Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Story of the Three Bears/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Story of the Three Bears

Nominator(s): SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a tale written and published by the poet and essayist Robert Southey. It appears to be the first time the tale was put into print for the mass market. The story is one of the most popular and best known tales in the English language. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments looking good - had a read-through and the prose reads nicely and looks pretty thorough. Some issues:

Second para of Literary elements needs citations (should be easy to find)

As does parts of Film and television and Other

I'd convert other into a paragraph, not bulleted points.

I have a sneaking suspicion there might be some other analysis to add but I might be wrong. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of the article have been reviewed and have been deleted as inappropriate.SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this interpretation looks interesting as a critique etc. fulltext is online too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Goldilocks_Batten_1890.jpg needs to be reviewed - if this is PD why does it have a fair-use rationale? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed as of WP policy. Needs permission.SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image is provably public domain. I have restored it to the article and added some information to the file description page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cambalachero

The comment between parentheses in the plot is too long, and perhaps should be rewritten. Most of the paragraphs are very short, and should be merged or expanded. For example, the first two paragraphs of "Origin" talk about the same, and have no reason to be set apart. Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Montanabw

I have to oppose this FAC at present, I think it is best withdrawn and taken to either peer review or back to the drawing board. It just is not ready for prime time yet. It could get there, but it really is still at best GA. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is pretty weak, it really doesn't parallel the article body text per WP:LEAD. The other issues with this article need work first, but at the end, a new lead is probably going to have to be written. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall writing style is choppy and disjointed. One-paragraph sections may pass GA, but lack comprehensiveness for FA. Though short articles can be FA, this one lacks adequate comprehensiveness. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot synopsis needs some variation from a direct WP:SYNOPSIS. In particular, because the Goldilocks version is better-known than the "old woman" version, to not note both in the synopsis is a significant omission - one could state that the original story was [basic synopsis from first version] and then have a second paragraph with the more sanitized "Goldilocks" version. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story predates Southey, and though it does examine how it "was a retelling of a story that had long been in circulation," the chronology is cursory, disorganized and hard to follow. Mure's version and the "Scrapefoot" version are not adequately examined (see e.g. this. The development of "Goldilocks" from "Silver hair" and "Golden Hair" is also inadequately examined. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just a few comments, I don't think it is necessary to give a fuller review because I think this was a premature nomination. There also appears to be some stability issues and edit-warring going on too. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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