Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Troy McClure/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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) 8:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC) [1].

Troy McClure

edit
Notified: WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject 20th Century Studios, Gran2, 2 July 2024

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because...This article is seriously not in good shape. It is not updated, has a flimsy appearance section, is poorly sourced, has improper usage of primary sources, poorly formatted citations, the lead isn't really summarized, and the reception section is almost filled with just rankings and listicles. Overall, almost the entire article needs to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Honestly, I was amazed it passed when I nominated it. And that was nearly two decades ago! I've long retired from doing anything major here so if anyone wants to do some stuff with it, by all means. This was pretty much all that existed in terms of sources then, but there's been more since for sure. Gran2 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gran2, that's not how it works. You need to give the discussion time to form. By the way, FAR is to actually make improvements to the article, not just instantly delist. 750h+ 03:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok well, either way, that was me, as the original FAC nominator and the article's principle author, abdicating any involvement in any improvement process. Gran2 14:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite what is said above, articles can be fast-tracked to delist if they critically fail; see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive2 as two often-cited examples. This article is absolutely not well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, in compliance with style guidelines, or otherwise worthy of FA. To wit:
    • "has-been" and "went downhill" are examples of an informal, un-encyclopedic tone. This is far from the only example, but a lot of it is written very informally overall.
    • Citations 3 and 4 are mid-sentence after "educational videos", which is a style violation.
    • When he auditions to voice the character Poochie... unsourced sentence.
    • Almost all of the paragraph beginning McClure's most prominent role... is cited to a single episode. Could more secondary sources be added?
    • "In other media" is only two sentences long. Could this be fleshed out?
    • "Creation" and "Development" both have multiple one-sentence paragraphs that should be expanded or combined with nearby paragraphs.
    • "Reception" is mostly cited to random listicles from sites such as IGN. Surely higher-quality sources exist here.
    • Source 11, "Simpsons Collectors", does not appear to be an RS.
    • Sources 34-37 are just obits on Phil Hartman and seem to have little weight on the character as a whole.
    • Of the 39 sources, 15 are the show itself, a DVD commentary, or an interview with Matt Groening. That's a really low batting average.
    • Overall, the article needs a substantial amount of work far beyond the scope of a FAR that I think it's almost time to WP:TNT it and start the whole thing from scratch.
  • In short, I think given my evidence above, and per what I call the "ROT13 precedent", I motion for a speedy delist. @Nikkimaria:, {{ @Casliber:, @DrKay:, what say you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DvD commentary are considered low quality right? If it is then Sideshow Bob is also in bad shape. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the use of them per se, it's that almost half the sources in the article are primary sources like that. If there were one or two citations to a DVD commentary it'd be fine. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shoe Polish and ROT13 were in worse shape in my mind - both were also broader articles. Definitely agree this needs work but it is a relatively narrow article that might be polished up with less work. Personally I think I'd let this run its course but might be swayed by other coordinators if they felt otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, should I make a page about the "ROT13 precedent"? I feel like it's something that might be called on in future FARs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC: No edits to address concerns, overreliance on primary sources, and more recent sources are not included in the article (which, for an article this short, I would expect more sources to be consulted to expand the prose). Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Troy_McClure/archive1&oldid=1243534921"