Wikipedia:Featured article review/Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None/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 delisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review commentary
[edit]Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this featured article for review after auditing the article and raising several issues at the talk page. The major glaring problem is with the prose, which is full of awkward, dense and redundant syntax. The Gameplay section is poorly organised and difficult for non-players to follow, because many game mechanics aren't explained clearly and the section wanders off into irrelevant development facts that are in the wrong section. The plot is unsourced and disproportionately long. The reception section is too brief and and poorly organised. There are dead links and inconsistent date formatting. The lead is broken up into five choppy paragraphs when it should be ~3. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't formally tack down a Delist vote yet, but I agree that this page doesn't come close to FA-compliant. Tezero (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page is currently being edited by the GOCE. Let's see how that goes and then reassess the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'd prefer copyediting to be done last, but okay. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's in very bad shape, but it doesn't seem irredeemable. Sourcing has a ton of bad links that need archiving, as well as a few dodgy outlets that could be replaced, but none of that would require a major rewrite. Given the massive GOCE copyedit going on right now, I think this article might have a chance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The GOCE c/e is done and that has improved the article in some areas, but I think the issues that I raised still stand. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Concerns raised in the review section deal primarily with the prose, organization/coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist article is underreferenced (my main concern is "Setting and characters" subsection), and plot is bloated. I also agree there could be more detail on reception. This article would automatically fail a GAN in its current state for its "unreferenced section" tag. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, as per nomination. The article in its current state would barely pass a GAN, let alone a FAC Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist My chief concern is not that reliably sourced information is missing from the article, but that there is not enough good information out there to construct an article worthy of FA. Notably, there is very little content in the article linking the video game to the book, or describing its relationship in the larger context of text adventures and mid-2000s gaming, as one would expect from a work of art. Much of what a reader would expect from an FA is missing here. Shii (tock) 21:53, 29 September 2014 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.