Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 1

The Apprentice (British TV series) series 1 was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Television: The Apprentice UK / Episode coverage / Reality Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Apprentice UK task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Todo[edit]

Further to discussions on the main page:

Remove trivia section
Clean up some of the tasks
Include information on ratings, reception, etc.
More citations

Anything else? --Fritzpoll 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzpoll, I've cleaned up the tasks, and improved formatting in line with all the other series. I've also checked and corrected where required, the appropriate grammar. δ²_(Talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

A little move, but would it be better if the title was "The Apprentice (UK Series 1)", as many others use numbers. --AxG ^@ ^►talk 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They previously were numbered as you describe, however we came to a consensus that the series numbers should be consistent, using the spelt format. When we had the drive on the main Apprentice article, everything was standardised to pass GA - this being one of them. Though if you wanted to raise the issue, the talk page on the main article gets a lot more traffic :) Seaserpent85 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Series1.JPG[edit]

Image:Series1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal GA Review[edit]

Of course this doesn't actually constitute an "actual" GA review, however I thought I'd browse through and bring up the following suggestions to hopefully get the article up to a standard where I would pass it had I not been reviewing it for GA (ie. had I not been involved in the creation of the article).

The main issue here is a lack of sources - if possible, don't just use the actual episodes as sources. Have a look on news websites etc. for synopses and reviews of the episodes, they give the reader something to actually refer to.

1 Well written

Prose

Very choppy - would benefit well from a copyedit to increase the flow and readability of the "Challenges" sections.

Manual of Style

Nothing too major - it's easy to sort this out once the article is closer to being nominated. There is information in the lead which isn't found elsewhere in the article - this also can be sorted out later down the line.

Consistency

There are a few key issues here:

Selective "team re-shuffles" included - either include all of them or none, I'd question their inclusion.
Task outlines need to give a clear indication of what consitutes a win - eg. "The team that makes the most profit wins"
Minor point, but is it Tim or Timothy?

2 Factual accuracy

All claims need to be backed up with sources - especially those with dubious authenticity (otherwise remove the claims):

"Sir Alan said that he chose Tim as the winner because of his likeness to his East End self."
"Sir Alan Sugar later admitted that Miriam probably didn't deserve to be fired at this point"
"In reality, Paul Torrisi was fired before James Max."
"She is not allowed to apply for subsequent series of The Apprentice"

3 Coverage

Lacking a "Reception" section outlining how the series was received in the press, and any viewing ratings.
Perhaps include a "Production" section - if there are any reliable sources to get the info from.
References to the American version of The Apprentice - are they really relevant here?

4 Neutrality

Quite a few highly biased terms in here, just to pick a couple:

"Saira's aggressive behaviour "
"James because Sir Alan and the interviewers were not convinced of his dedication to work for Sir Alan (although he had the best CV of the four)"

5 Stability

All fine here, the series aired three years ago so this isn't an issue.

6 Images

No problems, the one image in the article has a valid Fair Use Rationale.

I'm really surprised to have found that this was nominated for GA Review - it lacks sufficient citations. These are probably going to be the hardest things to find, especially for any kind of critical reception section. This will take a fair bit of searching. Just about all we pass is stability :) But on that, there is a foundation to build upon. Good review SeaSerpent85 - almost inspires me to go back to GA reviewing (did quite a bit of it a while back) Fritzpoll (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, this is all my fault! I guess I had an initial look a the criteria, thought they were similar to articles to Season Three, and put them up for GA like you would send your car for an MOT. Well, it's just failed that and now I know why. But what I am struggling with is how we will get it to have enough citations? Apologies again for my premature nomination. Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to apologise for! :-) You should have seen the first article I nominated for GA - it *still* isn't a GA! Citations are going to be a problem - online newspaper archives, perhaps? Can't remember how much coverage Series One got...? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Just to get things started:

And a couple perhaps more suited to the candidates page:

[16]
[17]

Hope that gets the ball rolling! Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start taking a look at that soon. My talk page is currently filled with bot discussions and some other stuff - but I will take a look at this during my lunchbreak tomorrow! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced negative material[edit]

There is a unanimous consensus to delete the unsourced negative material, which has been done here. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is currently an uncited, very specific negative claim in the article which, according to WP:CITE, should not be there without a source. Amisom (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Summoned by bot. Leave off page until a source can be added for support. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete --Unless reliable sources are found housing the statement, a clear denial of inclusion of such negative statements.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 15:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked for a source? ;) That said, definitely delete and, perhaps, move to the talk page, until a source is found. Eman 235/talk 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no-brainer. Unreferenced criticism with added tone concerns. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.