Wikipedia:Featured article review/Fairy tale/archive1

Fairy tale

Fairy tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Fairy tale

• Featured article review/Fairy tale/archive1

Notified: Goldfritha, AtticusX, User_talk:DavidOaks, WIkiprojects: Novels, Literature, Children's literature

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because, the article has descended from Featured article quality. In particular, the comprehensiveness of the articles is much lower than our standard for such a broad scope article: only two academic approaches being highlighted, one of which is almost entirely unreferenced, and verging on OR (or at least appears to be). I am also worried about the contemporary literature section: it only deals with two genres, and doesn't do so with much sophistication. Adaptation of fairy tales is quite heavily explored in academia, especially with the recent surge of television adaption work like Grimm and Once Upon A Time. Moreover, that section in particular, is very poorly written and organized. I really don't like demoting articles, but this appears to be one long overdue... it needs the attention of an expert, who really understands the field (and how it has changed since 2007!), Sadads (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sadads, welcome to FAR. It looks like you've missed the first step of discussing the issue on the talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for highlighting the process. However, there has been no serious discussion on the talk page for years, and the article proper hasn't received any substantial edits other than vandalism reversion. There does not appear to be a community to notify via the talk. I escalated, with the assumption that no-one would see this as just a talk page discussion, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comments I think a deal of work is needed, possibly too much for talk page discussion - structurally it is now poorly laid out, with similar material either repeated or far apart - e.g. the Terminology section repeats material from Definition and History of the genre - its material should be split and merged to reduce and consolidate. The Cross-cultural transmission concerns origins so should be moved chronologically up the article. Association with children section is a bit all over the place - Disney material appears in two sections. Modern material should be organized into new representations of old material and new fairy tales. The motifs and the Interpretations sections should be further up the article as they are critical to the plots as it were. Also, I am a little surprised the article passed FAC with so many opposes. And then there is comprehensiveness - e.g. African/Asian material, synthesis into American culture (e.g Uncle Remus stories) - relations to myths etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review phase include referencing, comprehensiveness, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delist. Quite a few major issues and no progress apparent. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delist. Too many issues have been raised to permit this to continue to retain FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delist. No-one working on issues raised above. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• 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. sadly, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)