Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soprano Home Movies/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 by User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013 [1].
Soprano Home Movies[edit]
- Notified: RalfiParpa, WikiProject Television
Review commentary[edit]
I am nominating this featured article for review because... yikes. Loads of sections are unreferenced, an overlong plot (it's over 900 words - this even goes over WP:FILMPLOT), the first reference appears to be WP:SYNTH, and the image fails WP:NFCC#8. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nick-D I don't think that this is even a B-class article, and would suggest that this move to FARC immediately given that it would need to be almost entirely re-written to regain FA status. My specific comments are:
- I agree with all the points raised by Taylor above
- In terms of referencing and style, only the Reception section is of GA or higher standard. But I don't think that this is a FA standard article section as it includes only US ratings figures and critical comments, and the critical commentary covered is limited to what was published shortly after the episode aired - I imagine that there's material in the more recent academic and critical analysis of this series which could be drawn upon.
- Having 'First appearance', 'Deceased' and 'Title reference' and 'cast notes' sections seems pretty clunky, and is not a suitable way to structure a FA article
- The material on the episode's production is pretty brief, especially given that this episode marked the start of the final series to be filmed - I imagine that more could be written about this. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The version that passed FAC is much more pleasant-looking. But given that there has been much scholarship on the show over the last five years, it's still not comprehensive enough.122.174.21.237 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Concerns raised in the review section dealt with referencing and coverage/organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I'm with the IP on the top saying that the older version of the page being more pleasant looking compared to this one. If someone were to go back and retool the article like it was before, make it more comprehensive and add more citations in it, its possible to reclaim its status, or at least GA status. But for now, I believe it should be demoted. GamerPro64 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist This article no longer meets the FA criteria, nor even the B-class criteria and there has been no recent work to improve it. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2013 (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) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.