Wikipedia:Featured article review/Poppy Meadow/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: M.Mario, WikiProject EastEnders, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Soap Operas
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article is not looking in good shape rn. Many poor-quality sources are being used, including unreliable ones like Metro. For ex. ref 1, 3, 5, 6?, 7, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 34 and 37 (dead sources), 39, 43 (also dead), some at 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 64 and 65. Aside from those sourcing issues, the Storylines section wasn't fully sourced and the quote boxes seem odd including the image sandwich. đBoneless Pizza!đ (đ) 12:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note - per the storylines guidelines at WP:SOAPS and per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the storyline sections do not need sourcing, as watching the show acts as a source, so that should not be an issue.
- I will have a look to see if any of the refs can be replaced. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. I first looked at this fleetingly and thought maybe it was a keepâgiven the subject matter is utterly trivial, I wouldn't expect the sources to be high quality. Tabloids and TV magazines are going to be the highest-quality sources available for this type of content. However, having read in depth the lead and first three paragraphs, I can't bear to read any further. While disinterest in the content explains part of my lack of engagement, I also feel that the prose itself is not engaging. There are so many quotations and within text attributions that the overall effect is somewhat tedious. While the lead states that critics found the character's introduction "bizarre and utterly irrelevant", this quote is not found in the article body or the source given at the end of that sentence. This is because the mention in the article body and the original citation were removed during a clean-up of deprecated sources. Citations to the Daily Star remain, although the Daily Star was deprecated in a 2020 RfC (after the article's promotion). Similarly Metro was deprecated in 2022. The article would, therefore, appear to fail criteria 1a (engaging prose) and 1c (sourcing). DrKay (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - in addition, this article repeatedly cites Daily Mirror, which probably doesn't meet the high-quality RS standard for FAC. And yes, I know that this is likely the best sourcing available for this topic, but 1) if the corpus sourcing available for a topic does not meet the FA standards the answer is to not have that article subject as a FA, not lower the FA standards and 2) if information can only be supported by crappy tabloid sources, we really should be thinking twice about if that information belongs in an encyclopedia. Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.