Wikipedia:Featured article review/Brian Close/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 removed by User:Joelr31 23:02, 7 July 2008 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Notified Wikiproject Biography and users Peanut4, Mattinbgn, Asenine, Crickettragic, Chanheigeorge, GrahamHardy, Fieldgoalunit, NinetyCharacters
- This agreeable article has only two in-text citations in over 5,000 words of text. Its sources look meagre, given the material available. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Brian. The citations need help, and fast. There is no way that this should be a featured article at it's present stage. Asenine 09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize, but there is no way in my opinion that this article should have ever been featured with its lack of citations. I wouldn't have personally even raised it beyond B class, certainly not GA. This is about the revision that was promoted to FA class, and it certainly is not up to scratch in my opinion. I will gut the article full of citation needed tags to identify where citations are required, that will be a start. SGGH speak! 10:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also fansite tone issues in places, weasel terms ("many consider him" etc.) areas where attribution is needed, and a number of external links that need to be made into footnotes. SGGH speak! 10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and no images. I think it had some at the time of FAC, but no longer. Eeeek, it is in dire shape! SGGH speak! 10:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure this is salvageable without a complete rewrite. There is a good base to work with but the lack of in-line citations combined with prose issues will make this a protracted task. The fact that this was promoted is a demonstration of the improving standards at WP:FA, standards this article surely fails to meet at present. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Holy cow. It illustrates how much FA standards have risen in just a few years. When I took a first look at the article, I counted 55 citation tags and a weasel word tag. As for the external jumps, I counted 20 of those. I'll format the jumps at some point, but since I'm not a cricket fan, I'm not the editor who is going to save this one (and it needs saving). Giants2008 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added those when I came to this FAR, but the issues were all there at the time of FAC SGGH speak! 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the external links in the text are now citations. One link was dead, and the website looked unreliable, so I replaced it with another cite tag. Giants2008 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added those when I came to this FAR, but the issues were all there at the time of FAC SGGH speak! 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is overlong in my view and contains to much that is known but not exactly verified. Close is a character who generates 'tales'. For such a long article it is rather lumpy and in my view does not really give a rounded view. However it could be edited into shape. Close is a major figure.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: I mentioned the meagre nature of the sources. Any attempt to resurrect the article should be based on much better source material. Close was indeed a major figure, in international and in county cricket, and I would expect a featured article to have much more authoritative sources, e.g. Wisden's Almanack for the appropriate years, English test cricket histories, county histories for Yorkshire CCC and Somerset CCC, etc. The autobiography mentioned is a self-justifying account, which I would not accept as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am gradually working through, trying to get the text up to standard, increasing links, etc. I have grave doubts about the Australian Tour section, however, which reads like it is based entirely on Close's own account. Citations for this material must come from other sources. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Been all through, now, got rid or more of the "lumpy" prose. I've added more links, but more citation tags, too. It will need a real cricket lover to bail this one out.Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am gradually working through, trying to get the text up to standard, increasing links, etc. I have grave doubts about the Australian Tour section, however, which reads like it is based entirely on Close's own account. Citations for this material must come from other sources. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) Joelito (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: On three grounds:-
- Lack of citations
- Poor choice of sources
- Prose of substandard quality
Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - not only are there a lack of sources, substantial sections have a "sports magazine" style tone, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, some of the content is BLP-violating, eg, claiming that Close was contemplating suicide. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Citation, wikify and tone tags need clearing. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.