Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pauline Fowler/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Gungadin, Elonka, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Soap Operas, 13 June 2024
Review section
editI am nominating this featured article for review because the article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues, for example. It is cited as "Wiggins, p. 118" and it is not linked directly to the references at all. It has mostly been using inconclusive sources such as Sunday Mirror, The Stage, and Daily Record. Some sources might be reliable, but the contents are low quality. But sources like this [2] [3] are low quality, and most of them are pretty much dead like ref 3 and other BBC sources (there are other sources that are also dead) + questionable sources such as ref 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83 (unreliable), 88 and 89. So, this article definitely needs a lot of work in order to survive modern FA criteria. đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with this FAR. I recently had to quick fail three GA nominations of characters from this same soap opera (Gray Atkins, Nish Panesar, Ash Panesar) for largely the same reasoning: poor tabloid sourcing. The nominator of those articles seemed convinced tabloids (mostly WP:METRO and WP:DAILYMIRROR) were an appropriate source for soap operas. It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN) on whether certain British tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbh, the 3 articles you've mentioned are way better than this one (multiple dead citations). Though, sources like Metro is already classified as unrealiable should definitely be removed. đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 09:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure how helpful the comments from Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d are in this reassessment. I think Boneless Pizza is taking issue with the amount of deadlinks rather than worrying about your own GA quick fails as part of a GAN backlog drive exercise. At a glance, Boneless Pizza highlights an issue with the use of BBC as a primary source numerous times. An issue likely linked to the BBC also producing EastEnders, making it a reliable source, but a primary source. There is an obvious need therefore of more secondary sources. The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous. Successive quick failing three soap opera articles, mentioning them in an unrelated soap opera FAN and subsequently suggesting a RSN does not sound constructive, neutral or helpful. Back to the FAN, the least we can do is check if the deadlinks are archived in the Wayback Machine.Rain the 1 21:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Iâm not sure why thereâs such an aggressive tone in your comment. Among other issues, Boneless Pizza highlighted the fact the article uses numerous low-quality tabloids. I reviewed very similar articles that also used low-quality tabloid sources.
The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous
â-Iâm curious who suggested this? It certainly wasnât me. All I said there should be a clearer consensus on such sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- I disagreed with you. Aggressive is a preconceived notion. You suggested it when you advocated: "It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN)" - Consensus on sources being non-RS leads to deprecation and a subsequent blanket ban follows. This discussion is about Pauline Fowler and Boneless Pizza's concerns.Rain the 1 22:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please donât misconstrue what I said. A âconsensusâ on source reliability can have many outcomes: marginal reliability, general reliability, blacklisted, deprecation, etc. I have no dog in this fight. If the community wants to treat these tabloids as reliable thatâs perfectly fine by me. If the community wants to deprecate such sources, I am also fine with that. Getting back to the Pauline Fowler article, I share many of Boneless Pizzaâs concerns. The article, in its current state, clearly does not meet FA standards. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the usage of inconclusive sources seems to be fine at GA articles, as long as the content is not of low quality. But if it is FA, it is not. FA requires high-quality sources (the best examples of FA articles for me are Kes (Star Trek) and Jill Valentine). đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please donât misconstrue what I said. A âconsensusâ on source reliability can have many outcomes: marginal reliability, general reliability, blacklisted, deprecation, etc. I have no dog in this fight. If the community wants to treat these tabloids as reliable thatâs perfectly fine by me. If the community wants to deprecate such sources, I am also fine with that. Getting back to the Pauline Fowler article, I share many of Boneless Pizzaâs concerns. The article, in its current state, clearly does not meet FA standards. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagreed with you. Aggressive is a preconceived notion. You suggested it when you advocated: "It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN)" - Consensus on sources being non-RS leads to deprecation and a subsequent blanket ban follows. This discussion is about Pauline Fowler and Boneless Pizza's concerns.Rain the 1 22:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Iâm not sure why thereâs such an aggressive tone in your comment. Among other issues, Boneless Pizza highlighted the fact the article uses numerous low-quality tabloids. I reviewed very similar articles that also used low-quality tabloid sources.
- I am not sure how helpful the comments from Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d are in this reassessment. I think Boneless Pizza is taking issue with the amount of deadlinks rather than worrying about your own GA quick fails as part of a GAN backlog drive exercise. At a glance, Boneless Pizza highlights an issue with the use of BBC as a primary source numerous times. An issue likely linked to the BBC also producing EastEnders, making it a reliable source, but a primary source. There is an obvious need therefore of more secondary sources. The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous. Successive quick failing three soap opera articles, mentioning them in an unrelated soap opera FAN and subsequently suggesting a RSN does not sound constructive, neutral or helpful. Back to the FAN, the least we can do is check if the deadlinks are archived in the Wayback Machine.Rain the 1 21:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbh, the 3 articles you've mentioned are way better than this one (multiple dead citations). Though, sources like Metro is already classified as unrealiable should definitely be removed. đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 09:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please remove px from the images in §Marriage to Arthur Fowler and §Deception, reclusiveness and death and observe MOS:IMAGESIZE. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. No motion on the article since it was nominated here, except for a couple of edits three weeks ago, which even then made no substantive changes. ââSerial Number 54129 13:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC No recent edits to address issues. I think there is too much in-universe information on the character's actions. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No recent edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist original research concerns as well, with "this parallel symbolized" sources only to individual TV episodes. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 16 August 2024 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 August 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.