Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isaac Asimov/archive1

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 10:35, 13 July 2007.

Isaac Asimov

Review commentary

Notified WP Columbia University and WP Science Fiction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki alf, JHunterJ, Raul654, Anville, WP Bio, WP Atheism, WP Russia, WP Rational Skepticism notified. DrKiernan 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, for a writer of such a prolific standing as Asimov, there are far to few references. 12 references is too few. Most of the statements in this article are not referenced, and as a FA this should not be so. That is the reasoning behind this review. More citations are needed; much more. --Paaerduag 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the relevant wikiprojects, as it says on the top of this page.

Not actionable. Most of this is, evidently, from Asimov's two volume autobiography, listed, almost alone, in references; some of it I recognize. What statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged" do not have an obvious source, either Asimov or Goldman's 15-page DLB entry?

The article, can, of course, be improved; all articles can. The quotes can be sourced, and go to Wikisource; but they are both well-known, and from works which have been printed often, with different paginations. Sourcing them will not be much service to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE says that quotes should be sourced; it's utterly relevant whether you think they should be cited or not. Whatever you think or feel, WP:CITE is crystal clear on the issue. LuciferMorgan 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that WP:CITE is a guideline; but in this case, I agree it would be better away. (But this is an absurdly minor flaw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Quotations" is an unneeded section, so should be scrapped. LuciferMorgan 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are already at Wikiquote, and sourced; but "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" should stay (as part of the summary of the Foundation Series. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed to talk for now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely the direct quotations in the 'Criticisms' section should be referenced? There's also no fair use rationale in the infobox picture. CloudNine 11:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are, either in text or in a note. I suppose the Gunn could use an op. cit., since it says "James Gunn in 1980" instead of (Gunn, 1980); I'll go add one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just retitle "criticism" to "sour grapes" and leave it at that :-) Seriously, criticising one of the best-selling writers of SF ever for writing in a style his readers liked and was clearly developed for a defined and well understood (by Asmiov) market, is a weak kind of criticism. Doc Smith writes two-dimensional characters, Asimov writes three-dimensional stories with characters that have precisely as much definition as is needed to satisfy their role in the story, and no more. So they're not novels - big deal. What they are is extraordinarily good books that my 13-year-old is reading and loving despite the archaic view of future technology. Great stories, why complain that they are not more? To quote Mrs Feynman, why should he care what other people think? Guy (Help!) 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 10:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c. Jay32183 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above.--Yannismarou 13:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above. The Literary themes section without any citations looks more like WP:OR. Also, there are examples of unusual unencyclopaedic prose, "This is perhaps slightly overstating the issue...", "Be that as it may,...". --RelHistBuff 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.