Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chaser APEC pranks/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 not promoted 23:46, 23 February 2008.

The Chaser APEC pranks

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is of FA standard, and I think it is a good contender of such a position. All feedback/comments will be responded to (hopefully) <24h. SpecialWindler talk 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...is there really no free image for the article? Something in the top right corner would be good. I'll take a look. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flickr search for "The Chaser APEC" on free images only found nothing :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit hard to get a free image of a "one off" event. You can also ask Flickr members if they would change their licence. SpecialWindler talk 06:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to expand the lead to summarise some of the pranks that took place? It talks specific facts and details about the pranks in general, but not any further than that. I also don't really see a need for the external link to the APEC 2007 website, it really doesn't contribute at all, given the fact that it only has one page that doesn't mention the pranks at all. I'll make further comments later when I get a chance to do a more thorough review. Spebi 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead may be expanded, if others agree to the move. The external link was removed (It was more of a See Also link) SpecialWindler talk 09:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Quite a good read. I can't think of anything else to make it more comprehensive and it seems well sourced. A few writing style issues popped out at me though.
- In the second paragraph of "Background", "fortnightly" is used. Since this is a regional term, I suggest maybe change it out with biweekly. At the very least, it should be wikilinked to fortnight.
  - It was Wikilinked by User:Jasewase, it could be changed in the future. Bi-weekly is a term not many Australians use, and seeing it is an Australian based article would be incorrect. SpecialWindler talk 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, "bi-weekly" is almost never used in Australia, and this article uses Australian English. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed a good amount of acronyms used. Though most provided the full title followed by the acronym in parenthesis, "New South Wales" did not. It is wikilinked in most cases so this may not be an issue. A few other acronyms popped up that should probably have their full title listed on the first mention, like "ALP", "BBC", and "RSL". Most of these are wikilinked, so it isn't that big of an issue, but changing it would be best for a general reader.
  - Fixed all acronyms (hopefully). APEC and ABC (which are the two main ones, used more than thrice) are both done in the lead. SpecialWindler talk 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence of "Show ratings" and the first sentence "Other stunts" look a little weird there by themselves. I would either add them to the paragraphs before and after them, respectively, or add more related content to flesh out a full paragraph.
  - Fixed. SpecialWindler talk 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few references are missing some important information, like publisher, author, and date published. The ones that pop out the most are ref 22 and 41. Also, if a publisher is listed, then it is best to wikilink it, like the BBC in ref 21 and ABC News in ref 40.
- Ref 4 and 16 looks to be not found; may have been moved. You may want to search the site for a current version or try archive.org for a dated copy.
  - Fixed and replaced. SpecialWindler talk 08:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's a good article. I think most of these are minor issues, that shouldn't stop the article from passing FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose, good article, but several key issues:
- The images have problems. On, Image:Julian and Chas preparing for APEC breach.jpg, since the image is non-free it needs to use a fully and correctly completed {{Non-free use rationale}} template for the fair use rationale. Also, there is no point to including the conversation with the photographer since he didn't make it free anyway. Image:Chaser fake apec pass.jpg also needs this template. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was unaware that the template {{Non-free use rationale}} was compulsary for FA status, and believe it's not. The iages both have fair use rationals for the articles. I will also remove the conversation on the flickr, as you said has no point. SpecialWindler talk 08:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The template is not required, but the information is. Properly completed fair use rationales are required for all images in article, not just FA. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I concur with previous reviewers that the lead is quite weak. It does not summarize key events.~~
  - somewhat improved. Jasewase (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks much better! --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Background section jumps from describing APEC to describing The Chaser to saying The Chaser were warned about pulling stunts during the APEC conference. Why were they warned? Were they targeted for some reason, or was everyone warned? I don't follow.
  - desscription of the chaser moved. Jasewase (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about my other questions? --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it might be better if the chaser descriptions stay, due to people with no context of who or what "The Chaser" is. But I agree, it probably need to be expanded and made more clear. I will soon get onto it. SpecialWindler talk 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't worry, I notice that some context has been provided in the lead. SpecialWindler talk 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You provide an image of Morrow and Licciardello "preparing" for the prank, but it is just them walking down a hallway. We don't have a source stating that this is a picture of them preparing for anything.
  - Wording has been changed. Jasewase (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For this article to be comprehensive, it needs a section about Preparations. The article jumps right from them being warned to them executing the prank. Research and write about how they conceived the prank, how they planned and coordinated it, how they built the props, etc.
- The problem is that with The Chaser being a private group, it's not knowledge enough of what they did before the stunt. Most of what we do know is in the article such as the legal team telling the chaser they could do the stunt as long as they didn't go in. SpecialWindler talk 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Other Stunts" heading does not lend itself well to a bulleted list. Bullets should only be used for short phrases or list items. This needs to be converted to prose. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. but im not sure this looks and sounds better. i personally much prefer bulleted list. Jasewase (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hm, maybe ask for a third opinion? I'm not crazy about the subheadings - could you just make it into paragraphs without the subheadings? --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, but that will make it alot of paragraphs with no real basis. That's why the bullets were probably better for this, but there may be a better solution. I don't think a whole lot of paragraphs is going to work because another FA reviewer might say "The Other stunts section needs to be better worded with paragraphs merged etc." SpecialWindler talk 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.