Wikipedia:Featured article review/November (film)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 02:00, 13 September 2010 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]November (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are nine dead links, including 1c issues. This article was promoted to FA status in 2005 and it hasn't been reviewed since. JJ98 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragraphs 5 and 6 of "Promotion and reception" (starting at "Marc Mohan of the Oregonian") are entirely unsourced. The Oregonian review seems to be down at the bottom as a link, when it should ideally be a footnote.
- I think the article uses direct quotes way too often. IMO, more of these should be changed to be summaries of the quotes (e.g. , something like "while Joanne Bealy said it was 'a Mulholland Drive/David Lynch copycat ... even at 88 minutes, it was too long for me'."-->"while Joanne Bealy thought that it was derivative of Mulholland Drive and that it felt too long.")
- There's a huge clump of references at the bottom that aren't being used as footnotes; more than half of them are dead, and this one points to a login screen. The few that still work should be moved upward into inline references to eliminate this full page worth of linkspam that clutters up the bottom of the article.
- Oslo International Film Festival is redlinked and cited only to that festival's website. Is the sentence about it even necessary?
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I haven't really looked at this article since I worked on it in 2005... understandably, standards have changed since then. Unfortunately, I myself don't have the time to address these concerns so I have no objections to move it to the FARC stage. Perhaps, one day, it will be FA quality once again. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my review and a review by TPH. None of those issues are not addressed. I am seeing little improvements to the article, but the dead links still need to be fixed. Until the article is improved, I can't support keeping the FA status. JJ98 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, agree with FA criteria concerns, concerns not addressed. Above issues have not been dealt with. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my review. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:41, 9 September 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.