Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [1].
The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) edit
- Notified: Nominator (as well as the most prominent contributor to this article by many, many edits) has been inactive since October 2017, the only other users with the most edits to this page have only made minor edits, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Horror, 2021-03-29
Review section edit
I am nominating this article for featured article review because it is another late 2000s FA promotion nominated by an inactive user that has not been checked. An attempt to discuss and address the issues on the talk page (which I started a month ago) garnered no responses. This article is C-class at best and the amount of major issues are endless. It has no representation from academic literature (of which this topic has plenty), there are un-cited statements, there are sources Nikkimaria or Hog Farm would question in an instant (Teako170.com, Box Office Story, The Astounding B Monster, Mondo Digital) and flat out would not allow (Cinebeats is a self-published blog), the prose is overly dependent quotes, reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM, the plot section is not only 42 words over WP:FILMPLOT's 700-word limit but also is a bloated sequence of events instead of a concise summary, there are bare URLs for references 2 and 3, and (perhaps the biggest issue with this article) it is extremely non-comprehensive for an article about a film by the king of horror himself. I'd love to see improvements on this, but I am also afraid that is too far away from having the gold star; I don't think a simple discussion would save it. đ¨xđą (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are also issues with overreliance on direct quotes in some sections, IMO, and several citations are missing page numbers. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - significant progress, no significant engagement. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC Lots of short paragraphs that need to be merged, plot section needs a trim and an overreliance on quotes in the "Response" section, as mentioned above. No engagement since notice was placed on talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - significant issues, minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - limited engagement to fix concerns, lots of questionable sources and the academic literature needs to be analysed. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the underuse of academic literature is concerning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2021 (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) 12:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.