This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
FA on something that was only on air for two months? You'd think people could find something more noteworthy. Plus prose size is crazy small for an "FA". 70.161.8.90 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Any article has the potential to be a featured article. Just because you do not find the subject matter interesting or noteworthy, that does not mean everyone feels that way. It is a matter of perspective. According to the list of featured articles by length, there are way more featured articles that are shorter/smaller in terms of prose size than this one. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
1) The FA criteria is public for anyone to see, and this article meets the criteria. 2) The concept of "noteworthiness" is a very subjective one, where exactly does one draw the line? Who is going to tell if a subject matter is worthy of FA status or not? 3) Articles reach FA status because very hard-working editors choose to improve those specific articles, and not others. There are very, very few editors writing FA articles, it's a lot of time and effort spent by volunteers. 4) The FA criteria is stricter now than it has ever been, so that comment about the current state of FA makes no sense. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just because you find it a "minor topic" doesn't make it ineligible for featured status. Wikipedia is written with neutrality and therefore each article is evaluated independently and by its content, not by its impact on the general culture. (CC)Tbhotch™15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
And you guys wonder why wiki has such a pitiful reputation. Even if one accepts your "minor" argument this article is still way too disgustingly short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk • contribs)
