Wikipedia:Featured article review/Douglas Adams/archive1

Add links
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 00:47, 1 September 2009 [1].

Douglas Adams[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: JohnDBuell, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Monty Python, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London

1c) Undercited - in my opinion, there are facts that need citations. I am listing only a few examples. There are many throughout the article:

  • "A version of the revue performed live in London's West End led to Adams being discovered by Monty Python's Graham Chapman."
  • "He had been wandering the countryside while carrying a book called the Hitch-hiker's Guide to Europe when he ran into a town where, as he humorously describes, everyone was either "deaf" and "dumb" or only spoke languages he could not understand. After wandering around and drinking for a while, he went to sleep in the middle of a field and was inspired by his inability to communicate with the townspeople. He later said that due to his constantly retelling this story of inspiration, he no longer had any memory of the moment of inspiration itself, and only remembered his retellings of that moment."
  • "A postscript to M. J. Simpson's biography of Adams, Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams, provides evidence that the story was in fact a fabrication and that Adams had conceived the idea some time after his trip around Europe."
  • "This was an entirely original work, Adams' first since So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Reviewers, however, were not as generous with praise for the second volume as they had been for the first. After the obligatory book tours, Adams was off on his round-the-world excursion which supplied him with the material for Last Chance to See."

1c) There are uncited quotations. Here is one example:

  • "After graduation he spent several years contributing material to radio and television shows as well as writing, performing, and sometimes directing stage revues in London, Cambridge and at the Edinburgh Fringe. He has also worked at various times as a hospital porter, barn builder, chicken shed cleaner, bodyguard, radio producer and script editor of Doctor Who."

3) File:DNA in Monty Python.jpg - I am unconvinced by the need for this non-free image. I agree it is cool, but I'm not sure it meets WP:NFCC #8.

1a, 1b, and 2b) Comprehensiveness and structure:

  • The sections on Adams' writings do not explain what they are about, their themes, or his writing style. I would cut some of the details about production of Hitchiker's, for example, and describe the series/books themselves.
  • The "Doctor Who" section is poorly organized. Much of it seems to be an assortment of trivia rather than an explanation of precisely what Adams' involvement was with Doctor Who. There are several very short paragraphs that reveal this.
  • The "Music" section seems to be given a lot of space in the article when it is actually just a collection of rather random facts. Much of the information seems relevant to the articles on Hitchiker rather than this article (it explains allusions, for example). I would suggest removing much of this material.
  • I'm wondering if the "Computer games and projects" section should be integrated into the biography proper. Right now it is a prose list. If it were integrated into the biography, it would help the reader understand when particular events happened in Adams' life.
  • I would suggest integrating the "Personal life" section into the biography proper. Too much of Adams' life is fragmented in the article right now to properly understand it.
  • I do not think that the "Biographies" section is necessary, as these are sources that the article should use.
  • I'm wondering if the "Tributes and honorifics" section should be deleted. It seems as if this is WP:TRIVIA.

1c) Sourcing: I checked the MLA database and there are scholarly articles by literary critics on Adams and his works that should be a part of any biography on him. None of those are used as sources in this article, therefore it is not "well-researched" and does not represent a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic".

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The signature in the image is legible, so it doesn't illustrate illegibility. The image does not illustrate the point being made. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Links 27 and 40 are dead.--andreasegde (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with Awadewit's observations. This article has ballooned up from 62 kB when it was passed as FA to 213 kB now. I believe it needs to be reorganized, cleaned of cruft, the prose polished, and facts and quotes need to be properly cited. There are unreliable sources like a yahoo user group. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, comprehensiveness, quality of research, structure alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, and 3. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per concerns raised by Awadewit and others. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Matisse appeared to be doing some work on it, but he hasn't edited it in a week. Many of the concerns raised in the first part of the review remain. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delsit. Per Awadewit. Her concerns are not being addressed. The section "Tributes and honorifics" is a trivia section containing cruft having nothing to do with tributes and honorifics. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Douglas_Adams/archive1&oldid=1088720474"