Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coronation Street/archive1

Coronation Street

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Sandy 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A massive "list of characters" makes up the bulk of this article, should really be described in prose. There is a significant "trivia" section, which should be merged into the body of the article if the trivia is truly relevant. far too many external links. no inline citations at all (and statements like "In some ways Coronation Street has charted the changes in public attitudes towards religion, politics, community, family breakdown, the gentrification of working class areas" really need inline cites). the lead fails to summarize the body of the article. doesnt seem comprehensive; for instance there is no reference to critical discussion and evaluation of the show over the years (of which there has been plenty). Zzzzz 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The excessive bullet point format makes the article stubby, a violation of criterion 2. a. of "What is a featured article?". I think it fails criteria 1. and 5. also. It's also recommended that on wikipedia that articles talk from an out-of-universe perspective, which in many areas I think it doesn't. There are no inline citations either to support certain opinions made. This article needs a MAJOR overhaul in addressing its shortcomings. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty bad: the prose is poor and it's seriously under-referenced. Little was done until I copy-edited the lead five minutes ago. This one's heading towards FARC. Does anyone care out there? Tony 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are inline citations (2c), comprehensiveness (2b), and focus (5). Marskell 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add prose (2a), as I flagged above. Tony 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove If its shortcomings aren't addressed (which I outlined in the FAR), then I feel it should have its FA status removed. Tony worked on the lead some time ago in a good faith effort in the hope it provoked other editors interested in the article to improve its worth, but sadly the effort fell on deaf ears. LuciferMorgan 06:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Well, I tried. See my work on the lead from some time ago: the rest is almost untouched. Tony 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Mostly unreferenced, very listy, prose problems, nothing is happening to improve the article. Sandy 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]