Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ian McKellen

Ian McKellen[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

somehow i doubt that this entire article was written from one single interview source. if it *was* then i seriously doubt the reliability of much of the article. an encyclopedia requires distance from the subject, just quoting primary source material only is unacceptable, especially when it comes from an agenda-pushing publication. it certainly fails FAC1, far better biographical articles exist; it fails FAC2 on numerous counts, being non-comprehensive (over-domination of sexuality issues at expense of anything else - did this guy's long life and career only amount to this?), what about critical reception, both positive and negative, for instance? factual accuracy is dubious if all info comes from one LGBT magazine, the lead fails to summarize the article failing FAC3, fairuse images that are tagged with invalid templates, failing FAC4, and even then no rationale is given, finally it is far too short to meet suitable length criteria (failing FAC5) - most of the article is padding with an extensive list. in short, not FA material. Zzzzz 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

remove per nom Zzzzz 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom --Subsurd 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom: too much reliance on one source, too much mention of his sexuality, not enough mention of his work as actor. Why does each section need to mention what relationship he was in at the time? There's a hint of POV in this article. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. -Mask Talk 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nomination. ~Linuxerist L / T 17:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - the nomination sums up my opinion quite well. Rossrs 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]