Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arrested Development (TV series)

Arrested Development (TV series)

Partial self-nom. The character and themes/characteristics sections are particularly thorough. I will be working to correct any problems that arise in this FAC, so please frequently check this nomination for updates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 08:25

• Object, for several reasons:
  1. The image Image:GOB on stage.jpg does not have the proper copyright info; also, the article lacks images as a whole. Try and find some as they add variety.
     • Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19
  2. Some of the English is awkward. I'd advise the article to be copy-edited.
     • I've copyedited some of the sections that I thought needed improving. If you want more changes, please be more specific about what needs changing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:19
  3. Following the "Spoilers warning" tag, there should be another tag that reads "Spoilers end here". If you don't add this, then some people might think that the plot of the article never comes to a conclusion; that's a crucial issue. Fix it, please. --Hollow Wilerding 13:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
     • I don't think it's that simple. There are spoilers throughout the article, not just in the plot section. I've never heard of this "end spoilers" notice, except as used on internet forum discussions. I don't think people will believe that the "plot" section constitutes the entire article without this notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19

Better English and images, but still lacking the spoilers tag. I've placed it on the talk page for you to view and include in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. We appear to have paved a path. Excellent job! --Hollow Wilerding 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I thought the article was quite well written, but only two references? A featured article should cite its sources much more than that. I suspect a lot of the information was gleaned from some of those "external sites", and could thus be moved to the references section. With more references, I'd be likely to support. Fieari 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added more references that were used in creating the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:56
• Support. Good article, comprehensive. Two notes. One, the date for the DVD release is clearly wrong--it's before the show is said to have been first broadcast. And the reference section is wholly inadequate. Where are the printed articles, e.g. Entertainment Weekly, Variety? (Cf. Dawson's Creek). PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the DVD date (it's a typo on Amazon's site). I don't understand your last question, do you want critical reviews of the show? The Dawson's Creek article overkills it on the references section. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 17:37
  • I've added some prominent reviews, including Entertainment Weekly, in keeping with WikiProject Television. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 20:21
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-organized overview of the show. Valid concerns raised above seem to have since been addressed. Andrew Levine 18:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article for a great show. Every stated problem has been addressed so far, any other comments for improvement are appreciated. --TheMidnighters 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, on numerous isses

1. The lead is too focussed on the broadcast of the show in the US. eg Three unaired episodes will run in the show's regular time slot beginning December 5th, 2005. The five remaining episodes may air later this season, or possibly over the summer. It also focusses too much on the shows demise.
2. There is no detailed information later in the article on where else the show is aired or how critics/viewers in other countries have recieved the show, and how it rated in other countries.
3. There is no detail on how the show rated in the US, it is mentioned that ratings were low, how low, ratings information should be available and cited.
4. The numbered notes in text do not have corresponding numbered references.
5. If the trivia section must stay- I think an attempt should be made to turn it into prose rather than have it presented as a list.
6. External links, especially to fan sites and to the petitions are excessive.
7. Dawson's Creek has a good section on the how the show was created and production information, this article should probably have a similar section.
8. The prose is average, brackets are used too frequently to explain things that can be described in the text, word order and phrasing are uncomfortable in parts, and there are innacuacies for example psycharists don't get disbarred.

--nixie 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)