Wikipedia:Featured article review/Austin Nichols/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 17:38, 5 September 2012 [1].

Austin Nichols

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Austin Nichols

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

I am nominating this featured article for review because...I was shocked when I happened upon it in random surfing that it had the featured-article star. It has a three-sentence lead, no picture, three dead links, and if nothing else, the sniff test. It just doesn't look like it's (anything remotely close to) Wikipedia's best work. The article's history shows that it was promoted in 2006, at which time it's my understanding that FA standards were much more lax, reviewed once in 2007, and never again vetted by the community. Five years is a long time to go between reviews, no matter what. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nom seems to have skipped the talk-page discussion required by the FAR instructions. Therefore, this nom is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No response on talk page; FAR is active as of this timestamp. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is extremely choppy. Loads of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
As mentioned, the intro is too short.
The article's only picture was deleted as a copyvio back in January.
"Box office and critical success" has an "As of 2007". Surely that should be updated.
Several unsourced sentences, which I have tagged.
TV and Filmography table should have a source.
A few dubious sources are used, including a press release from PR Web
One of the Rotten Tomatoes cites mentioned the score that fans gave the film. You can't do that!
One citation is to a LiveJournal account, which I have removed as it did not contain the information anyway.
Nearly half the references are dead links.

tl;dr: This article is way short of FAR, and I'm as usual disgusted that people continue to think that just because it got a gold star, it should never be updated or rechecked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falls clearly short of FA requirements: inadequate lead, full of citation tags, ridiculous breathless tabloid prose ("it was revealed that Nichols has been dating fellow One Tree Hill co-star Sophia Bush")... I added an image, though. Sandstein 16:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as problematic in the review section include prose, MOS, images and sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per all my concerns (except the image, which has been taken care of). The intro is too short, the prose clunky, and large portions unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per sourcing, imaging, WP:LEDE, WP:MOS, etc. The prose is very chucky, while many statements remain unsourced. MOS problems in references also. TBran dl ey 01:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Agree with the concerns per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) and TBrandley (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 01:27, 29 August 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.