Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randall Flagg/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia (02:32, October 25, 2008) [1].

Randall Flagg

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:CyberGhostface (talk)
FAC1 FAC2 FAC3 (16:00, 27 February 2008)

Self-nomination This article has been improved a lot since the previous nomination (User:Bignole helped out a lot) and I believe that it now fits the Featured Article criteria. In addition to a summary of the character in all his media (books, comics, film), there is also concept and creation, literary discussion and impact.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on images: There are an excessive number of fair use images. One image for identification, no one will begrudge. But the variations of the character don't significantly increase our understanding of the character. Image:FlaggMovieSheridan.jpg could be replaced by a free image of the actor, as there isn't much in the way of unique and distinguishing items which are essential for a nonfree image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has the same number of images as Palpatine and two less than Jabba the Hutt, both featured articles. If push comes to shove, I suppose the comic cover and maybe the Fangoria cover could maybe go. I think the image of Sheridan as Flagg should stay, especially as Jamey Sheridan in real life doesn't look much like his portrayal of Flagg.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number, per say, but how they are used and if their usage is defensible. I suggest reading WP:NFCC as well as featured content dispatches regarding nonfree images. As for the other featured articles, another article is not always a reason for any editorial decision, particularly since those article were promoted in 2008-- standards at FA have noticeably increased since then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, I'd be willing to remove the two magazine covers (I personally think the Fangoria cover is a nice addition, but if it has to go it has to go) and that would leave three fair use images. The first main image, I don't think anyone's arguing. The image of Walter, I think, is necessary mainly because in terms of the character he looks and acts different from Flagg and by the end of the series he was the definitive form for Flagg. As for Jamey Sheridan...if say, it was Bruce Willis instead and he looked no different, I'd perhaps opt for a free picture. But a lot of the characteristics of Flagg (such as the long rockstair hair, which is explicitly mentioned in a review on the article) are exclusive to Flagg and not to Sheridan. Short of someone releasing a picture of Jamey Sheridan in character during shooting into the public domain (which I don't think exists, and considering the film was made over ten years ago, probably won't) I don't think a free image of him would carry the same effect.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 22 (Schedeen) is lacking a last access date.
  • Current ref 25 (Wyss) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 38 (Peckham) is lacking a publisher
  • Decide if you want to list the references last name first or first name first to be consistent.
  • YOu need to say who the "another reviewer" is in ref 39.
  • Current ref 41 is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 42 is lacking a publisher (and what makes htis a reliable source?)
  • http://thedarktower.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=15493&st=0&#entry676271 deadlinks and what would make this a reliable source, as it appears from the URL to be a forum post?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsarama is a reliable source, it's basically a news site. In this case it it was an interview with someone working on the book. As for the forums, the artist of the final Dark Tower book posted his thoughts on the forum. The forums are down now, though. I added his quote to make the reception of Flagg's death more neutral, as most of the reception I found were negative. I'll take a look at your other comments later.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I addressed the problems.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ref 39 is lacking a publisher (I missed that one the first time around). I'm not sure what makes this a noteworthy review? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if push comes to shove, I can remove the review. I was asked to find reviews that explicitly mentioned reaction to Flagg's death in the final book, and very few did. I think all the reviews mentioned in the article are all that I could find. But it's not the end of the world if it goes. The same, I suppose, for Mark Shreeve. I don't know if his liner notes would count as a reliable source, but if not, I can remove his mention as well.
As for Newsarama, Wikipedia's article on it states "Newsarama has been quoted as a source of comics news by the mainstream media, including The New York Times.[1] In 2006, Entertainment Weekly listed Newsarama as one of its "25 favorite online entertainment sites"[2] and the American Library Association lists it as a research resource in the field of comics.[3] A subsequent Entertainment Weekly update also included Newsarama in their list "100 Greatest Websites".[4]" (The numbers, of course, link to websites)--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I made the objectionable material hidden for the time being until I can back them up later with reliable sources.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the newsarama stuff you found works for me, so it's fine as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Found additional refs which might help.

  • On The Notions Of Good And Evil In Stephen King’s Fiction
  • The Twilit Fringe-Anthropology and Modern Horror Fiction doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1989.00115.x
  • The Stephen King Universe

--Stone (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. The first essay is already mentioned in the article in the characterization, and while I haven't read the SK Universe in a while, it is mentioned as well as the people who speculated that Flagg appeared in Hearts in Atlantis. If push comes to shove, I'll get it from the library, but I don't recall too much critical commentary. As for the "Twilit Fringe", it does mention Flagg but it seems I have to pay to access it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. A quick look at the lead shows that redundant wording is a problem.

  • I hate "various" novels ... don't you know how many? And why not remove "been" from that sentence?
  • "His second appearance was in Eyes of the Dragon, this time appearing as". Do we need "this time"?
  • "attempted ... attempt" in one sentence? Easy to conflate (I'd reverse the clauses).
  • "Aside from King's novels, Flagg has also made appearances in". Why "also" and "Aside from"?
  • "Later on, he attributed Flagg's creation to"—The opening two words are a rather exposed fuzzy chronological statement, which MoS doesn't like. Better as "He later attributed", if it's clumsy to be more precise here (presuming the info is further down and referenced).

You may wish to run through these exercises to cultivate the redundancy radar beam. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to run through and fix? It's 30 to 60 minutes' work for a skilled editor. Tony (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as stated earlier in the article, there is no clear answer as to explicitly how many novels Flagg has appeared in. For example, King doesn't explicitly identify Hearts in Atlantis as featuring Flagg in it, but he implies it and other sources have picked up on it. But it's not an "official" appearence. But I'll look at your article and see what I can do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any groups/people that look over articles? I know there was the League of Copyeditors, but that's defunct.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Randall_Flagg/archive4&oldid=1077422473"