers should be consistent, using the spelt format. When we had the drive on the main Apprentice article, everything was standardised to pass GA - this being one of them. Though if you wanted to raise the issue, the talk page on the main article gets a lot more traffic :) Seaserpent85 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Series1.JPG
Image:Series1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
I have quick-failed the good article nomination due to a lack of reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Informal GA Review
Of course this doesn't actually constitute an "actual" GA review, however I thought I'd browse through and bring up the following suggestions to hopefully get the article up to a standard where I would pass it had I not been reviewing it for GA (ie. had I not been involved in the creation of the article).
The main issue here is a lack of sources - if possible, don't just use the actual episodes as sources. Have a look on news websites etc. for synopses and reviews of the episodes, they give the reader something to actually refer to.
-
- Prose
-
- Very choppy - would benefit well from a copyedit to increase the flow and readability of the "Challenges" sections.
-
- Manual of Style
-
- Nothing too major - it's easy to sort this out once the article is closer to being nominated. There is information in the lead which isn't found elsewhere in the article - this also can be sorted out later down the line.
-
- Consistency
-
- There are a few key issues here:
- Selective "team re-shuffles" included - either include all of them or none, I'd question their inclusion.
- Task outlines need to give a clear indication of what consitutes a win - eg. "The team that makes the most profit wins"
- Minor point, but is it Tim or Timothy?
- There are a few key issues here:
- All claims need to be backed up with sources - especially those with dubious authenticity (otherwise remove the claims):
- "Sir Alan said that he chose Tim as the winner because of his likeness to his East End self."
- "Sir Alan Sugar later admitted that Miriam probably didn't deserve to be fired at this point"
- "In reality, Paul Torrisi was fired before James Max."
- "She is not allowed to apply for subsequent series of The Apprentice"
3 Coverage
-
- Lacking a "Reception" section outlining how the series was received in the press, and any viewing ratings.
- Perhaps include a "Production" section - if there are any reliable sources to get the info from.
- References to the American version of The Apprentice - are they really relevant here?
- Quite a few highly biased terms in here, just to pick a couple:
-
- "Saira's aggressive behaviour "
- "James because Sir Alan and the interviewers were not convinced of his dedication to work for Sir Alan (although he had the best CV of the four)"
5 Stability
- All fine here, the series aired three years ago so this isn't an issue.
6 Images
- No problems, the one image in the article has a valid Fair Use Rationale.
- I'm really surprised to have found that this was nominated for GA Review - it lacks sufficient citations. These are probably going to be the hardest things to find, especially for any kind of critical reception section. This will take a fair bit of searching. Just about all we pass is stability :) But on that, there is a foundation to build upon. Good review SeaSerpent85 - almost inspires me to go back to GA reviewing (did quite a bit of it a while back) Fritzpoll (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I apologise, this is all my fault! I guess I had an initial look a the criteria, thought they were similar to articles to Season Three, and put them up for GA like you would send your car for an MOT. Well, it's just failed that and now I know why. But what I am struggling with is how we will get it to have enough citations? Apologies again for my premature nomination. Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Just to get things started:
And a couple perhaps more suited to the candidates page:
Hope that gets the ball rolling! Seaserpent85 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
