This article has already been listed as a good article for a living person. It received some positive feedback on its peer review. It's thoroughly researched and includes a lot of different information in NPOV manner.--Twintone 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Colbert Report just failed as a featured article; have you checked this article to make sure it doesn't fall into the problems of that one? Right off the bat, I can tell that, as with that article, the lead is too short; if it was an adequate description of him, the hatnote would be unnecessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another issue is the layout; several of the sections lead off with images or boxes at both sides, squeezing the text down to a tiny column. That really needs to be fixed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The four consecutive citations in the second sentence in the lead (which only establishes the shows he's involved with) seem quite excessive. Especially since it's the lead, the summary of the entire article. / Peter Isotalo 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. I did not intend to do it; I intended just to comment, but I'll immediately explain the reason I object:
- Peer-reviews are not for fun. In the peer review of this article User:UberCryxic made three correct remarks: 1) the lead is short, 2) the Quotes section needs deletion (I agree! Why do we use such a section? It is useless as User:UberCryxic says, 3) Other roles section needs better structure and composition (the prose is not good, since there are incoherent and one-sentence paragrpahs). The problem is that User:UberCryxic made these remarks, but User:Twintone did not do anything to implement them and came straight here without making any improvement to the article according to these suggestions! Not only that but User:Twintone did not even give an answer to the peer-review for the reason he does not materialize these suggestions!
- I initially intented to suggest exactly what UberCryxic had suggested. But seeing that these suggestions had already been done and the nominator of this FAC didn't care at all and came here as if nothing important had been suggested, I had no choice but to object. I think that the nominator should first give some answers in the peer-review, then ameliorate the article and then come here. The article as it is now is not ready for FAC and its nominator does not take seriously the suggestions made for the article's improvement.--Yannismarou 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per above. Very disrespectful on user Twintone part to disregard peer review comments. Peer review is already very inactive because reviewers don't wish to waste time on something that's not going to be done. - Tutmosis 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object I agree with the points above, and I think there are too many fair use images. Why do we need three images from the Colbert Report just to show Stephen Colbert? That's probably too many even if the images were free, because they take up too much space and clutter the article. Jay32183 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. I completely agree with Yannismarou. Sandy 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Suppor. Well written..VERY well cited. If it were about most any other comedian/actor/commentator, who did not dare to tweak Jimbo's beard, it would most certainly be a shoo in for the mainpage. But I guess we're just not big enough to take few playful shots are we? Unlike G.W. Bush, who for all his obvious failures, at least pretended to be a gracious host/target.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]