Wikipedia:Featured article review/But I'm a Cheerleader/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) 4:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [1].

But I'm a Cheerleader

Notified: Belovedfreak, WikiProject Film, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-12-05

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sections, the lede is quite short, and various references are missing information (like author name). The "Critical response" section also suffers from frequent "X said Y" formatting. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a decent start-class article that has been written by a fan. If you fixed it up a bit, it would qualify for B class. Come on, The Daily Illini is a student newspaper. The three articles cited for "one of the best LGBT films" are listicles. I'm getting tired of seeing Wikipedia constantly state, in its own voice, that because a listicle (or a few listicles) included something, it's now considered "one of the best". GAs and FAs should cite a film scholar or academic source to say that it's the best. Not listicles. This is very easy to do for films that are actually considered "the best". The listicles could stay in the article, assuming they're going to reliable sources instead of content mills, but they should be moved to the reception, taken out of the lead, and attributed. Like: "The film was ranked as one of the best by X, Y, and Z". Also, the fact that a critical reassessment happened seems to be original research. If a couple sources write retrospective reviews and include it in their listicles, that's fine, but that's not a critical reassessment. A critical reassessment happens when Variety or The New York Times says "the film was reassessed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I found:

Lead is way too short.
I took the student newspaper and the listicles out of the lead as they were bad sources "confirming" facts not found in the body.
Removed sources to Amazon and Geocities.
Tagged several [citation needed]s.
Soundtrack is missing an infobox.
Several sources are missing work/publisher attributes.
Is Rainbow Network a RS? It currently redirects to a malware/scam site.
Is shoestring.org a RS?
The whole "reassessment" section is OR.
Over half the sources are interviews or directory listings. Certainly needs more in-depth sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per the above: some edits from DrKay to restore content from the FAC but more work still needs to be done, and I don't think anyone is working on this. Z1720 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per Z. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm _Talk 19:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FAR section above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist concerns remain, not much progress happening. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2023 (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) 04:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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