Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palpatine/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by FACBot (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 16 February 2018 (Archiving 'Palpatine'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Star Wars
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because... many people have edited over a period of time that may have deteriorated the quality of the article, that is why I believe that this article should be reassessed.
- Hi Eltomas, can you clarify which of the FA criteria you feel are not met, and could you please notify relevant WikiProjects and editors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it feels like it's poorly written and doesn't really have that much detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to co-opt the FAR or anything, but I've also got my concerns about the article. I've brought this up on the Star War WikiProject before, but off-the-bat two(-ish) of my main concerns as far as FA goes:
- It's not comprehensive. I don't seriously expect an article on a character as widely-appearing as Palpatine to list in detail his every appearance in tie-in media. However, the only video game mentioned is the just released Battlefront II; it would surprise me if this was Palpatine's only notable appearance in the medium. The article's Legends "literature" section hasn't really changed that much since 2006, which while obviously not inherently a problem, leaves me wondering if any gaps have emerged. More importantly, I find the "In popular culture" section pretty shallow. Now, for its contents, that should probably be renamed "Cultural impact" -- but that's simple to change. My more drastic concerns: currently the article simply mentions two instances of Palpatine being referenced in politics, and one FOX editorial briefly mentioning the comparisons he's been involved with. Fine enough, but the lead is arguing that Palpatine's "become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception, dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy". Has the article proved so? There's also a minor dab of analysis in there two about dualism, but it's really not built on or supported with talks from other sources, so it really just ends up highlighting a gap. I understand that some of historical comparisons are discussed and mentioned in the Characteristics section, but I really feel there should be more to talk about here. Palpatine is not an obscure figure, and I expect more to back up his status as an American icon, etc.
- It's poorly structured and kind of unfocused. More minor, it's sectioned kind of weirdly: Rebels and The Clone Wars have their own subsections, while the "Prequel trilogy" is pretty sprawling. The infobox is so dense with different portrayals that it's not really useful as an infobox. (I'd be open to limiting it to just McDiarmid and maybe Eaton/Revill, but there are others that could be worth including.) More importantly, I wonder if we really need to give Palpatine's appearance in Tartakovsky's Clone Wars such depth. A TV miniseries is probably more in the public eye than a lot of Star Wars books, but we don't really need to recap it completely and currently it's got an image drawing attention to it -- a fair use image that I'm concerned isn't properly justified.
- I haven't really thoroughly combed through the article, but my gut instinct is that it probably doesn't really deserve its FA status by current standards. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Millionth One: I think I agree that it needs some work. I think given that concerns have been raised in the past we will let the FAR process proceed. I can see the Character creation section needs some inline cites and possibly some expansion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of paragraphs seem to end without citations, maybe it is ok for summaries of various media, but other sections also lack them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include organization, comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist—issues not addressed and nobody seems particularly interested in working on it. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Whole sections are completely unsourced (see the clone wars sections for example). The article does not do a good job of addressing Cannon vs. Legends distinction (a relatively new development that basically affects all previously listed Star Wars articles). Lots of additional stuff has been created regarding the character since it was originally listed as FA, and the article has not kept up. Quality has declined. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.