This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it might be ready for another FA nomination, but needs feedback on improvement before nomination.
Thanks, RcsprinterGimme a message 20:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton comments: I'm not willing to give review time to this at present. The nominator is inexperienced, is currently blocked for inappropriate editing and is indefinitely banned from participation in the GA process. The article is many, many miles from featured standard and will require concentrated work from experienced editors to bring it within the FA criteria. Such editors would see immediately the main areas that need working on, and would not dream of nominating the article for peer review in its present state. I am closing the review as inappropriate at this time. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments: I had looked at this before Brian closed it, so here are a few comments and some suggestions for improvement. I agree it is completley unready for FAC and would be a very quick fail there, or at GAN, in its current state.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- The article may need fewer sections / headers too
- Section header "Other shows based on the Have I Got News for You format" does not follow WP:HEAD
- Article needs more references, for example the Opening section has at least 8 direct quotes, none of which has a citation.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Refs that are there are woefull incompelte in some cases. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. ((cite web)) and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Toolbox EL checker on this PR page finds at least two dead External links.
- Article has a huge number of bullet point lists - when it was demoted from FA in 2005 this was a major complaint - see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Have I Got News for You Convert lists to prose.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]