Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grey's Anatomy/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Numerounovedant (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the American medical drama television series that premiered on American Broadcasting Company (ABC) on March 27, 2005, and is currently in its 12th season.
Comments This may be this nominator's first FAC – I don't recognise the name. If so, welcome to the process. Please bear in mind that comments here are primarily aimed at improving the article so that it meets the FA criteria, not at criticising you or other editors who have contributed to the article.
- It is clear that over the years a great deal of work has been done on this article. Unfortunately there is little evidence that it has been prepared for this FAC in any systematic fashion. As a result, the article looks underprepared in numerous areas.
- For example, there are several tags querying the reliability of some of the sources. These tags have been there for some while, and ought to have been dealt with prior to the nomination
- Likewise, there are around a dozen "dead link" tags in the citations, which should have been rectified
- A number of citations are unformatted bare urls: see 171, 179, 189, 210, 211. There is also a red error message against 207.
- There are instances of uncited information in many of the sections, thus:
- Final sentences in last paragraph of Casting
- Last half of last para of Main characters
- The entire last paragraph of Recurring characters
- Last sentence of third para of Critical response
- Last parts of 2nd and 3rd paras of Broadcast host
- Final part of Distribution section
- Nothing at all cited in the short "International adaptations" section
- Apart from these specifics, I have a more general concern about the article's length. I know that articles need to be comprehensive, but that can sometimes be confused with overdetailing. This article presently contains 11,500 words of text – that's awfully long for a piece on a TV series, even a popular, high quality one. And in addition there are substantial subarticles dealing with the individual series. I think that the text needs to be looked at again, with a view to seeking a significant reduction in the wordcount.
I see from the article history that there was a project class-A review in June 2012; this is that whole review – hardly searching stuff! There was a decent peer review in May 2012 by Ruhrfisch, but that was the last meaningful scrutiny. At that time, incidentally, the wordcount was around 8,800, so the article has grown by around 30 per cent since its last review. You should seriously consider withdrawing this nomination with a view to resubmission after an up-to-date peer review and a concentrated effort to deal with the issues I've raised here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping and pointing at the issues that need to be addressed. Will withdraw the nomination and start working on the article as per the guidelines!Numerounovedant (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.