Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Phantom Tollbooth/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2016 [1].

The Phantom Tollbooth[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a well-beloved children's classic, that adults can happily sneak a look into without being accused of being in their second childhood. The Phantom Tollbooth, through its puns and adventures, has valuable lessons to teach. Would that I had an EZ-Pass for it! The article has had a most thorough peer review. Second nomination offered after discussion with Ian Rose.Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say in the PR, since when the article has been strengthened further. Meets the FA criteria as far as I am concerned. – SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – another peer reviewer looking in. I concur with SchroCat that it meets all the FA criteria. Lovely to have an article for FA that brings a smile to the lips. After mining disasters and formidable articles on Scouse pigeons, teleosts and whales, not to mention cantankerous playwrights, this FAC is a like a splendid sweet soufflé. A delightful article about an enchanting book. Tim riley talk 08:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your kind words and for reviewing the article there and here and (of course) for the supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Phantomtollbooth.PNG: FUR should be expanded. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded. I think it covers all the bases. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. You should explicitly identify the copyright holder - is it the illustrator, the publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can we tell? Jules Feiffer did the illustrations, but what contracts he signed is difficult to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it will say in the book itself with the other copyright information, or you could fudge the issue by using the wording suggested in {{Non-free_use_rationale_book_cover}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text added. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is beautifully written, and I enjoyed reading it. Each sentence and paragraph flows smoothly into the next; nothing jumps out to disturb the reading. If I had to point to an issue, it's an extremely minor one. There was a slight jar at "The Phantom Tollbooth is acknowledged as a classic of children’s literature" toward the end, because that point was already made with "As the book became acclaimed as a modern classic," so I wouldn't repeat it. But otherwise I found nothing to criticize. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "is" to "remains". Thank you indeed for the review. It was a pleasure to write, and I wish that was true all the time!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Soothingly brilliant, or brilliantly soothing – take your pick. I reviewed this a few weeks ago, found little fault then. I've just read it again and can't see anything that needs changing. Life would be bliss/ If all FACs were as easy as this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Thank you indeed for you comments then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

Ref 2: The New Yorker should be italicised (and maybe linked?)
Ref 5: The publisher is Dennis Publishing rather than "Mental Floss" which is the site name.
Ref 6: ISBN? Also, location given here, but not for the cited version of Juster & Marcus
Ref 14: The Independent should be italicised
Ref 43: link goes to wrong page of publication
Ref 44: What are this source's credentials for reliability per FA criteria?

It's an interview, thus a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, they may be used cautiously, and I think the use of it here qualifies. I think they are sufficiently established to get what Juster said right, and I ask no more of them.

Ref 50: Missing publisher details

Subject to above, all sources appear of appropriate quality and are in consistent formats. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, and your most helpful comments throughout. If not commented on, I've done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sources all clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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