Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween III: Season of the Witch/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 removed by Nikkimaria 23:51, 17 June 2012 [1].

Halloween III: Season of the Witch edit

Review commentary edit

Featured article candidates/Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Featured article review/Halloween III: Season of the Witch/archive1

Notified: dream out loud, goolcap, williamJE, Simon Peter Hughes, marnetteD, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Science Fiction

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns of Dream out loud (talk · contribs) from the article talk page:

I wanted to nominate this article to be on the Main Page for Halloween, but after skimming through it, it really needs some work. There are a bunch of issues that go against FA criteria, which I'll try to address here before going to WP:FARC. Since this article doesn't seem to be maintained, I will go to WP:FARC if there are no detailed replies anytime soon.
In-line references – Many statements lack references throughout the article. There are really too many to tag, so I'll just place a notice at the top. Simple as that.

Sources – There are currently 36 different sources cited in this article, which is not very many. By comparison, Laserblast, which is a much more obscure and little-known film, has 69 references and is not yet a featured article. Additionally, many of the sources that are present are not reliable sources. This includes six IMDb references, which do not satisfy WP:IRS.

Non-free media – A few non-free images do not seem to satisfy non-free content guidelines. This includes a cropped screenshot of Tom Atkins's character, which does nothing more than identify the actor in the role (who has free media available). There is also an image of John Carpenter composing the music on a synthesizer, but that image really isn't needed to illustrate the fact that he composed the music on a synthesizer. I think the second half of that last sentence summarized it quite well.

I'm not involved with this article or Michael Myers-related. However, the post was added in October 2011, and seven months have passed without issues resolved, as I checked the history page, and with maintenance banners still standing. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree that the article does not meet the criteria to be Featured. It's not a bad article but the reasons for it not qualifying for Featured Article status are clearly listed above. I would say that what it most badly needs is more references from published books.

Incidentally, all the edits that I made to the page were purely cosmetic.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides a couple of one-sentence paragraphs, the prose doesn't look too bad. However, some sections such as "Box office" and "Poster artwork" look rather short.
The links to WatchTheMagicPumpkin.com should probably be removed.
The citation format is very ambiguous. "So forth and so on, quoted at X" is not the proper way to do it.
Many citations to IMDb that should be replaced.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns listed in the review section include issues related to sourcing, prose and images. Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}
Delist for now. Needs another peer review the next time the content has improved. I will put one of non-free images under review for NFCC. Also, someone has reverted the article back to what it was when the article was nominated as a Featured Article, yet some tweaks were made. Nevertheless, no substantial improvement was made. --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: No issues were addressed, and the article clearly does not meet FACR, anymore. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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