Wikipedia:Featured article review/Michael Tritter/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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [1].
Review section
editI am nominating this featured article for review because...It is not comprehensive enough, and the prose doesn't read well, and it feels like it just lists everything. "Entertainment Weekly stated that Tritter annoyed House more than any other character, and Variety considered her a "worthy foe"." This is not reception at all, and why was he a "worthy foe"? "Staci Krause of IGN found the first few episodes of Season 3, in which House recovers from being shot, more interesting." This is not him but from the episode. "Tritter all the more scary."There is clear evidence that the article is not comprehensive and has prose issues. đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My general impression of this article, after a quick skim, is "shrug". I don't have any sourcing concerns. I am unsure what else can be added to the article, but I am not well-versed in pop-culture articles about fictional characters. The "Reception" section could use a refresh using the advice from WP:RECEPTION but it's not terrible. There have been no edits since it was posted to FAR as of this comment. I am going to defer to others who are topic-experts: I have no strong feelings, but barring additional concerns I'm OK if this was kept (although I would not suggest this go up to TFA). Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps @HTGS can respond here. đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 11:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC while my opinion on the quality of this article can be summarised by the word "meh", Boneless's concerns have not been addressed, which makes me think that no one is maintaining the quality of this article. I think FARC will be a good avenue to determine if this should be kept. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On comprehensiveness, some additional references were suggested last year[2] but they contain nothing that's worth adding to the article. I see nothing egregious in the prose that I can point to and say 'that needs rewriting'. The article is what it is: a brief summary of a minor character in a once-popular TV show. It's not a great subject matter, but it seems to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HTGS can you respond? đBP!đ (đ) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; there's nothing glaring here that stands out to me. Sure, it could possibly be polished up a bit with the reception, but I'm not seeing anything worth delisting over. It's honestly about the best that I would expect an article written about such a microscopic and ephemeral topic could be. Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I donât spend much time with featured article evaluation, but on prose I see no major errors, and the writing is fine, but not at the level I would personally consider worthy of feature. My interest in removing the articleâs featured status is maybe more bureaucratic, as its status has been pointed to at deletion discussion before as a valid reason to keep. Personally, I just donât think a character that relies on a collection of sources that are essentially 1) the episodes themselves, and 2) blogs and TV Guideâtype rundowns, is worth keeping as an independent article. It has spun a tapestry out of straw; it makes a lot out of a subject that has been treated very thinly by independent sources. None of the sources discuss the subject with the depth or analysis that one would expect for an article of this length. I donât honestly know whether this is good enough reason for an article to fail to be given featured status, but it feels like it should be. (I guess this is FAC #4? Again, Iâm far from a regular here.) â HTGS (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I feel similar to Hog Farm. This is about as good as this article could be, and the article would probably pass AfD if proposed. This is probably as complete as it is going to be. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.