Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Daily Show/archive1

The Daily Show[edit]

I must say that, for a featured article, the content completely ignores 33% of the show. There is virtually no content regarding the fresh new years of TDS when Craig Kilborn was the host. I realize Jon Stewart is more well-known but my opinion is the best writing years of the show were 1996-1999. If you want to make this a featured article, it should exemplify the thoroughness of the content, which this doesn't. If you want to ignore that content as unimportant, the article should be renamed The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and NOT The Daily Show. --Davidp 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited this article. I stumbled across it and I think it's featured article calibre. moink 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's got potential, but it's a bit list heavy -- nothing that a good copyedit couldn't take care of. . →Raul654 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object I saw this article before over the template debate and it's quite good, but its got three main issues still (both are more than doable within the FAC timeframe)

There are quite a few short paragraphs, esp. towards the beginning (and why is the awards section first? Consider putting it towards the end...)
Too list-heavy where there should be prose or something similar
You're gonna need a fair-use explanation for Image:Dailyshow-invite.jpg most likely. I'd double-check the others too.

Also, consider sorting the see also section like Autism#See also, for example. In addition, the lead seems like a bunch of facts mashed together, but its not too bad at all. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object the lead is too long- and is not a summary of the rest of the article- much of it could be split off into a history of the daily show section. The position of awards as the first thing in the body of the article seems misplaced. I see the list of daily show guests made it though vfd- since this is the case why is there such a massive list of guests in the article- should be condensed to a couple of paragraphs with a {{main}} link to the list. There are html links in the text that don't appear in the list of references, and they should so that there is a record of the source if/when it is moved or removed from the source site.--nixie 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this should go to peer review first? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs)
- No, peer review is an optional part of the FAC process. →Raul654 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Far too many "fair use" images. I'd suggest reducing it to the logo plus the one or two most representative images. --Carnildo 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object too jumbled, too many lists, too many images (many of which are questionable fair use). -Greg Asche (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object per too many fair use images comment above. Just doesn't look tidy either. Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, if for no other reason than this is a good example of a recurring problem with wikipedia: anything from the past 3 years (the years wikipedia has been profusely edited) gets coverage in great detail, while anything from circa 2002 or earlier gets little mention. For several years the show had a substanitally different format and was hosted by Craig Kilbourn (who I never liked), but he gets the briefest of mention while Colbert and company get extreme coverage. Its current form should get more attention, but this is almost like an article on SNL with several paragraphs on Horatio Sanz and a one line mention of Chevy Chase. -R. fiend 06:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, Sorry but I have to agree with my fellow conscientious objectors. This article is off to a promising start, but it needs work to get it up to FA status. Send it in for peer review and tune up, then renominate it later. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, when I am signed in I have been active in editing this page...and to be honest it is nowhere NEAR ready to be featured. Maybe as a featured TV article maybe, but the whole issue of the guest list has to be solved before any further moves should be undertaken. --136.159.142.84 15:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User:J L C Leung)[reply]