Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dawson's Creek/archive1

Dawson's Creek[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Sandy 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An FA for over an year, the article has some issues that needs to be resolved.

Article is way too long per WP:MOS, 74 KB could use some heavy trimming especially the Synopsis section
This type of article requires inline citations
No fair use rationales, and several of the images are in PUI and others are used for decreation, which violates WP:FU
Trivia section should go as it's unencyclopedic
Fails 2A with some rather strange paragraphs like

Dawson's Creek's ultimate impact was far broader than the Nielsen Ratings would imply, alluded to in such disparate places as Jim Borgman's comic strip Zits, a Maureen Dowd column about the Republican leadership of Congress, and the film 10 Things I Hate about You. It made stars of its leads and now seems ripe for the kind of academic analysis its former lead-in Buffy the Vampire Slayer has already been subjected to.'

Not up to FA standards Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jaranda's comments. Over the past six weeks, a small amount of copy-editing has been occurring; the pace needs to accelerate dramatically to recast the many illogical and/or faulty sentences. Tony 07:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Jaranda's comments entirely. They seriously need to be addressed, especially criteria 2. a. and 2. c. of "What is a featured article". LuciferMorgan 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at User talk:Jaranda. Sandy 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move it down to FARC, only a few typos and link repair and also some extra expansion of the already too large Synopsis section happened, doesn't look like it will be fixed. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much has been done, I'm afraid. "Insipid" in the first sentence is POV. The word "show" is repeated far too often in the lead. The prose is generally undistinguished. I think it should go to FARC. Tony 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Main FA criteria concerns are length (5), fair use images (4), and writing (2a). Marskell 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nothing much have been done to fix it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Jaranda Niz 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Here's the diff since it was nominated: nothing happening. Sandy 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]