Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meerkat Manor

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted 16:14, 28 January 2008.

Meerkat Manor

edit

Nominator: AnmaFinotera

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the qualifications for being a featured article. The article is well written and comprehensive, covering not just the plot of the series but also production details, reception, and criticisms. The article is factually accurate, with extensive reliable sourcing to back up statements. It is neutral in that it shows no biased for or against the show and includes both praise and criticisms the series has received. The article is table with no edit warring, includes an appropriate image, and follows all of the relevant style guides. Referencing is consistent through and the article sections are arranged appropriately per the main and TV style guides. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filming for a 13 episode series takes seven to eight months weeks - erm, months here, is the 'weeks' just a typo?

I've changed a couple of straightforward things, though this may be worth seeing what folks think:

some of the never-before-seen footage on the show - maybe simpler to just have 'unique'? The former sounds a bit advertorial (?)

Due to the restrictions of to the researchers.. - yikes, erm, of, to - which goes?

As the meerkats (are habituated, they) are used to having a human presence around - as this is what habituated means could lose bracketed bit - or 'have become used'....

Meerkat Manor's innovative new methods of filming... - posibly veering close to POV territory. could replace with 'Meerkat Manor's novel methods of filming'

.....bring nature closer to viewers. - eeww. Bit vague. Also, it is explained in next sentenceso this bit could be cut really, but then needs a little restructuring. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::It is an experimental form that pushes... - 'of media'? 'of documentary?' - trying to think of something as it is left a bit hanging as is. ahaaaa.

I should add this is a tricky but highly importnat paragraph and may be the trickiest to word well.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some editing and hopefully have addressed everything. The only thing I wasn't sure on was innovative. Since it was never done before, I thought innovative was the best word, but if it would be considered a non-neutral note, I'm also fine with changing it to novel. I reworded the last two additions...hopefully I managed to make it clearer?AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'innovative' is a very good choice of word - the trick is to get the 'new-ness' of it without going overboard. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose→Changed to Support below↓ - For several reasons. Firstly, there's a great big red link in the very first sentence that either needs to be created or removed. Secondly, the article only has one picture, hardly aesthetic. Thirdly, the article is poorly referenced: Chunks and paragraphs of text aren't even cited in The Meerkats, Production Details and Merchandise sections and none of the Differences between UK and US episodes section is cited at all! In The Meerkat's section's 3rd paragraph, the citation at the end only refers to the last sentence, so the rest of that paragraph is left uncited as well. In addition to that, some paragraphs are written in short or similar sentences (Such as in The Meerkats section). Overall, the article has some MOS, referencing and prose problems. I'd give the article in its current state a GA class, not a FA status. Keep up the good work, but if you want my support, you're going to have to do a lot more of it. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused. Everything in Production details is cited except the award nomination (fixing). The entire merchandise section is also completely sourced, except the summation of the book which would seem to fall under Plot and not require a source as the book itself is the source (though I can add one if desired). Also, what citations are required to summarize the meerkats that appear on the show other than the show itself? I've never seen a character section in a television article having to be referenced, nor a plot, which that section is a combination of? Should I put in more episode citations for the specific events noted like the one at the end, or just remove the one at the end? Red link removed for now...I've been thinking of making an article, but won't get around to it for awhile yet. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is as you say, everything in production and merchandise is referenced, but those you mentioned, which is what I was referring to (Hence the "Chunks and paragraphs aren't even cited in..."). If it is plot, why is it not under plot? And how do we know that the plot description is accurate? And yes, the citation at the end is misleading - it makes the reader think the whole paragraph is cited, but only the one sentence is. It would be good if you could include episode citations - it's called referencing lol. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Maybe I'm just thorough, but I like articles to be at least 90% cited, not 70%. JSYK. :) Spawn Man (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added more citations to the Meerkats section and I think to everything else except the differences between the US and UK versions. I've also added sources for the changes to the episodes from UK to US. Hopefully I've gotten them all? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Just fix the prose issues and I'll support. By prose issues I mean the paragraphs like the 2nd of the Differences between UK and US episodes, where it's the same short sentence repeated over and over (Also a bit in The Meerkats section) with no flavour or well worked prose. Spawn Man (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at fixing the prose of both. I think I did a better job with the meerkat section, but hopefully both are now better? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's a start - I'd suggest getting a copyeditor in (If you need names just ask) to give the article a prose check and iron out the writing a bit. In regard to your references, punctuation always comes before the citation, which you haven't done in some places, as well as having a fullstop before and after a citation. That needs fixing too. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to put the ref after the punctuation but guess I missed some. I wouldn't mind some names as I don't know anyone who does copy editing, and I'm the first to admit I'm not always a good one of my own stuff :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, in my first FAC I was terrible. You're doing quite well - normally most people wouldn't even get started until at least the next day on fixing opposes. After a few, you get used to them. :) Okay, for copyeditors, WP:1FAPQ has a list of willing copyeditors and I'd recommend a copyeditor which I use a lot (He's undoubtedly one of the best...) but I'll require some cash payment for his name. ;) He's really good, but anyone will do since I don't think the article requires a lot of work. Anyway, after that's done, I'll reassess the article and see if I can support. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look too, as I've already read through it and it shouldn't need much. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll see if they will take a peek for me as well. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the one you use a lot couldn't do it right now because of laptop troubles, but User:Scartol has agreed to give it a look. It will take him a few days, though, as there are two in front of me. Hopefully the FAC won't close before then? *makes note for future FACs to request copyedit first :-) * AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a ref for the fact that many US renamings were to honour early fans, and for the toning down of sex and death refs - or something similar. The US/UK para is a little bit listy and a note on overall themes would be good, but if don't worry if no original quote exists as it would be an OR observation. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the reference at the end of that statement specifically notes those three celebrities were honored with having meerkat names, and with Whoopi specifically being referred to as an early fan. The toning down of the sex and death is something told to us specifically by Caroline Hawkins from Oxford Scientific, so I don't know how to reference it (and I would understand if it would need to be removed without a more formally published reference). I had planned a theme sections early in my work on the article, but thus far there hasn't been any reliable sources that also discuss it other than the expected theme of the harsh realities of a meerkat's often short life. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Meerkat_Manor&oldid=1078803163"