Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK)/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 01:59, 24 July 2007.

---

The Apprentice (UK)

_{previous FAC}

Already at GA status, seems to fit the criteria for FA. Dalejenkins 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "After completion of a task, the teams report back to the "boardroom", a studio mockup of a real company boardroom" - I found that really interesting, but mentioned twice. Is that necessary?

It's not really possible to avoid using the term "boardroom" in the Format section, and it was thought necessary to give a few words of explanation there as to what exactly "the boardroom" is. For completeness it's also necessary to mention it under Filming Locations. I can't think of any other way, except to give a forward reference which would be almost as long as the explanation. Matt 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

OK. Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • "is then subjected to a detailed dressing down by Sugar" -- "Dressing down" is a bit too colloquial and also simplistic.
  • "The team's project manager is required to choose two poorly-performing team members to accompany him or her" -- Not true. The project manager chooses two team members, supposedly the poorly-performing ones, but occasionally the best performing are selected due to personal animosity etc.

I disagree with this addition, as this could fail WP:NPOV. Dalejenkins 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just changed this actually before seeing your comment. I'll leave off for now so that we aren't tripping over each other. Matt 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well. What about something like "The team's project manager is required to choose two poorly-performing team members, which they believe bear the most repsonibility for the team's failure, to accompany him or her...."

I don't understand. Who's disagreeing with what? Your suggestion leaves the meaning of the original text essentially unchanged ("which they believe bear the most responsibility for the team's failure" is more-or-less already implied by "poorly-performing"). The objection to the original text, which I believe is valid, is that the two team members chosen by the PM are not necessarily the two that he/she believes were "poorly-performing" or "bear the most repsonibility for the team's failure". In practice PMs may (and do) choose based on personality issues. I changed the text to make that clear, as the original reviewer suggested. Matt 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

• • "teams..periodically rearranged ....to unsettle the candidates" -- Original research??

I assume the OR objection is to the words "unsettle the candidates" (which have been removed). The word "periodically" was also removed, but I have restored it because the sense of the sentence is lost without it, and it is an incontrovertible fact that the reshuffles happen periodically. Matt 00:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

• • Last few candidates undergo interview -- Expand perhaps? The two interview episodes I have seen featured the same interviewers and their relationship to Sir Alan Sugar was well described - it would add to the article to include their names and positions. Perhaps also a short summary of the more dramatic moments - e.g. Paul in the 2006 series - his standing with Sir Alan went from very high to very low as a result of the interviews if I recall correctly.

Various people have been involved in the interview process, it has changed every year. The specifics have been explained in the episode section of each series page, and I think this infomation belongs there. The dramatic moments also belong in the series articles too, as this is the "Format" section and not the "Noteable moments" one. Dalejenkins 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All very good points. Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • "in the same vein as Big Brother's Little Brother and Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two" -- why is this included? Seems to be an arbitrary selection of "similar" shows.
  • "5.7 million viewers tuning in to see Michelle Dewberry triumph over Ruth Badger to win the job with Sir Alan Sugar." -- Triumph? Tone down perhaps? And "win the job with Sir Alan Sugar" is a bit redundant at this stage of the article.
  • Amstrad linked mulitiple times - link the first instance and no more.
  • "the team house was located in Chiswick.[37] It moved to Hampstead Heath" - Everyone will know a house did not actually "move" - it could perhaps be worded better. If you think this point is bordering on/is facetious please ignore.
  • "Media Watch has voiced concerns over inclusion of company names and products in the programme" -- for example... perhaps?
  • Under "viewing figures" : "The Apprentice has received high rating figures in its run, as the following table shows" -- A bit redundant, the table speaks for itself.
  • Regarding cultural references - I think the HIGNFY one is a bit weak. It's a popular show, but is one mention in a promo really noteworthy.

The promo involved was set around mocking the candidate's taxi-ride home, if it was a passing reference I would agree totally-but I feel this is more major. Dalejenkins 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree about notability, however I have not seen the piece in question and I am not able to challenge your judgement of it. Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • "An official soundtrack is due for release on 11 June 2007.[78]" is out of date.
  • Does "Online store Getting Personal is the official retailer of general The Apprentice merchandise." not read like an advertisement?
  • 2 Apprentice infoboxes -- overkill?

As they have seperate purposes and are vital(the first being under Wikipedia policy, the second under WikiProject Television policy [I believe]), I disagree. Dalejenkins 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.Mark83 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I saw this in the FAC list and expected it to be terrible. It certainly isn't. Good work and good luck. Mark83 10:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The "The Board" image has no source. As it's claimed to be promotional material it should contain verifiable evidence that this image "is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media". --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was formally on the Apprentice website, but it has since been re-vamped and is no longer included. Dalejenkins 09:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose chatty prose, far too many headings in places, one sentence paragraphs. Needs more work.Legalbeaver 17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which specific parts of the text do you feel are too "chatty"? If it's just a few phrases here and there then I'm sure they can be fixed without too much trouble. Matt 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.