Wikipedia:Featured article review/Characters of Kingdom Hearts/archive1
- 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]| Toolbox |
|---|
There are a few problems to this article, but they're still big. There are un-referenced parts in this article, mainly with the characters. Moreover, the "Other characters" section makes the article more like a list than an article. So please give me your thoughts. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Images are lacking alt text and a few of the refs dates are inconsistent (refs 34, 36, 72). Ref 13 is dead and is 34 a reliable source? It looks like a forum. CrimsonFox talk 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Looks like Gamer beat me to the punch on this one. I agree that this article does not meet the current FA criteria.
- Unreliable sources:
- Several refs (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, and 38) are interviews from other publications hosted on Kingdom Hearts Ultimania, a fan site which does not meet WP:RS
- Other refs (4, 17, 35, and 49) are the same, but from different fan sites: Kingdom Hearts Insider, KingdomHearts3.net, and Video Game Blogger.
- The forum and image postings (34, 42, and 53) do not meet citation and sourcing guidelines.
- Pretty sure the IMDB sources can be replaced with a listing on a reliable gaming site.
- Excess detail.
- Some well-meaning editors felt listing every character with bullet points would be better than concise overviews. A rewrite and trim of these sections is in order.
- Synthesis
- Ref 37 cites Jesse McCartney's Twitter page, which I'm not sure whether or not it meets WP:RS. Regardless, the content on the twitter post does not match the content in the article, and some bold assumptions are made. Mind you they make sense, but I think such methodology is discouraged for featured content.
I know this is not the part where we decide what to do with the article, but I know the sourcing issues—specifically the interviews on the fan sites—cannot be easily fixed. I spent months hunting down the original source information to properly cite the interviews but turned up nothing. I stumbled across a few extra tidbits here and there, but nothing that could replace the "Creation and influences" section, which depends entirely one these interviews. Without that section, the article is not comprehensive.
In short, I don't see this FAR ending in any way other than a delisting. Maybe some white knight of the Wiki will come and save the day. But I'm not holding my breath. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comments: In my opinion, this article doesn't have nearly enough information describing the characters to be a FA. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of most characters' text is nothing more than plot detail. Powers T 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images
I'm concerned about the fair use rationales for two of the images:
- File:KH BBS Aqua Ven Terra.jpg: the fair use rationale just says that illustration is the purpose of use. There's no critical commentary or explanation of why we need to use this particular image.
- File:KH-Character-ConceptArt.jpg: I don't really follow the purpose of this image's inclusion. The discussion of how the artwork and design of the characters changed or not between concept and release doesn't seem to relate to the image shown. DrKiernan (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the Aqua Ven Terra image.
- There isn't much in the way of changes for most of the characters. But the main character did originally look like this: File:Sora Concept KH1.jpg. Would that be a better picture to include? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
well it can be formatted better. especially for the main paragraphs. right now it looks like a giant paragraph instead of few smaller ones. The article just needs to be trimmed and find proper sourcing, though what guyinblack has said, there are some things that just cant be found. Unless we change consensus and make it so that forums are acceptable to a point, then the article could possibly be saved, but that's really unlikely.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, comprehensiveness, lack of citations and reliable sources YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Hate to say it, but the article doesn't meet FA criteria anymore and I worry it never will again. It had a good run. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delist: None of my comments have been addressed in my review. Sorry Gib. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. :-) I saw this coming for a while. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delist:As Yellow Monkey said.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: With said subject still churning out new info that's always subject to fanwankery.. — Blue。 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Unsource areas, lots of unreliable references. More minor issue is a lack of alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.