Wikipedia:Featured article review/Film Booking Offices of America/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 by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 0:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [1].

Film Booking Offices of America

Notified: WP Companies, ‎WP Film, no other active significant contributors ‎

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its FAC. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, this is a 2007 promotion, on only three supports, so should receive a full review, including images. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The size is manageable (atypical for this nominator), and has not changed significantly since the article's 2007 promotion. Inline citations were just coming in to requirement when this was passed, and it appears they are covered here. Table of contents is reasonable (an issue I find on other DCGeist articles).

On scanning the citations, I noticed that one is a "note", so went to see how it was being used:

The first of R-C's own feature productions to be released was The Wonder Man, directed by John G. Adolfi and starring Georges Carpentier, which debuted May 29, 1920.
- REF: For a description of the film, see the anonymous New York Times review, May 30, 1920 (available online).

The cited source does not verify if was R-C's first, nor does it name the director. So, WP:V should be reviewed more thoroughly.

I cannot decipher what this sentence wants to say, and the source is paywalled:

The business began in 1918 as Robertson-Cole (U.S.), the American division of a British import–export company and Robertson-Cole was formed by the English-born Harry F. Robertson and the American Rufus Sidman Cole.
- REF: "Screen; Again the import tax". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
  Rephrased, and took out mention of Rufus Sidman Cole, who is not mentioned in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I skipped down to one section, where a prose issue was found:

With Thomson's personal contract with Kennedy due to expired in mid-1927,

So, a complete review is in order, and it would be grand if someone had access to the hard-print sources for Verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, "due to expired" was introduced in 2014 here, ie well after the first retirement.. While I am the last person on earth to degenerate on typos and confused spelling, I don't think they were a feature of Geist's work. But, on the other matters, I don't have access to the sources, and agree, a full review would be no harm. Have the noms watchlisted and will give views. Note, I'm not that enamored by edits since he first retired (as apposed to his recent quote "retirement" unquote), so might in the end urge review of a roll backed version. As time goes on and articles depreciate, I guess this will, alas, become more common. Note also, I am not seeing these through rosy glasses of nostalgia, being disillusioned by the cross over in the two account's editing. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I was doing an image review, and couldn't find the sources in the article that support the statements in some of the image captions. For example, where is the source for the dates for the introduction and abandonment of the logos? There is a film poster from 1926 shown in the article, but the logo on the poster is not the logo shown as being from 1926. Nor could I find where in the text it tells me that Brent was in 14 films or Tyler in 29 or Karloff in 6. Nor do I see the source for the six years given in the Tarzan caption. On looking through the footnotes, it is not clear whether there are sources for the editorial comments in footnotes 8, 12, 23, 27, 33, and 50, or whether these are original research by the article's writer. DrKay (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, pinging @Dweller, AaronY, and Ceoil: as y'all participated in the FAC - can you comment on the worthiness or otherwise of this article for the shiny star? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 15 August 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) 20:58, 20 August 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.