This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 11 June 2007 (moved Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cult film to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cult film/archive1: GimmeBot moving subpage to /archive1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 02:07, 11 June 2007 by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) (moved Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cult film to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cult film/archive1: GimmeBot moving subpage to /archive1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Cult film
A very well-written and researched article on an interesting topic. (Ibaranoff24 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
- Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
- Object for the follwing reasons: 1) Has no references or inline citations as required by criteria 2c of the Featured article criteria. 2) The lead at one sentence long does not summerize the topic or prepare the reader for more detail later in the article (criteria 3a).
3) Image:Rocky Horror Picture Show Cover.jpg contains no copyright information or fair use justification.A more detailed review of the article is pending these issues and the issues listed on the article's talk page related to removal from the good articles list having been addressed. --Allen3 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)- I added the "DVD cover" tage for the image in question. (Ibaranoff24 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
- Object - Lead is far too short. Additionally, much of the article consists of those lists... there are more names of famous actors and directors it seems than actual discussion of the concept and phenominon, which makes me believe that this article is not comprehensive. Fieari 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Object - Agree with Fieari, the lead is short and the article has too many lists. Also, there is no references section. RyanGerbil10 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Object for the very reasons that I had delisted it from the GA list before: lead is to short, no references of inline citations, and weak writing. The article again jumps around from topic to topic without explaining or going thoroughly. Plus, it didn't go through Peer Review yet. AndyZ 13:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Is peer review essential before an article can be featured? Aspern 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not 100% essential in all cases, but when there are obvious problems with an article and no peer review was held, referral to peer review is common practise. Going through peer review first with any article trying to become featured is a very good idea... very very few articles have gotten through the process without one. Fieari 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nowhere near 100% essential. Some authors like to have an article looked over by other interested editors before they nominate; others don't bother. At the highest, it is considered to be a good practice. The fact of the matter is that an article is subjected to a much greater degree of peer review on WP:FAC than on WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not 100% essential in all cases, but when there are obvious problems with an article and no peer review was held, referral to peer review is common practise. Going through peer review first with any article trying to become featured is a very good idea... very very few articles have gotten through the process without one. Fieari 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Is peer review essential before an article can be featured? Aspern 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Object per above. Short lead and non-brilliant prose. (This unsigned comment was by Staxringold 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC))