Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nigel Kneale/archive1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 3 July 2021

Nigel Kneale

Featured article candidates/Nigel Kneale

Featured article review/Nigel Kneale/archive1

Notified: Angmering, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Isle of Man, 2021-03-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is bloated, with numerous paragraphs per section. The article also has unreliable sources (including IMDB) and inconsistent formatting of references. No edits have been made since I posted the notice. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This revision from the time this FA was nominated in 2007 indicates not much has change. Same amount of references, same section length. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've divide the sections further so they're not bloated anymore, but for some the body text is now all italicized. I don't know what happen, I checked and I didn't see any incomplete italics in the source code to cause that. What happen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @HumanxAnthro: - I have corrected the italics issue. There was an issue with incomplete italics in the Halloween 3 section. Hog Farm _Talk 14:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, however, that the IMDb cite issue was far less severe than I thought it would be judging by the comments made. IMDb cites were used only a very, very small minority of the time, and it turns out we probably didn't need as all they did was cite release date, Kneale and other actors and filmmakers for credits in productions. Plus, all the other sources are HQ and reliable, so this article may not be in the red zone after all. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so looking around, I'm trying to figure out what all still needs to be done here. There's two uncited spots, which I've tagged, as well as a large number of harv errors, most of which could probably be fixed by converting everything over to sfns. I haven't given this the full read-over, but this ought to be saveable, I think. Hog Farm _Talk 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The layout has been vastly improved by sub-headings, so thanks to HxA for that edit. The IMDB references have been removed, but there are some other sources that might not be high quality. One is the Quartermass Homepage (Andrew Pixley): there is a book source for this organization but I cannot determine its editorial oversight of the website. Also, is ScreenOnline high quality? Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ScreenOnline seems to be affiliated with the British Film Institute. The Quatermass Home Page is partially written by Kneale himself, so it's a primary source and usage needs checked to make sure it's okay. The source I'm most concerned about is Off the Telly. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumeably the Pixley & Nigel 1986 ref that's flagging an error should be Pixley & Kneale 1986, right? I can correct that, which will fix some of the harv errors, but since that is one of the sources challenged by Z1720 above, it may be better just to find an alternate source for that. Hog Farm _Talk 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? `Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still updating the cite format. It's just taking a little bit to do so because of multiple sources that are from the same publication and authors. We're almost there. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, Z1720, and HumanxAnthro: What's the status of this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Okay, so looking at this this isn't in horrible shape, but there's still some stuff that needs worked on here

It's unclear which source the "Hammer n.d." one is referring to, and it's flagging a no-target error.
"Dugoid & n.d. (b)." - this ref seems to have some sort of sfn error here
I'm unsure about the reliability of Off the Telly. The Quatermass Home Page is a primary source partially written by Kneale, so it's probably okay for usage here. If someone could give a look over the prose, that would be nice - I think this is close to keepable. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC - I've fixed the Hammer n.d. referencing error. The Off the Telly source is written by Graham Kibble-White, who seems to be a subject-matter expert. With the Quatermass Home Page source being primary, I think the sources are all okay enough. I can't figure out the Dugoid & n.d. reference error, but it'll probably be fine. Do you see any other things that need work here, @Z1720 and HumanxAnthro:? Hog Farm _Talk 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 * "Dugoid & n.d. (b)." - this ref seems to have some sort of sfn error here
 * I'm unsure about the reliability of ''Off the Telly''.  The Quatermass Home Page is a primary source partially written by Kneale, so it's probably okay for usage here.  If someone could give a look over the prose, that would be nice - I think this is close to keepable. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> [[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]</sub> 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
+* '''Close without FARC''' - I've fixed the Hammer n.d. referencing error.  The ''Off the Telly'' source is written by [[Graham Kibble-White]], who seems to be a subject-matter expert.  With the Quatermass Home Page source being primary, I think the sources are all okay enough. I can't figure out the Dugoid & n.d. reference error, but it'll probably be fine.  Do you see any other things that need work here, {{ping|Z1720|HumanxAnthro}}? [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> [[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]</sub> 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)