Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Sheen/archive1

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 Karanacs 01:41, 13 October 2011 [1].

Michael Sheen edit

Featured article candidates/Michael Sheen/archive1

Nominator(s): Popeye191 (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for the last four months and hope it now meets the FA criteria. It would be great if it became a featured article in time for the start of Sheen's Hamlet run at the end of October. Popeye191 (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web sources need title, url, publisher and accessdates

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Print sources need page numbers

Can you confirm that this is essential? I can do it if necessary at my uni library but it is a very, very time-consuming process. I was under the impression that page numbers for newspaper citations were optional, having read Wikipedia: Citing sources and Template: Cite news. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, CITE has some issues... If it's at all possible, please do include them, as they aid in verification. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News International have withdrawn their newspapers from Lexis, an archive search engine that provides pdf scans (the only such site I have access to - Factavia isn't offered by my uni). Gale is supposed to be providing pdf versions of 90s editions of The Times in the future but they're not available yet. I hope the detail currently provided will be sufficient Popeye191 (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is The New York Times, not New York Times, The Guardian and not Guardian - check similar

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers, and if so what information is included and how it is notated

All locations have been removed Popeye191 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identical sources should be combined as named references

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cite something other than his CV for award nominations?

I have looked for a different source for the MEN Theatre Award nomination. While it is mentioned elsewhere, I think Roxane Vacca Management is the most reliable source available. Would you like me to remove it? Popeye191 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose keep it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check for typos (Ex. FN 45)

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When website URLs are used instead of publishers, be consistent in how these are notated

Fixed - no URLs listed as publishers Popeye191 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in what is italicized

Newspaper titles only are italicized now Popeye191 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 69: formatting

Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes ancestry.com a high-quality reliable source? collider.com? rottentomatoes.com? about.com? etc

- Have removed ancestry.com and rottentomatoes.com references. Popeye191 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Have removed one movies.about.com reference. I'd like to leave the other reference if possible because it is the source of the original interview. Rebecca Murray conducted the interview and, from reading her biography, I think she can be considered a reliable author. Popeye191 (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Collider.com is the source of three original interviews so I hope it will be considered reliable. Collider's About Us page states that they offer "a mix of up-to-the-second links to major stories and bracing original content provided by heavily connected industry insiders". Reliable third party publications such as MTV support collider.com as a reliable, self-published source. Popeye191 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "etc" - Would you please list other sources you take issue with? Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few other sources that may not reach the required standard. Popeye191 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in how online news sources are formatted

Would you be able to give me a few pointers as to how to improve this? Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, formatting needs to be much more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review it, Popeye191 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ancestry.com provides access to primary sources. Using it is delving into WP:OR. This is not a reliable source. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches, which also verified the accuracy of some of the quotations used in the article. Graham Colm (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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