Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WALL-E/archive2

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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [1].

WALL-E

Nominator(s): Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/WALL-E/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because this has to be one of the most detailed article on a Pixar film I have seen (the closest to this is Ratatouille, but it's not that detailed). This article is kept nicely and hasn't experience an edit war for a long time (I don't think it ever had an edit war). Bottom line is that this article should be nominated as a featured article. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Even though I didn't significantly edit this article, I have permission from Immblueversion, who has.

Comment - Did you ask the other primary contributor? ceranthor 22:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Artical looks fine for a FA if it is worked a bit more:

The see also section is not normally used in GAs or FAs.
- Correction: the see also section is normally not used only if the links it contains are already in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the dissenting reviews could be merged to the review as it is a small section compared to athoers, that is everything i can think of to do, every thiong else looks fine to me. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Simply because the plot section is too long. BUC (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
- File:WALL-E-Only-Takes-a-Moment.jpg appears to fail WP:NFCC#8.
I could make arguments that the number of images fails WP:NFCC#3a, but I wouldn't pursue them very strongly. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Oppose, largely on 1c Again, too many non-notable and non-reliable sources used in a pop culture article. Just about stopped short of suggesting a withdrawal beacuse of the nice shape it was in at GA [2]. What happened??

There's other ones which only meet the guidelines by the skin of their teeth. The film has had major international coverage and to use such quality sources is a pretty much a crime in my opinion.

There's major formatting issues, too, but they are largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. RB88 (T) 22:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hugo Awards website? You're challenging the website to the actual award? Box Office Mojo has been deemed a relaible source for many many years. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources and Their About Us page. Quick question, are you looking at the sources you're pulling or just grabbing every website-based source on the page? I don't mean to be rude, but some of them have "About Us" pages that would quickly answer any reliability issues. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Hugo Awards was a blank page/deadlink. Must have mixed it up with other points I jotted down and the sources bit. The Box Office Mojo page does not establish too much. It's basically saying "look how great we are". Ideally, we need third-party reliable sources using their material or covering them. And I take your comment as a bit of an insult. I went through every single link one by one and scouted all their contact/about us pages. There were other ones I could have added, too, but decided otherwise as I concluded their reliability to be marginally OK. RB88 (T) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But here is the problem. Some of the sources--like BOM--have been around for years and their reliability firmly established. What you are saying is that either every single article that cites BOM, or every single FAC, will require additional sources just to verify that BOM is notable enough to cite? BOM has been around film pages for as long as I can remember, and it's hardly every considered unreliable for box office information. Especially when it's often cited in the news, and it's own by IMDb, which is owned by Amazon, which satisfies the issue of a major company owning the source and it not being some independent party. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - All you needed to do is provide those links. I said I was open to changing my verdict provided the proper information is seen. Also, it now means that there's precedent so that it does not have to challenged in the future. RB88 (T) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Challenged by who? You're the first person I've seen in a very long time challenge BOM, as its reliability has been established for years. Is there some central hub that provides a list of reliable sources, some list that BOM was never put on? If not, then it technically doesn't clear it from any further scrutiny. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A central hub is not a bad idea. I do keep a diary with all the reliable entries as I find out in discussion. User:Ealdgyth does the same I believe. So, I guess it won't be challenged by us but maybe in the distant future by some other upstart source editor. Who knows? But at least, you have the sources ready and this discussion to use. RB88 (T) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.