Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Apprentice (UK TV series)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The Apprentice (UK TV series)

Review commentary

Featured article review/The Apprentice (UK TV series)/archive1

Notified: Fritzpoll, UkPaolo, D'Ranged 1, Tomintoul, WP British TV - Shows Taskforce, WP BBC, WP Television - Reality TV Taskforce, WP The Apprentice UK, WP London

This is a 2007 FAC that has not kept up with changing standards, and which has not been consistently updated and sourced with regards to the latest seasons. Specifics:

Significantly under-referenced. Many paragraphs partially or completely missing references, leaving statistics, opinions, etc. unreferenced.
Fifteen deadlinks, see Toolserver report for details, leaving even more information unverifiable.
Significant discrepancies in the amount of space given to the various seasons in the Series section/subsections. Some seasons get multiple paragraphs, while others only get a couple of sentences.
No updates to the Series Nine subsection since early 2012, despite the fact that I think it's due to begin airing shortly and there's already a tenth season in the works.
Subsequent activity of winning candidates section - Why are all of the micro-subsections needed? This could easily be turned into a couple of paragraphs of prose that flow much better than these one sentence blurbs. Also, Series Six should be updated with the results of English's lawsuit, Series Seven needs to be better sourced and Series Eight needs to be added.
References need to be checked to make sure they include all necessary information - on just a quick look I see web refs that are missing publishers, access dates, and even one that is a bare url.
Clarification needed tag in Series Seven section.

Only minor edits in response to a Nov. 2012 notice of a potential FAR. I haven't done a thorough check of prose, reference reliability or images, due to the large amount of work needed on referencing and structure. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Concerns raised in the FAR section include referencing, weight and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Only minor updates have been made to the article since the beginning of the FAR, and the major issue of referencing has not been addressed at all. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per above reasons. Certainly not FA standard anymore ★★Retro Lord ★★ 00:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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