Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:50, 13 August 2007 editMatthew (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,955 edits lawl← Previous edit Revision as of 18:54, 13 August 2007 edit undoDalejenkins (talk | contribs)6,182 edits As stated, this word could be seen as racially offensive, as it makes fun of Jesus and ChristianityNext edit →
Line 126: Line 126:
:::* Do you see an "edit this page" link on that template? I do, use it! I'm sure you could add compatibility to the template. ] 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC) :::* Do you see an "edit this page" link on that template? I do, use it! I'm sure you could add compatibility to the template. ] 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:::* I don't think that we should change a template just for this article, thus making all the American TV programme articles incorrect. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">] | <small>]</small></span> 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :::* I don't think that we should change a template just for this article, thus making all the American TV programme articles incorrect. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">] | <small>]</small></span> 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
::::* ], I'm quite sure I said "I'm sure you could add compatibility to the template", not "I'm sure you could change it just for this series". ] 12:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ::::* I'm quite sure I said "I'm sure you could add compatibility to the template", not "I'm sure you could change it just for this series". ] 12:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::* That isn't necessary, other British shows have gotten to FA without it. Also don't use potentially racially offensive language. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">] | <small>]</small></span> 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
** <s>"This explains why the clothes worn by fired candidates in their exit sequences sometimes differ from those worn in the boardroom scene ostensibly filmed only moments earlier", source?</s> {{done}} ** <s>"This explains why the clothes worn by fired candidates in their exit sequences sometimes differ from those worn in the boardroom scene ostensibly filmed only moments earlier", source?</s> {{done}}
** <s>The "Viewing figures" section should be in prose, a table is not needed.</s>{{done}} ** <s>The "Viewing figures" section should be in prose, a table is not needed.</s>{{done}}

Revision as of 18:54, 13 August 2007

The Apprentice (UK)

previous FAC

The last FAC was closed by a non admin/bot without very much discussion-I detected vandalism so have re-instated the debate. This article, currently a GA, appears to pass the criteria. Comments? Dalejenkins 09:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Those awards that have articles have been wikified! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

okay thats fine, but can you please expand the related programmes section in order to make it more comprehensive. otherwise the article looks nice. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
yes, you got it right. those section needs expansion. and may i know why the headlines are in italics. Ummhhh... rest the article is nice. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
By "headlines" I guess you mean "headings"? The headings are in italics because they are programme titles, and programme titles supposed to be in italics aren't they? Or is there a different style rule when they're in headings? Perhaps someone could advise. I personally am not fussed one way or the other. Matt 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

checkY Done and Comment- the titles are in italics per WP:MOS, I have not carried out the section expansion request, as reliable sources (if any) are hard to come by about these short, one-off episodes. Any infomation added may also cross WP:TRIVIA and WP:POV. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Much better than its been before, good job. But still some things: Remove the scrolling ref thing, the specific template was deleted for a reason.

 Done Deleted. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the merchandise section. Are those subsections all needed? Most of them are just one sentence. I suggest you remove the subheadings and have all of the info in one or two paragraphs. Gran 08:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)  Done

 Done Created a table, as the removal of subsections looked messy. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think the Merchandise section would work better without the sub headings. If that is changed, I'll support. Gran 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done, removed subheadings. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Added a paragraph on spin-offs, related programmes and mercahndise. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose — Not fully sourced. There's a navbox at the bottom that looks barely readable and the article cites many non-reliable sources such as TV.com & IMDb. Oh, and there's two wikitables that would work better as written prose. Matthew 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Simply not true, possibly in bad faith as I voted to fail and article that Matthew was supporting. The article is 100% fully souced, which parts were you talking about? One wikitable, if you had read this page, was suggested here as it looked to choppy as prose, and the other was suggested in a previous GAC, FAC or Peer Review. Although, I have  Done the other 2 tasks; making the text in the candidates template larger and replacing the IMDb/TV.COM sources. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The infobox claims the show's composer is Dru Masters, where's the source for that? Where's the source that the show is 576i? Also I have some more concerns on a more detailed look. This image is licensed incorrectly (claims GFDL), the source states "all rights reserved". Secondly there are several dates linked that simply don't need linking (only full dates require linkage). And thirdly, a forum is not a reliable source, you'll need to cite "Despite internet petitions on web forums, the BBC has announced that it has no plans to release the programmes on DVD." to a reputable source which is reliable and verifiable. Oh, and I like how you accuse me of bad faith because I opposed "your" article (I think you need to read up on policies and guidelines!) Matthew 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems very fragmented in places. For instance, 'The Board', the 'Series' and 'Related programmes' are very bitty, esp. with repetition of the mainarticle template. 'Viewing figures' and 'Awards' should be written in prose, not tables and bullet points. There is no need for the table in 'Merchandise' either: it's not a fan site. Again, this should be reworked and written in prose. The JPS 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The Merchandise section was in straight prose until very recently when it was converted to tabular format purely, I believe, to satisfy another reviewer here. I personally prefer it as prose, for what it's worth. In my opinion the layout of the Viewing Figures and Awards sections is just fine as it is. Matt 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
If you're referring to Gran2's comments, I don't think that's what he meant. The JPS 09:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Re-instated prose of the Merchandise section. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the back of the table, but there is not need for those subheadings. The JPS 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the colours in the template at the bottom look very ugly and immature. The design is not befitting for a featured article. The JPS 11:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Tried to sort-out the template. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose. Article is overcategoried, especially the merchandise section which is questionable altogether. The content is comprehensive and of good quality, but needs to be written in prose as far as possible, as opposed to a section for everything. Some sections that are in prose have too many one or two section paragraphs (in particular the lead and to an extent history). Whilst overall this is a good article and has the potential to become FA at some point, I would strongly recommend a peer review before re-nomination, and if this happens I would be happy to assist with both reviewing and editing. BeL1EveR 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the article does have quite a few short subsections, but bear in mind that many people are discouraged by large blocks of unremitting text, especially when reading from a screen, and that anything that can be done to break it up and make it more inviting to the eye is, within reason, a good idea. Matt 14:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Opposition removed as I agree my dispute with the article is not a major one, and that the article conforms to FA quality in all other aspects. However I cannot support the article in its current form for reasons previously stated. BeL1EveR 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That is against policy. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What policy???????LizzieHarrison 13:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a policy, a deletion vote. Sorry-here. It was originally on there, but removed per the above comments on this page. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A disporportionate amount of the article is a long list of one- and two-sentence choppy sections. References/footnotes are not correctly and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, all websources need a last accessdate, and author and date should be given when available.) Some of the sources are dead links or may not be reliable (example Celebrities WorldWide). Please see WP:MOS#All caps and WP:DASH; the article doesn't have a professional appearance. See WP:WTA, The Apprentice (UK) ... sustained cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 Done. Extended 1-2 sentence sections. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 15:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 Done. Celebs worldwide replaced. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 Done. Footnotes formatted. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done. I have been through the words blacklisted in WP:WTA, and only found two changes to make: two instances of "claim" in the deprecated sense. So, unless you can identify anything else, that's that. The link WP:MOS#All caps doesn't go anywhere and I don't know what you're referring to. Something to do with capitals presumably, but specifically what? I assume that your reference to WP:DASH means you have an issue with the use of dashes somewhere in the article, but again I don't know what you are referring to. Please give specific details. Matt 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC).
  • I had a look at every dash today using a highlighting tool, and the only ones that were not "word-word" were in the titles of refrences, which were created by outside powers in the first place and we can't/shouldn't really change these. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Info for other editors: Regarding the reported dead links in sources, I have made a list of references with problematic links on the article's talk page, so hopefully we can pick away at those and get them fixed. Matt 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Better, I struck my Oppose, although there are some loose ends to tie up. I'm not sure what became of that link, but MOS:CAPS#All_caps should get you there (I see you fixed those anyway). On the dashes, you have a mix of spaced endashes and spaced emdashes (MOS says never to use spaced emdashes, and to use unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes consistently). You have at least one spaced endash on a date ranges that should be unspaced (see the infobox). Another thing that would make the article aesthetically more pleasing (and conform to WP:MOSNUM) is consistent date formatting in the footnotes. The article has some linked, and others not, and mixes date formats. If you link the date parameter, they'll show in a consistent format according to user-defined preferences, which is more attractive than a mix of 2007-08-03 August 3, 2007 and 3 August 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have changed all dashes to spaced en-dashes. The infobox date range is automatically generated by the template, and I don't see how to remove the spaces around the dash. Matt 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose per comments from JPS. The overuse of headings is just plain distracting. I think "Series" section needs to be merged together. It looks scrappy with all those headings, particularly as they contain such a small amount of information.Legalbeaver 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Matt 20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

 Done Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 09:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That's because it's just fine as it is. Matt 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
  • In your opinion, perhaps. Matt 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Not if written with more thought and skill. What ratings are used? Overnights? More accurate ratings that were compiled later? Compared to other programmes at the same time? Why are the ratings notable? At the moment these are just pointless numbers. Context must be given. The JPS 09:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — again...
    • Show titles should be in italics as per the MoS.
    • There are several grammar errors (e.g. "series one" not "Series One")
    • "Present" doesn't need to be in italics.
    • There are several partial dates linked which don't need to be linked.
    • "For the duration of the competition the candidates live together in a large rented house", source?
    • There are several American dates, these need to be reformated.
    • The correct term for a British shows is "series" not "season".
    • "This explains why the clothes worn by fired candidates in their exit sequences sometimes differ from those worn in the boardroom scene ostensibly filmed only moments earlier", source?
    • The "Viewing figures" section should be in prose, a table is not needed.
    • This image is poorly placed.
    • Please replace the Amazon.co.uk citation with a non-commercial citation.
    • Citation #17 claims to be a press release within the article, it isn't.
    • The navbox is still a major problem, I did fix this, but was reverted.
  • I'll check back soon to see if my major concerns have been addressed. Matthew 18:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are you voting twice? You already opposed further up the page, all you needed to do was add to it. And also, there's no need for the patronising comments on here towards the people doing their best to get this article up to FA. Seaserpent85 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Show titles should be in italics as per the MoS.  Done
    • There are several grammar errors (e.g. "series one" not "Series One")
  • I still see several occurances of incorrect capitals, use your eyes to locate these errors. They should be lower case like I stated: "series one" not "Series One". Matthew 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
* You're incorrect. A previous GAC discussion decided that it should be "Series Three", as it is a title, per WP:MOS. Also, don't be so patronising. "Use your eyes to locate these errors", how childish. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Present" doesn't need to be in italics. Done
    • There are several partial dates linked which don't need to be linked.
    • "For the duration of the competition the candidates live together in a large rented house", source?  Done
    • There are several American dates, these need to be reformated.
    • The correct term for a British shows is "series" not "season".  Done
  • I'm quite sure I said "I'm sure you could add compatibility to the template", not "I'm sure you could change it just for this series". Matthew 12:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "This explains why the clothes worn by fired candidates in their exit sequences sometimes differ from those worn in the boardroom scene ostensibly filmed only moments earlier", source?  Done
    • The "Viewing figures" section should be in prose, a table is not needed. Done
    • This image is poorly placed.  Done
    • Please replace the Amazon.co.uk citation with a non-commercial citation.  Done
    • Citation #17 claims to be a press release within the article, it isn't.  Done
  • It may be from the press office, but that doesn't make it a press release. In fact, the site clearly makes a differentiation between what is and isn't a press release. Matthew 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The navbox is still a major problem, I did fix this, but was reverted.  Done