Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randall Flagg/archive3

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 not promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Randall Flagg

Self-nomination. I have worked hard on this article, and believe it qualifies for FA. I have already successfully nominated it a Good Article. This article, in addition to coverage of all of Flagg's appearances, includes commentary by Stephen King as well as some critical analysis. Unless Flagg is to appear in another work of fiction, I don't see what else could be added to the article in terms of content.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I admire the editors' desire to improve this article throughout the nomination process and their efforts to track down research, this article is clearly still in the development stage.

1a) The article is not yet well-written. For example, the lead is poorly organized. It goes from the specific to the general - it would be better to list Flagg's names and general appearances and then his specific goals in each of King's works. However, the most serious organizational problem relates to the "literary analysis and criticism" section. This section is, at present, mostly a prose list of quotations. The material from this section should be integrated into the article. The article is, currently, almost entirely plot summary. The balance needs to shift from plot summary to explication of the secondary sources. The first two sections ("Concept and creation" and "Names and appearance") are a good start but the they would be better followed by sections such as "Anti-hero".

[copied from previous nom] Every once in a while, the language of the article starts to reflect the language of King himself. Be careful to keep the language encyclopedic. For example: In the 1969 issue of Ubris a poem was published by Stephen King called "The Dark Man". The poem tells of a man who wanders the country, riding the rails and observing everything around him. The poem turns sinister - "riding the rails" and "sinister" may not the be the most appropriate diction

1b) This article focuses predominantly on plot summary. The editors, while recently adding some material from literary scholars during the previous nomination, have only begun this process. It takes time to do research. I myself looked over several of the books on Stephen King available in my library - some that the editors have used - and there is much more information available on Flagg. One of the article's problems is that it is relying so heavily on quotation, instead of paraphrase, in the literary criticism section.
1c) I would say that this article does not yet "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on Randall Flagg. I have every confidence that the editors are working towards that and can achieve that end in a few months, but at this time they have not yet.

[copied from previous nom] I am still not convinced that an online chat is considered a reliable source.

3) While I know less about non-free images than other editors, eight non-free images does seem excessive. I see that the editors have chosen one image from each major work, in addition to derivative works. However, as this article is not about the artists, I'm wondering if that justification will hold, particularly as the article does not discuss the artworks in any depth. I believe with non-free content that images have to have a purpose that is beyond illustrative. Note, for example, that at Wikipedia:Non-free content it says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I'm not sure if all of these images do that yet. I think perhaps they could if more commentary were added about them, however. Awadewit | talk 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) The plot summary should be much shorter and the explication of the reliable sources - the foundation of all wikipedia articles - should be much longer. That is the most important change that needs to take place in this article. Once the editors have completed their research, this change can be made.

I look forward to seeing this article at FAC again, when the editors have finished their research and reorganized the article. Awadewit | talk 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I concur with Awadewit. I was supporting previously, but she has brought me around to her point about sourcing. The concern is serious and I don't think the article will be ready until some significant academic research takes place. This is actually part of a larger problem - there are other FA candidates posted even now that have completely unsourced plot sections because it has become acceptable to use the author's interpretation from primary sources.--Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments
- 1. Flagg has appeared in ten novels, one movie and one (out of a future seven in total) comicbook miniseries. There is bound to be a bit more plot summary than, say, a character who has only appeared in one novel. I've seen overlong plot summaries in which every minute detail is written verbatim. This is hardly the case here. As it is now, the only really long section is The Dark Tower and thats because it encompasses seven novels. Even then, one of the more lengthier parts (Flagg's death) focuses more on the critical and fan reaction than the actual event. And the majority of the film section is conception and response to Flagg's portrayal and barely any plot summary at all.
- 2. I've attempted to paraphrase more and quote less in the analysis section. Short of paying 20 dollars for individual books in hope that there might be a paragraph or two for use or traveling to different states to use their libraries, I've pretty much exhausted most of the potential resources. I've read pretty much most of the Stephen King books available to order from my library system. Laser brain was also kind enough to get a hold of the one single article available in the MLA for me. Right now there are seven different sources, and there will be eight once I add the final essay. The section's already pretty lengthy as it is. How much more are you expecting, exactly?
- 3. I still don't know why an online chat that Stephen King himself participated in wouldn't be considered reliable, especially since the person who published that transcript has personally interviewed Stephen King twice. Carnivale, a featured article, has sourced a number of facts from messageboard postings by the show's main writer.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:56, 23 February 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.