Wikipedia:Featured article review/She Shoulda Said No!/archive1
- 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 kept by User:Dana boomer 15:14, 28 September 2013 [1].
She Shoulda Said No! edit
- Notified: WikiProject Film
This was promoted in 2007 - since then, a number of problems with the article have arisen. Several references are unreliable (Amazon.com for starters) and others are dead. The sections also have different amount of length, for instance, the plot and reception section are relatively tiny compared to the production section. Overall, some improvement is needed. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment - This nomination is on hold until a reasonable amount of time has passed for the talk page notification to be read and replied to. Dana boomer (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No replies were made to the talk page notification in the intervening week, so the review may now progress. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not deeply familiar with the article. However, the complaints don't seem tremendously relevant. It's a short article so a short lede is expected. Amazon.com is referenced exactly once, and for the rare fact that makes sense to reference to Amazon.com - a rerelease of a movie, where all that needs be proved is the date and that it's being sold. The fact is somewhat trivial, so WP:BOLDly remove the sentence if you find it so objectionable? Dead links are additionally explicitly NOT reason to strip FAC status, or even to remove the reference - to do so would presumably require removing things like book references which also lack an active link. Additionally, there's no expectation that sections be the same length. I highly doubt there's much more plot to be explained that could be interesting for such a simple movie. "Overall some improvement is needed" is far too vague. SnowFire (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article per Snowfire's statements. All sources, even Amazon.com, are reliable, and saying that this isn't a featured article based on length of sections and lead is just bullshit. 和DITOREtails 01:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dana boomer, I would like to withdraw this featured article review, please. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.