Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diane Keaton/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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Keaton

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Diane Keaton

Featured article review/Diane Keaton/archive1

Notified: Fallout boy, Film WikiProject, Actors and filmmakers WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2006, and for a biography of a notable actress there's surprisingly been no checkup to make sure it still meets the criteria. My concerns are:

I'm seeing too many paragraphs that end without citations. There are two ^{[citation needed]} tags as well.
There are some unreliable sources used. IMDB, WordPress, and Film Reference have all been deemed unreliable
Some sections are stubby, making the article choppy.
The article doesn't use all sources available - while they may not have been published back when the article was promoted they should obviously be incorporated. This could surely be useful as a reference point.

Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Absolutely no action whatsoever, all of the nominator's concerns remain. In addition, many sources are not properly formatted, with many lacking author, publisher, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Uncleared tags; uncited paragraphs/content; original writer long since retired, leaving the article needing update. DrKiernan (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Dana boomer: I gather it's too late to save this one? I'm confused that you've delisted but the FA star and FA is still intact in article and talk page. Does the bot really take over a week? Time to sack it and get a new one! If it's still open which it seems isn't the case I'd be happy to tackle it within a couple of weeks as the Cillian Murphy article also needs salvaging. I gather it's too late, a pity. Looking at it quickly it seems sourcing is the main issue which wouldn't require too much and it could use strengthening and expansion and analysis. Perhaps delisting is best for the time being as to really do an actress of Keaton's stature justice it would really need to be thoroughly researched again which would take a lot of time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has already been closed. The bot has been super slow/not working, and I think a lot of FARs have ended up with the final processing done by hand lately. Any ideas on a new bot that could take over the work? I hope to see you working on Cillian Murphy, though, as there's still plenty of time left for that one. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely shouldn't take over a week!! Perhaps ask User:ThaddeusB or something or whoever created the related bot about the problem it's presenting. Perhaps you might get a swifter response and assistance reporting it at the village pump tech. Yes, I'll start on Murphy tomorrow most likely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]