Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karen Dotrice

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Karen Dotrice[edit]

Recommended changes made. Vote ongoing. RadioKirk talk to me 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-self-nom: This article just underwent massive retooling with immeasurable help from JoaoRicardo (talk). I believe this is ready, and I hope you do, too :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Hmm, nice attempt but sources are scarce, sections are too short and the lead is very choppy. The article needs to be expanded quite a bit, the article is much too short to become featured at this point. There is no apparent information about her personal life. Refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 07:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope this page will be reviewed for what it does offer rather than what it doesn't. Absent sending an e-mail to Ned Nalle and doing my own research (which is discouraged), this is pretty much all the relevant information available. RadioKirk talk to me 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you've got an issue with the FAC comprehensiveness requirement, then say so. ;-) Seriously, though, I thought there might be a bit more to be said about her. For instance, "Dotrice later starred as Alex Mackenzie in The Thirty-Nine Steps (1978), her only feature film as an adult," disappoints. Would there not be some review of the movie which would comment on Dotrice's performance? How did the movie perform? Would it hurt to have a brief (one-sentence) description of the plot or Dotrice's role (beyond the name of her character)? In addition, as Wackymacs said, the lead is rather choppy and needs to flow better. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL well, I would argue that one can be comprehensive within the parameters of limited data, but I'll see if there's something I missed somewhere... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out you both were right *blush* RadioKirk talk to me 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per Wackymacs. Also, ideally footnotes should be using the native format available in MediaWiki now (see m:Cite/Cite.php). Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: References fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weaker) Object as per first nomination; I find it impossible to believe that none of the reviews/commentary on the theatrical/cinematic projects she appeared in made any evaluations of her art/craft as an actor. With so little commentary/review material online, I believe the article needs a stronger foundation in print sources for review/commentary to meet the FAC comprehensiveness requirement. This is a problem with many Wikipedia articles on older pop culture subjects. Monicasdude 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Monicasdude 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Me, either; Maltin's was the only one I could find. I'll keep looking...
Edit: Argh! Finding a contemporaneous review (or a recent one by anyone of note) that doesn't gloss over Dotrice's performances is almost impossible. The one I did find is downright bland, but, it works. RadioKirk talk to me 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following changes:

  • Looks better, and I now only weakly object. I'm not very happy about the lead as it is - it could be consolidated into one or two paragraphs and be a better summary of the article. The information on Dotrice's family is also out of place. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it! Lead less choppy but not too short; expands on Othello (how did I miss that before?). RadioKirk talk to me 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be more comfortable supporting if the lead were one or two paragraphs instead of a bunch of disparate sentences thrown together. Aside from that, everything looks to be in order, and once that's fixed, consider this a support. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just reread it and I can't think of a thing to change; it's a tight, concise summation of her entire life and career. If you have suggestions, by all means, hit my talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I did some work on the article myself. JoaoRicardotalk 15:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article, lots of footnotes. Banes 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good, quotes look nice, footnotes and such. Pictures look setup right. Good job overall.--Azathar 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (for now) I don't think this is comprehensive yet. There are only four lines under 'early life', the 'television' section could surely be expanded etc. Compare the featured articles Bob Dylan or Humphrey Bogart. Mikkerpikker ... 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. This bloody thing may be the death of me... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive and written nicely. Gflores Talk 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having merged the lead per Wikipedia:Lead section, though I absolutely agree with previous requests for filling out early life. Staxringold 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I promise, if I ever find anything else, I'll include it ASAP ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on your talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that the claims of fair use that are now present could be a little stronger, though right now they appear to be adequate. Extraordinary Machine 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Karen_Dotrice&oldid=1136458441"