Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Festivus/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:17, 29 December 2008 [1].

---

Festivus

Nominator(s): User:Feats-O-Strength

previous FAC

I am nominating Festivus for featured article, specifically for December 23rd of this year. That's this coming Tuesday. Now, I know it was nominated in the past, and it was refused, but from what it says on the previous nomination thing, I've gathered that the article wasn't nearly as good back then as it was now. It's really lengthy now, in-depth, and what, 28 references? Great intro paragraph, references out the wazoo, in-depth, detailed, and lengthy sections, definitely good stuff. I'd say it would be practically a crime to not give this article a second chance at featured article candidacy, as it seems to have vastly improved since its first nomination. Also fitting, considering the time of year, you know? Huh (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: it links to the wrong Dan O'Keefe in the first line.--Grahame (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but this has a few major issues:

• It includes a trivia section.
• The infobox has a ridiculously long caption for the picture. Image captions should be succinct.
• The majority of the article is composed of quotes from Seinfeld.
• Cites 25, 27 and 28 are missing accessdates and publisher information.
• The lead, while reasonably good on its own, features information not included in the main body of the text.

These few points I spotted with only a cursory glance through the text, and I did not evaluate the sources or grammar. This article is a long way off featured quality. Apterygial 09:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/ a reliable source? Also, wouldn't these be copyright violations which we do not link to?
• A number of your website references lack last access dates. Several also lack publishers.
• A number of your book references lack page numbers.
• Large sections of the article are unreferenced.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments to the oppose guy above:

• That constitutes a trivia section? It's more like instances in which Festivus is acknoweleged and/or celebrated in real life. Doesn't really fit anywhere else on the page, yet seems notable enough to stay....
• Fixed the caption. Didn't need the bit on George fleeing the coffee shop.
• Are quotes non-encylopedic?
• So should those cites be deleted?
  • Alternatively, you could fix the cites. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 14:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• If you could point out what's in the lead that isn't anywhere else, I'll fix it. I checked just now, didn't see anything... Huh (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from "the oppose guy":

• • What you need to do with that section I labelled as trivia is remove the bullet points and integrate that prose into a paragraph structure in an ordered and cogent format.
  • The quotes are non encyclopedic because there is little indication about how what is essentially just a re-telling of what happened in the Seinfeld episode is notable in RL. You need to be able to establish its notability outside of Seinfeld. This is not done through the use of verbatim quotes from the episode.
  • At the moment, the lead looks promising, there is a good indication about how Festivus is celebrated in the real world, and yet the article gives a lot more weight to its existence in Seinfeld and only a small paragraph to its real origins. You need to weight the lead around the prevalence each theme is given in the main body.

I don't believe these issues can be addressed within the time frame of an FAC. Nevertheless, if you feel you can do so, feel free. My suggestion is that you withdraw the nomination, go for a peer review and work towards passing a good article nomination. In short, get more opinions, improve the article, and decide where to go from there. Still opposing, Apterygial 02:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: I hope my suggestions prove useful for a possible GAN - good article nomination
  • The trivia section (Festivus in popular culture and the real world) should be transformed into paras, instead of the list.
  • If I understand it correct, the festival started from fiction, but now is fact. So there must be free images available. The fair use of File:Festivus-Pole-from-Seinfeld.png is questioned.
  • I see a number of dialogues, which i assume are from Seinfeld, I think they can be transformed into "readable text" (prose).
  • "Festivus Miracles" needs references to support the POV "miracle". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I love the subject, so I'll give a review (without looking at any of the above). Overall I oppose, primarily on it seeming to be too in-universe. The article is about the holiday, not the Seinfeld episode.
  • Could the "significance" in the Infobox be cut down a bit?
  • In the lede, I have a few issues. includes novel practices - seems POV. Also, after the Festivus meal - the also seems a bit awkward, since you only mentioned one thing before. Maybe mention some other things, like the Festivus pole (which you mention in the Infobox), or perhaps focus a bit more on the history, and not necessarily on the episode?
  • Likewise with the above, the article should focus more on the history. The first paragraph should not be on the episode IMO. Perhaps put the "Etymology and origin" first? Otherwise, it feels like it's too much about the episode, and after all there's already an article on the episode.
  • Festivus is introduced in "The Strike" - that is a poor way to introduce the first sentence of any section. You should mention the series and date there. The lede mentions both, and as the lede should be a summary of the article, all info there should be in the body of the article.
  • There are too many quotes. Try integrating some of them as prose.
  • The trivia section could be better done.
  • Taking a look back, I can't help but wonder whether there should even be an article on it. Since the majority of it is related to the Seinfeld episode, have you considered a merge? Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.