Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jim Carrey/archive1

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 GrahamColm 19:01, 4 May 2012 [1].

Jim Carrey

Featured article candidates/Jim Carrey/archive1

Nominator(s): Samgibbs (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it gives a thoroughly detailed and insightful look into the career of Jim Carrey, while maintaining the high standards similar to other featured articles. The information is frequently referenced with highly reliable sources, and is well written. The article does not go into unneccessary detail, staying completely on-topic. Moreover, the article is expanded through different media including images, giving the article a balanced structure that is extremely engaging and colourful to read. Samgibbs (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the links need some work, there are a couple bare urls, two dabs, and two dead links. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Someone may help with the prose, but if not, it's not ready. - Dank (push to talk)

"he has been described as one of the biggest movie stars in Hollywood, a label for which he has received substantial media attention.": He hasn't gotten attention for having a label, he's gotten attention for his work.
"with Ace Ventura: Pet Detective; which soon followed with its sequel ...": sentence fragment, and it didn't follow itself with its own sequel
The release years for Dumb and Dumber and The Mask are ambiguous.
"in highly popular productions The Cable Guy (1996), and Liar Liar (1997)": in the highly ..., and no comma
"in which he earned": for which he earned
"soon after" and "then" are a little redundant; you'd be better off without them.
That's just in the first two paragraphs, so I'm gonna stop there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I prefer this version of the lead from about 5 days ago, before this nom started working on the article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: By no means a bad article, but the prose is certainly rough in places (see above comments), and the lead needs to be more than a roll-call of Carrey's films and awards. As far as I can see this article has never been subject to formal review. It has been compiled by hundreds of different editors (3000+ edits with no single editor contributing more than 90), and looks to me to need some careful shepherding through the review processes before it is ready for FAC nomination. I suggest that peer review is an appropriate route here, and should it be nominated there I will be happy to take on the review and help prepare the article for an FAC resubmission. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Lots of problems.

"Unfortunately, Carrey's impersonations bombed..." and "In 1984, Carrey was soon cast, surprisingly, as the lead..." are just two examples of the highly unencyclopedic language throughout the article.
Whosdatedwho.com, currently Ref 45, is not a reliable source.
Twitter, currently ref 50... there is literally no circumstance under which a tweet should be used in favor of something more substantial.
The fourth paragraph of Early life contains no inline citations
The third paragraph of Continued success also contains unsourced statements
There is a one-sentence paragraph in the lead, and another at the end of Continued success.
Worse, Citizenship contains a single sentence in its entirety.
Inconsistent usage of hyphens and endashes in the Filmography table.

I agree with Brian: The nominator should have made an effort to obtain feedback on the article before coming to FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close, per above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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