Wikipedia:Featured article review/Karen Dotrice/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 Raul654 17:11, 1 February 2010 [1].
Review commentary
edit| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: listed WikiProjects. Author completely retired in mid-2007 and resigned his admin tools.
Article has unsourced sections, the fourth cite is dead, and some of the sources are unreliable such as christopher-plummer fansite, the disney fansite, and her father's website. Unsourced information on second marriage (and therefore divorce) and quotes. I have no clue if it is comprehensive or not, but it is very short YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- In my opinion, wikipedia should not have two fair-use files that show exactly the same thing: one of File:Dotrice Garber.jpg and File:Poppins Kids.jpg should be deleted.
- The fair-use rationale for File:UD 5 Lily.jpg is weak, because the photo only shows Dotrice's face: the image shown has no bearing on the costumes, makeup or visual style of the show. On the file page it even says "public domain images have been located for the subject of the article". So, there is no need to use fair-use images to depict the subject's face, and no basis for the claim of fair-use. DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree with Yellow Monkey. This is way off a FA. The prose is thin and unpolished not to mention very sparse and short. Even if reference and image issues were sorted it just lacks the quality of an FA. Support delisting. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested featured article criterion concerns are uncited passages, reliable sources, copyright, comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, concerns about images, referencing issues, comprehensiveness. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, Only bot edits since FAR was listed, nothing done to resolve the issues listed there. Major issue is lack of references, especially for quotes, and unreliable references. Secondary issues include lack of alt text and improperly formatted citations. Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, no improvements since nomination, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Comments not addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my nominating statement YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:36, 1 February 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.