Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randall Flagg/archive7

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 [1].

Randall Flagg

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this has been sort of my 'Moby Dick' on Wikipedia as I've been trying to get this to featured status for over a decade now. I believe that this article is as comprehensive as it's going to be, featuring in addition to the fictional character history Stephen King's own history in writing him as well as analysis from critics on the character. My hope is, if the article is good enough, to either get it as featured article for the day in time for the release of the Dark Tower film in August or on King's birthday in September.CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

I've only taken a very quick skim through, but there are a few things that jump out immediately:

The referencing seems a little all over the place. Some paragraphs have citations, yet others don't. There are only two in the lede; I would go with either no citations or full citations in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are still uncited paragraphs in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In quite a few cases, citations are separated from the sentence with a space. That needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of instances of ” which should be ". Similarly, there are instances of ’ rather than '. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Characteristic of Randall Flagg is his embodiment of evil." - pretty subjective statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the subjective statement and I think I changed all of the quotation marks. I'll give a look at the references this weekend.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances in which the citation comes after the period (correct) and before it (incorrect). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"created by Stephen King." - Who is Stephen King? We need to be more precise with these sorts of things. For instance, it would work better as "created by American horror writer Stephen King" or something of that nature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

This may be more of a stylistic preference, but would it be better to move the quote box from the "Novels" subsection to the "The Stand" subsection as the quote directly deals with The Stand and the current positioning causes a somewhat awkward indentation in the subsection headings.
The second paragraph of the "The Stand" subsection does not have any references. Same goes for a majority of the "The Eyes of the Dragon" subsection. I would also ask you to look through the "The Dark Tower series" subsection to make sure that everything is properly cited there as well.
The subtitle on the Stephen King image needs a reference (for the "came out of nowhere" quote). The quote as used in the lead also needs to be cited.
Would it be appropriate to rename the "Characterization" section as the "Characterization and critical reception" section as you do include information on critical reception/feedback of the character.
In the following sentence (It was confirmed in 2016 that Matthew McConaughey would be playing the role of Walter o'Dim, Flagg's alter-ego, in the film adaptation of The Dark Tower.), please include the link to the article on the 2017 film.
I would assume that you would need a more complete caption for the Matthew McConaughey other than just the actor's name.

Wonderful work with this article. It is a very interesting read. I will support this for promotion as soon as my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will try to go through the article and address those concerns when I am able to.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence (Randall Flagg, appearing as Marten Broadcloak and Walter o'Dim, plays a significant role in the series.) requires a citation.

The above comment is the only thing that I have noticed when reading through the article an additional time. Once a citation is added to that part, then I will support this. Great work on this article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I added the citation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting it promoted and great work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

Hi, there is something "choppy' about the prose and it comes across on first read as disjointed in places. I need to digest it some more. I will try to copyedit it (please revert me if I accidentally change the meaning). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the lead like this to give it some flow.

Flagg attracts people drawn to destruction, power and draconian rule - not fond of the last...maybe "Flagg attracts people drawn to destruction, power and tyranny"..?

~~I'd use an mdash instead of brackets in the prose.~~

~~Does King ever explain his epilogue to the Stand?~~

~~The reviewers in Characterization and critical reception need identifiers~~

Overall, the article lacks in analysis - google scholar yields some items, such as this, this, this and this for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- King hasn't explained the ending of 'The Stand beyond the bit comparing Flagg to a rapidly deflating used car salesman. In terms of analysis, I honestly think the article is comprehensive as-is compared to other featured articles on fictional characters. I can try looking for more but I don't think the section is going to get much bigger than it already is (without adding a lot of overlap; when I was initially researching the article there was a lot of different people more or less saying the same thing). EDIT: Also can you clarify what you mean by identifier?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what they do, such as "NY Times reviewer" or "American novelist" or whatever...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I'll take a look at the people mentioned.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the identifiers in the criticism section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what you mean by mdash/brackets? I changed the tyranny line.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses are often unnecessary. A comma or mdash brings them "closer" to the rest of the prose, making it flow better. Sometimes the material is too tangential and might be better as a footnote or removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed every example I saw and tried to rework the sentences.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a rundown of what sort of extra analysis is needed?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters this links the Dark Tower series to the Wizard of Oz and discusses Flagg. I can try and get fulltext of this and maybe others and send to you Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if you're able to get access to it that sounds fine. Fwiw the Stringell article is already in the main one, it references her comment on "flawed humanity".--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I haven't seen any activity by the nominator on WP, let alone this review, for a week -- unless something changes shortly I think we'll just have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not able to edit as much with my job at the moment but up until the comments a few days ago I thought I had addressed all the concerns on the article. --CyberGhostface (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to tell when you haven't responded to all of Midnightblueowl's comments, or any of Casliber's -- if you've made changes to the article in response to comments, you should say so on the FAC page so the reviewers (and coordinators!) are clear on it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cas liber I haven't gotten around to yet but I left a message on midnightblueowl's talk page just so he would see it immediately. In the future I'll repost the messages here as well for the others.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this just doesn't seem to be making much progress at the moment and I will be archiving it shortly. It may be better to work on it away from FAC for a little while, maybe consulting with those who have reviewed here, then renominating after the usual 2 week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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