Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2012

Kept status

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 Dana boomer 13:47, 27 June 2012 [1].

Byzantine Empire

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Yannismarou, User talk:Dr.K., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries ‎ , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece

Extensive problems with sourcing: "Reconquest of the western provinces ", "Macedonian dynasty and resurgence" (completely unsourced), "Wars against the Muslims", "Relations with the Kievan Rus'", "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" (also unsourced entirely). Raised sourcing problems on talk page and they haven't been tended to.
"Division of the Roman Empire" needs a copy edit. Several sentences in a row begin with the same words. I also see several standalone sentences.

Rewritten and sourced.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Roman Emperors.org a reliable source?

Did you check the source? Because it is indeed reliable. All the biographies I used (during the previous FAR) from this site are written by prominent scholars. For instance, Justinian's biography is written by J.A. Evans who has also written this book. Why is the book more reliable than the online biography, when the latter is written by the same person and it is properly cited? Anyway, I already replaced the Roman Emperors.org citations, but now that I think again the whole issue I honesly believe I lost my time and I shouldn't have done it. Your other concerns are indeed valid, but on this one you are wrong.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links need an overhaul. There are way too many, including some on personal websites on mac.com.

They are not too many, but they do need an overhaul, but this is no major issue for the FA status. I'll check them one by one after the weekend.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last FAR was in 2007.

Five years! Hmmm ... It seems we did a great job at the time. Didn't we?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced sections are my main concern, but a copy edit is also in order in parts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section is way too long. It is unnecessary to repeat links that occur in the text or in the navboxes. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above remarks. And these are not the only problems. E.g. the article has far too many photos, and even the ones that will finally stay need some rearranging. According to the new standards, Brittanica should be replaced as a source and some other citations also need corrections, additions of pages etc. etc.

The main problem of the article is that there is no editor constantly looking at it and fixing any problems arising. During the last FAR, I had worked my ass off to upgrade it, and, along with other editors, we had managed to save it. I wish I had the time to do it again now, but I haven't. I wish somebody else will undertake the "dirty work", because it is one of the richest articles of Wikipedia and "it would be a pity to lose it" (as another Wikipedian had said in a previous FAR).--Yannismarou (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing about previous checkpoints such as FACs, FARCs and GANs is we can compare versions and easily and systematically review additions and subtractions - this might facilitate this whole process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to work a bit on the article during the weekend, since I have some new additions in my library which might be helpful. But no guarantees that I'll do work finally! During the weekends, I often get lazy!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun working on the article, and will continue doing so over the next few days. I re-wrote and sourced the intro to the Macedonian Dynasty section, and plan to eventually source the entire section, as well as copyedit it along the way. I think the sourcing will be the hardest part, the external links, see also, and copyediting are easier to deal with. Though I don't have much time, this is an extremely significant article and it would be a real pity to have it delisted. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, when adding sources, try not to mix references styles. I think its better to stick to Harvard which has become the standard for this article.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to use the cite book template and then use harvnb, because I figure I would use the same source throughout the text. Is that ok by you? Athenean (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds logical!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Then, at least for the time being, I let the "Macedonian Dynasty" chapter to you, since you already started it and look eager to continue. It's pointless and counter-productive to work both on the same place. I'll focus on other issues and problems of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have a great source for that section. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou and I are working our asses off adding sources, re-writing, and generally doing everything we can in order to keep the article. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my principle not to update until I am done with what I'm doing; and I am not yet. Athenean accurately described what is now happening in the article. Progress while our work is still in progress can be checked in the article's "History". Everybody's comments to what we are doing are not only welcomed but expected and needed. We are not infallible (although it's not my first time here!) and we need your advice and guidance. My full update will come, when I'll feel confident to say that now this article is close to my expectations and to the high standards I have set for it. Now, back to work ... --Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I'm wondering about all day, and I would like to have the opinion of Athenean and the other experienced reviewers here, because, before getting it out of me, I can't go to bed: I gave a great deal of thought about the utility of adding two sub-sections in the umbrella section "Culture" about Law and Demographics. The first subject is very interesting, since during Byzantium Roman law never stopped developping, and, as a matter of fact, the Justinian Code formed the basis of most modern Western law systems and jurisprudence, and the Basilika were officially the law of modern states (such as Greece) until the early 20th century. There is thus useful information and a subject worth analyzing per se. As regards demographics, modern bibliography offers a great deal of information (numbers, nations, evolution etc.), and it is an issue inherently linked to aspects of Byzantium that are the main focus of moder research, such as economy, sociology and culture. They are thus both issues deserving our attention as editors and worth reading by those "surfing" in Wikipedia. My reservations in adding them are due to the current length of the article. "Byzantine Empire" is a big article, but, do not misunderstant me, as I argued in the previous FAR, the article deserves its length, and almost every line is useful, since we deal with a multidimensional topic that is not easy to cover, and, in this case, comprehensiveness demands and deserves length. The question is "should we make it lengthier" or, by doing so, we are risking to make it exremely and inadequately long and therefore tiring for the reader? If I add these section, shall I serve or undermine comprehensiveness? This is why I hesitate and this is my dilemma.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to announce that the entire "Macedonian dynasty" section and all it's subsections are now expanded, fully sourced, and largely re-written. I think next I'd like to source the "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" section. I think that should address all the sourcing issues raised by Ten Pound Hammer. By the way, if there are several consecutive sentences sourced the the same source, I usually include a citation only at the end of the last sentence so as to avoid overciting, so some sentences may appear unsourced but in fact that is not the case. Athenean (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll return to work a bit more on "Culture" after the weekend. But the article already looks (to me!) much "shinier".--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yanni, I don't see anything wrong with adding those two sections, particularly the "Law" section. Yes, the article is long, but I don't think it is that long that it is starting to become a problem. As long as the sections are of reasonable length, I don't see any issue with them being added. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! I'm back! Give me five more days!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:)! Athenean (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Could we get an update on how work is going on this, please? It's great to see this article being worked on! If you all are close to done, it would be nice to get some outside reviewers in to check for any final issues before we close out this review. Dana boomer (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I still need to source the "Komnenian Dynasty and Crusaders" paragraph, but other than that I think the article is in good shape. I will be real busy with RL stuff till the end of the month, but I should have that wrapped up by the first week of next month. Athenean (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just completed the sourcing of the Komnenian section, as well as polished the article here and there. With that, I believe all the concerns raised by the FAR have been addressed. Athenean (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no pressing issues now. As far as I can see, all my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent timing, I was literally seconds away from requesting closure of the FAR. Athenean (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

There has been significant progress during the review stage, and for that I thank the main editors working on the article. I would like to see comments from additional reviewers, though, and so am moving the article to the FARC stage. If comments are not forthcoming, the article will be kept, but it would be nice to see some additional opinions! I am hoping that this move will stir a few more reviewers... Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my concerns have all been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:06, 30 May 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.

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 Dana boomer 12:35, 17 June 2012 [2].

Mysore

Review commentary

Notified: Amarrg, Dineshkannambadi, IMpbt, Abhishek19288, Wikiproject India, WikiProject Cities, WP Karnataka

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over 4 years since this article was featured and drastic changes in FAC have been brought about in the interim period Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick glance and found the following issues with the article

The lead does not summarize the civic administration, Demographics, Business and Economy, Education and Media sections.
There are large chunks of unsourced texts, particularly, the first paragraph of "History" section, the first paragraph of "Business and Economy" section, the last paragraph of "Education" section, the last paragraph of "Tourism" section and whole of the section on "Information Technology".-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have requested that the nominator complete the notifications of involved projects. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dinesh is long gone, notifications to WikiProjects listed on the article talk page are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC with a problematic note: nothing whatsoever has been done to improve the deficiencies since this nomination was listed, so it should Move to FARC. However, it was once considered an abuse of FAR process to overtax editors working in a particular area, and it was customary to avoid having multiple FARs in the same area up at the same time, since that pretty much guarantees editors who work in that area won't be able to respond. There are currently THREE Indian city FARs on the page. Bad practice; in the future, nominators should be encouraged to wait a few weeks if editors in a given area are already hard at work on saving one star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment One thing was done, 8 days after the nomination the appropriate wikiproject was notified.
- It's very difficult to edit articles on South Asia on en.wiki. It's probably safest (as in least likely to send packing editors with knowledge of South Asia) to demote it.
- I was able to easily fix some listed problems on today's main page article, Vijayanagara Empire. The only hard part was finding the prior editor's incorrect fixes. How many editors can make those fixes quickly? I'm okay with referencing things, but I often need titles translated to add the references, and other editors are very impatient. I work full time. I can't fix a major article in 5 days. This requires library research, not on-line research. Last time I spent the time to check out books, I got dissed before I could add the sources.
- Kolkata, Chennai, Mysore are unlikely to tax the same group of editors, though. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references and MOS compliance (specifically WP:LEAD). Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Sandy has mentioned above, three Indian city articles are in FARC simultaneously. This is difficult for editors. Although Pseudofusulina told that "Kolkata, Chennai, Mysore are unlikely to tax the same group of editors, though.", unfortunately that is partially true. So, my request would be to allow significantly longer time in this case. I have started working on this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review can be extended, if you are planning to work on it. If you wouldn't mind, please drop an update of your progress here every few days and let us know when you are ready for reviewers to come back in and re-check the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to understand. While WP:FACs are closed at the earliest, why so much time for WP:FARCs alone.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1. Lead expanded. Large chunks of text that were completely unsourced (as mentioned in the FAR proposal) have either been removed (as those were undue), or provided with references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am planning to work on it as well since I had written major chunks of this article and had participated in the FA review. Thanks - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2. Specific issues raised in the FAR proposal have largely been addressed. User:Amarrg has been working on ensuring comprehensiveness of the article. Reference improvement and formatting nearing completion. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3. As of this version, all citations have been checked and formatted. IMO, citations are internally consistent, and in accordance with WP:RS. Some comprehensiveness issues remain, which will be soon fixed. Reviewers, please review the citations for any fault. Any suggestions on MoS will be highly appreciated. Disclaimer Lead has not been fixed yet. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayanc, please feel free to ping the reviewers above (SandyGeorgia, Ravichandar, etc) and ask them to revisit their comments. Thanks for doing such great work at FAR on these Indian cities! Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doing some major edits in the article now, and will do in the next several days (although the concerns listed in the main FAR proposal have already been addressed). Will request reviewers after that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 4 I'd like to request the reviewers to have a look at the article, and post constructive comments to help the article retain FA status :) Of note, I believe the specific issued raised in the FAR proposal have been addressed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the lead section. The lead section does not mention anything about "Sport in Mysore". Besides, ambience is spelt wrongly. I also find issues with the sentence formations in the lead. The third paragraph begins with "Mysore is notable for the Dasara festival" - should it not be "noted for"? A copyedit of the lead might be necessary in this case.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ambiance" and "ambience" are both accepted spellings, although ambience is more common. For some unknown reason, while I was typing the word, a red line appeared beneath "ambience", and right-clicking suggested "ambiance"! That is why the spelling is like that in the article.

"Notable for" versus "noted for"—not sure which one (if any) is more appropriate in this case. We've seen both usage.

WP:lead says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So, the phrase "most important points" is significant. Sports in this city is not as important as, say, culture. Still, a sentence will be added. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you - I had given only secondary importance to the addition of details on "Sport in Mysore". However, a copy-edit of the section needs to be given a higher priority. The ones I stated above were just examples - I notice that all through the lead pieces of small sentences, seperated by semi-colons, have been fused together to form bigger sentences. I am not sure if this ought to be the general practice, it would be better if you consult someone on the general text.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request to User:Saravask for copy-edit. Given that he is on a wikibreak, it might not possible for him. I will wait for his response. Then will contact the guild of copyeditors, if needed. How does that sound?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a request for the Guild of Copy Editors.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 5? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the request for copyedit in the guild of copyeditors is there, but has not yet been answered. I myself have tried a few times to improve the prose. My efforts have been limited by my knowing the article already, and limited English proficiency. IMO, the prose is not excellent but ok. The primary reasons for the FAR (as discussed by the nominator) have already been addressed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the prose. Please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The name Mysore is an anglicised version of Mahishūru, which means the abode of Mahisha~~ ~~(in what language? - also FN 4 I can't connect to...?)~~

'~~'Tipu Sultan demolished parts of Mysore town to remove legacies of the Wodeyar dynasty - why is "town" included here?~~

~~The region where Mysore city stands now was known as Puragere until the 15th century~~ - was Puragere right on the site of the centre of Mysore? Slighlty different? Presumably it was continuous occupation, much like Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul? Some words about how old occupation is I think good - e.g. neolithic, classical antiquity, whatever.

~~Are there any notable parks/reserves or national parks/greenspace within or near the city boundaries?~~ sorry, missed them.

I'll continue copyediting tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to first set of questions by Casliber

... anglicised vrsion of... which means... in Kannada language. Added.

Tipu Sultan... Wodyar dynasty. Removed "town". Don't know why town was included!

Puragere. The Mysor fort was built on the site of Puragere, which was a village. Mysore fort was later replaced by Mysore palace. I specifically mentioned Mysore Palace in that sentence now. Unfortunately could not find out how old was that village. The source just mentions the village was there in early 16th century. Overall India has a poor tradition of documented history. Mysore city is no exception. As an example, the documented history of large cities such as Kolkata or Mumbai begin essentially in the colonial period.

There are several notable parks, lakes, national parks in or near the city. Those have been covered mainly in the section Tourism, and also slightly in Geography.

Thanks a ton for starting the copyedit. Please ask questions, if any. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

veering towards keep territory. I've done some copyediting and feeling better about the prose on this one. Probably still some improvements to find though, so I'll keep looking in a bit. Happy with responses to my queries and pretty comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 6. Casliber has done copyediting. S/he has expressed opinion regarding the article above. I believe the issues raised in the FAR nomination and subsequet discussions have been addressed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stfg (talk · contribs) has done further copyediting. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:03, 14 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.

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 Dana boomer 12:32, 17 June 2012 [3].

Barack Obama

Notified: All WikiProject talk pages that the article is listed under, lot of individuals so havent done specifically but i can i further requrested

I am nominating this featured article for review because FAC requirements indicate an aricle should be complete, but this is ritually censored by, i presume, regular page watchers who keep out information that is reliable and sourced. Previously i tried to add a "Crticism" section but it was removed on the grounds of OSE that "Bush doesnt have a criticism section". Whatever that may mean, its still an incomplete article. RS is RS regardless of the information being disliked as that is CENSORSHIP. In criteria 1b is clearly devoid here.

Further a whole lot of POV (in praise, mostly) and the obvious ("on Obama's orders" -- of course it is, he is president. EVERYTHING should be mentioned "on his orders" then) is added. Considering he has his own wikiproject a whole bunch of fans may come along to "support" but we should be careful of vote counting.

Also i tried adding the page title to the SUBSARTICLE template and all these obama templates (misnamed) came up, sorry but i dont know how to rightly replace it)Lihaas (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, I'm not seeing the required talk-page step described at the top of WP:FAR, but given the length of those archives I might have missed it; could you provide a diff? Also, is this an issue that requires an FAR, or one better suited to some type of dispute resolution? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for a FAR because it doesn't have a criticism section is pretty ill-advised. These sections are strongly frowned on (especially in BLPs), and it's unlikely that the article would have passed its FAC if it included such a section. This review should be closed, I think. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing note - Due to the lack of talk page notification (I couldn't find one and per Nikki's comments above, neither could she), I am closing this review. Lihaas, this is something to take first to the talk page of the article. Dispute resolution may also help, and be a better venue than FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 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.

Removed status

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 [4].

Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Review commentary

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

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.