Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion King/archive2

The Lion King[edit]

I believe that this article has went through some major changes for the better since its last nomination. The article is very well-explored, and covers pretty much every inch of the movie. Partially a Self-nomination. PlatformerMastah 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, references and inline citations are necessary. Also, images need specific fair use rationales. — TKD::Talk 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Inline cites are not strictly necessary; referencing is though. (Oh and Oppose)Batmanand | Talk 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, they are. (c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged; emphasis added. Inline citations are a definite requirement for FA status. Fieari 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - When did that change? They used to be optional but strongly encouraged (like cite.php is now). Batmanand | Talk 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - References are mandatory; the level of "inline" citations/footnotes/whatever is still a matter for debate, but "complemented where appropriate" means something short of "must". -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Suffers from overlinking; e.g. "The brother to the king". Fredrik Johansson 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can clean up the excessive linking when I have time. I think someone in an earlier message said that the article needs a little cleaning up. I can help a little. --Starionwolf 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, needs inline citations. Additionally, the "Trivia" section should be converted into "brilliant prose"... sections containing nothing but lists of facts are depreciated in FAs. Fieari 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, the article suffers quite heavily from "List-itis", and could do with some significant work there. It also includes a number of very trivial facts whose importance is not asserted. The layout could also use some work from an aesthetic point of view. It's quite crouded in places, too sparse in others, and the colors in some of the lists also clash. Fieari 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Fieari (and also please note WP:FUC about fair use images). Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - a search for 'Tezuka' on the page only finds two mentions, article can't possibly be comprehensive. --zippedmartin 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Get over it. This article is about The Lion King, not a crappy Japanese cartoon. More than one mention is ludicrous.