Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:23, 29 May 2022

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:23, 14 April 2009 .

Restoration comedy

Review commentary

Notified: User:Bishonen

While this article's content is probably fine, it contains no inline citations, only a list of references at the end. The article was promoted to FA status in 2004, when standards on referencing were much lower, and it would not pass muster today. Inline citations are necessary because the reader cannot be sure that all the information in the article really is supported by the books listed at the end. The article should not remain an FA unless this problem is rectified by knowledgeable editors. talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If is "probably fine", then I suggest you take yourself off and find one that is probably not! Misplaced Pages has a 10,001 and more pages that are abysmal - have you some objection to criticising them, or if this page upsets you so, getting a few books and sourcing the cites yourself? If not, assume good faith, and trust that an editor of long standing such as Bishonen may just possibly be telling the truth and using the references that she has listed. If you don't want to do the hard work yourself don't ask others too. Giano (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that people who know the subject well (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. Downstage right (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::::I suggest you read Featured article review Buckingham Palace so that you know what is in store for your nomination. Buckingham Palace was nominated on similar grounds. The editors who rose in defense are predicted to be the same group as for this one. Don't take it personally. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I humbly strike the above comment and apologize to all concerned. I regret saying that any of the editors that posted in defence of the other article would post in mistaken defence of this one. I wish User talk:Downstage right) good fortune in improving this article along the lines he is suggesting. &mdagiesh;Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm... you wish Downstage what? S/he just mentioned that s/he doesn't have the knowledge to improve the article. If you're apologizing in all seriousness, this would be the place for it, btw. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

That was nominated by you trolling, Mattisse, no one beleives anything else for one second. Giano (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They "are predicted." Wow. That's the kind of intellect we need assessing articles. Someone who can manage such prose surely out to be sovereign. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine. It has "inline citations." It lacks footnotes, and these are not the same thing. As for greater precision in the citation, it's not necessary. All things have their sources. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have inline citations. You seem to be mistaken. Having said that, an editor has now added footnotes to the first half of the article, so it looks better now than it did yesterday. Downstage right (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Downstage, could you please list, at the top of the nomination, the editors you have alerted to this FAR? (That would be me.) Please see the FAR instructions, and compare the way it's done with other articles on the list. The anonymity you shroud me in ("an editor") seems a little pointless. Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

Apologies.Downstage right (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Problems - Reads more like an essay/term paper than an encyclopedic entry (lines like - "wrote Robert D. Hume as late as 1976"). Tone needs to be changed. The literary criticism is far too short. There is very little academic opinion. Too much plot summary. Things like "Example. John Vanbrugh, The Provoked Wife (1697):" have problems with Undue and Original Research. The Actors section starting with "first actresses" is POV and undue. The lead serves to introduce information not found within the article and contains an explanation for the name not found, which goes against WP:LEAD. Sources used are not current nor reflect the majority thought. Even the Hume citation does not reflect the majority of his work. Article needs a major overhaul to be brought to standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per 1c. After reviewing the article, I must agree with some of the concerns raised by Ottava Rima, primarily the issues with comprehensiveness (1b) and the lead (2a). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist mostly per comprehensiveness. Sources could be argued as not needing inline, but the sources do not adequately represent current criticism, the majority of criticism, the history or criticism, or anything that could be considered "comprehensive". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Wake up & keep How much longer are such pages as this to be listed by people who have not the foggiest ideas concerning the subject. There are squeals from those who have such yawning gaps in their education that they cannot recognize an obvious fact if it punched them in the face or more worryingly prefer to assume bad faith of the respected editor who wrote the fact in the first place and has looked after the page continuously ever since. Just as we had to endure Mattisse's time wasting trolling at the FARC of Buckingham Palace so it seems is a great article being denigrated here. No wonder so many of those who know their facts and history can no longer be bothered to waste their time writing FAs, when the ultimate result is to be dragged to this lowly page for the insults of the opinionated and semi-illiterate questions of of the ignorant. The simple truth is (and I hope those that take such pride in being in charge of such a sewer of a Misplaced Pages section as this are noting): pages such as this are far too good for Misplaced Pages. This page belongs in a a text book out of the price reach of those who rely on and need Misplaced Pages, so think on that before you delist it. If authors decide to take and re-focus their future high standard works away from Misplaced Pages towards other publications, then I blame this page and those who permit ignorant ill-informed comments, such as some of those above, entirely. Giano (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  I think my recent work with Henry Fielding's early plays and the 15 related pages shows that I understand the theatrical criticism of Hume, no? So, if your comments apply to some, it doesn't apply to all. The article needs to be critically updated as it is lacking a lot of information on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - per my agreement with the FA criteria concerns of Cirt, Nishkid64 and Ottava Rima. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some commentary moved to talk page. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note to YellowMonkey - I will not be nominating, nor commenting or voting on any more FARs, as I am tired of Giano and his group making personal attacks on my entries. I can't go running to an admin each time to try to get personal attacks noted and moved. There is no civility maintained here. User:Lar has pretty much said that User:Giano II, despite arbcom rulings, is just to be ignored as a pest. I am not willing to do that. The atmosphere is too unpleasant. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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