Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration spectacular/archive1

Restoration spectacular

Restoration spectacular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Restoration spectacular

• Featured article review/Restoration spectacular/archive1

Notified: User:Finnusertop, User:Bishonen, User:Geogre, User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Rjensen, Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia:WikiProject London, Wikipedia:WikiProject England.

Review section

Nominating due to unresolved problems with tone and flowery language. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

This writing is just atrocious for an encyclopedia article. Leaving aside neutrality, I could barely understand what was being discussed from the lead, and to the extent that I could this is more an essay. Restoration comedy, while not an FA, is much better written in that I could more easily deduce that a type of play is the subject of the article. While I don't entirely oppose flowery language in an FA, there's a way to do it (Chartwell) and a way not to do it (this). Notwithstanding all that, the last two paragraphs are completely uncited. Overall, this needs work to even be a Good Article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm

Oh goodness, this is just a mess. Large quantities of uncited text, there's some points where statements don't seem to be supported by the citation (see reference 9), the whole thing is written like an essay. This is far from even a GA. 2005 promotion where no significant comments other than categorization were brought up. Definitely not an FA under modern standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod

A vintage piece from 2004. Unless User:Bishonen feels like doing a lot of work integrating the huge number of academic sources used into inline citations, it's probably best to leave this alone, allowing it to slip beneath the FA waves. The results of today's generation of nit-pickers crawling all over it are unlikely to be beneficial. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and style issues. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)