Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Begotten (film)/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2020 [1].


Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 American experimental horror film Begotten, it had previously failed an FA nomination due to sourcing and copy-editing issues and a year was taken to assure that all the issues were resolved through thew help of various editors, and a peer review evaluation, I believe it is now ready for resubmission.Paleface Jack (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Begotten (film)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

[edit]
Film Box office publication, listed as reliable according to WP Film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Online publication previously in-print, critics and staff are considered reliable and reviews are listed on Rotten Tomatoes (which only acknowledges professional reviewers).--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable online media resource verified by Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official curative website for film screenings and film festivals.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable Secondary source, with news, and events related to the music industry.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author Blackwelder is a reliable and verified by other online publications like Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interview and website by verified professional film critic Walter Chaw (Verified by Rotten Tomatoes, which only acknowledges professional reviewers).--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightmare on Film Street is officially a part of Bloody Disgusting with more information rooted with that organization.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Online media news/editorial produced by Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previously founded as a blog, is now a celebrated online magazine that has been recognized by various other legitimate publications.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
News, and Information recognized by major publications as reliable.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On of the oldest and widely circulated magazines on media, first published in 1902.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Youtube citation is an archived podcast, I will replace that with a better sourced archive.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Educational/scholarly resource.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, and referenced in books, and news outlets.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will Remove, even if it was reliable it was never archived.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listed as a reliable source, with staff and editorials.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Schwartz is a reliable reviewer whose film reviews are officially listed on Rotten tomatoes as reliable.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a lot of issues with formatting of references - sometimes newspapers are italicized, sometimes not. Same with magazines. Suggest a long hard look at them and make it consistent.
  • Ealdgyth (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, I will do some digging on the sources I have not already verified and I will start fixing the formatting issues.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than four weeks in and no supports nor any sort of regular review comment. This will time out in two or three days if it doesn't attract more interest. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate, but I agree. Reviews are not adequate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we may as well close this sooner rather than later given the circumstances. Now because there has only been a (welcomely thorough) source review, I'd generally waive the usual two-week break before another nom but naturally we'd want to see all of these points resolved before that takes place anyway; suggest you engage with Ealdgyth on the article talk page to accomplish that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.