Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)/archive1

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows. Sandy 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article fails to meet criteria 2. (c) which a featured article should meet, which is as follows;

"factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged.

Within the actual article, there particularly are no inline citations to compliment it, which I feel should be thoroughly addressed. LuciferMorgan 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that, despite being mainly responsible for the page, I support its removal as an FA. It was written some time ago now, when I was much newer to Wikipedia and not so adept at referencing my contributions, and when the FA standard was lower. I'm afraid I lack the time currently to try and save it as an FA, but hopefully at some point I will go back over it, fully cite it and try and re-nominate it. Angmering 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'd like to say that this review is to get a consensus of editors as to how to improve the article, not whether to remove it, as its not an FARC yet (if ever). I welcome Angmering's brutal honesty though, it's real commendable. LuciferMorgan 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nominated this article for FA review, not one edit has been made to improve it. I'm keeping an eye on the situation, though if no edits have been made once the two week period is up (I nominated it on 23rd July) then it should be possibly moved to FA removal candidates. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concern is 2c. Joelito (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry Lucifer that no one got around to work or comment on this at all—perhaps a victim of our over-loaded FAR page. Obviously, it does fail 2c (inline citations) but its not entirely irretrievable. The coverage of background, production, broadcasting, and reaction seems sound. The most obvious gap, however, is that there is no description of what actually occurs in the play. "Subversive nature and horrific content" is quite intriguing, but it's never laid out what happens exactly except for a couple of examples in the reaction section and elsewhere. Marskell 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's ok that nobody got around to working on it (I haven't had the time really), and I would agree with your comments that it isn't irretrievable. The background, production, broadcasting, and reaction, is sound (may need some inline citations but that's it really). The plot does need addressing though. I hope the user who nominated this does find the time one day to bring it up to scratch and possibly renominate it as an FA. LuciferMorgan 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c and 1b. One edit in a month. Marskell 08:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove no change, no improvement, no one working on it. Sandy 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - No inline citations, images lack fair use rationale. Pagra shtak 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]