Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tintor2 (talk | contribs) at 22:14, 20 September 2009 (please give a claim and write in a formal tone). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:14, 20 September 2009 by Tintor2 (talk | contribs) (please give a claim and write in a formal tone)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Oroonoko

Toolbox
Notified: Geogre, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Novels

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails the featured article criteria, primarily criteria 1c. The article contains numerous unsources statements, with many sections being wholly unsourced.

  • The first paragraph if Biographical and historical background - entirely unsourced. All but one sentence of "Fact and fiction in the narrator" - unsourced.
  • "Models for Oroonoko" - all but a few sentences, again unsourced.
  • "Slavery and Behn's attitudes" - two sentences cited, the rest not.
  • "Historical significance" not a single citation.
  • "Literary significance" - two cited sentences.
  • Three cited sentences in "The New World setting" - the rest not.
  • "Character analysis" has one whole cited sentence.
  • "Women in Oroonoko" appears to possibly be cited, but with the issues in the rest, I'm inclined to think its only those three sentences that have citations
  • "Adaptation" uncited except one sentence.

It also fails criteria 2a - as the lead does not summarize the article adequately, or really at all. The second paragraph focuses on the author's history rather than the novel. It fails 2b in that it lacks the basic novel infobox. Being an older FA (passed in 2005) it does of course lack alt text on all images, though by itself would not be a reason to delist.

Attempted to tag the article for needing references to give time for improvement and left a note explaining the problems on the talk page, but tag was removed and was attacked for it by another editor who claimed "you are merely vandalizing the page by adding what amounts to graffiti. Please either list your concerns so someone can address them, or cease this" despite my having already listed the areas uncited (same as I've now noted here). In my original message, I noted that if the article was not corrected soon, it would be brought to FAR for review and delisting, but no work was done, only attacking me for daring to point out it does not meet the criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)