Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Carradine/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 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].

David Carradine

Featured article candidates/David Carradine/archive1

Nominator(s): Ishtar456 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I expanded this article substantially several months ago. It passed GA review without any recommendations from the reviewer, in February. It receives between 3-4K hits per day, and it is stable with no edit wars. It is thoroughly researched and the sources are cited. It covers every aspect of the topic and is neutral in POV. Ishtar456 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The link to Wall of Fame leads to a dab page, This has been fixed and some external links are dead: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/david-carradine-a-slice-of-the-action-568334.htmlDavid, This has been fixed http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=10258David, This has been replaced http://www.themediadrome.com/content/reviews/kill_bill_vol_2.shtml, This link has been replaced. http://www.teletext.co.uk/bigscreen/news/17c67e773584467856ded5110d89748d/Carradine+death+%27wasn%27t+suicide%27.aspx, This was removed, not needed. http://www.themediadrome.com/content/reviews/kill_bill_vol_2.shtml this is the same as above. Ucucha 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added bolded inserted text. --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not liking the use of either of those non-free images at all, and the rationales are completely unenlightening. It's rare we need to use non-free images to show actors in role in the articles on the actors, even if they're only known for a single role. Why do you feel they're needed? J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not liking the derogatory way you phrased your comment, but I did remove the offending images.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that came across as derogatory, it certainly wasn't meant to be. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~, criterion #3, non-free images used in violation of NFCC (e.g. #3a and #8). Stifle (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images have been removed as we speak.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking pending review. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object many paragraphs are unsourced, including ones related to marital problems and alcohol. Secondly the references are inconsistent witht he formatting of page numbers, abbreviatioin of titles, italics in newspapers, no spacing between commas etc YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be move specific about the "many unsourced paragraphs"? I removed one sentence that predated the expansion: "During this time Carradine's alcoholism escalated and he entered alcohol drug rehabilitation". Everything that is there regarding his personal life I wrote, and sourced and I don't really discuss specific marital problems (except one affair which is sourced). All the statements made are cited. So I do not see "many unsourced paragraphs". Please give at least a couple of examples.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and will work on cleaning up citations. --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paras 1, 3, 4 in "early successes" and last one in "Kung fu" for instance YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Shouldn't be a GA because of a lack of sourcing. How could a wikipedian with 300+ GAN reviews pass this without any comments? Pretty poor I think. Seems as if he wanted to rack up the GAN reviews... Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed an unsourced paragraph that was incerted AFTER the GA review. Everything else in that section has been cited somewhere else in the article and I am going to add the citations later in the day. If we could be grown ups we might say "this is something that should be like this instead of that" and leave out all the judgemental insulting crap. Some people wonder why more people don't try to get their article FA-the insults might be one reason.--Ishtar456 (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair comment. I don't know who reviewed it for GA, nor do I need to. Whoever it was, please assume they are editing in good faith. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, the article is already nominated at FAC and you've decided to go ahead and add refs after it has started. It may be cited somewhere else but it's not now. Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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