Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghostbusters/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [1].

Ghostbusters

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When there's an unfeatured article in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call, impartial reviewers. Yes, it is that time, an article created SIXTEEN years ago in 2003 based on one of the greatest comedies of all time is finally, IMO, in a position to be recognised as one of the greatest articles of all time. Do not be afraid, the worst that will happen is cats and dogs living together, perhaps some mass hysteria, but your input will be much appreciated. And remember, if anyone asks you if you are a god, you say yes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

I'm wondering about the comprehensiveness of the source coverage here. The vast majority of the article is cited to news and popular web sources, but this particular film has received extensive coverage in scholarly literature.

I see a number of different box office numbers in the body, but not seeing that the one in the infobox and lead is cited anywhere - am I missing it?

Some of the other details in the infobox and lead don't appear to be cited anywhere, such as runtime or the haunted houses

Wizard Entertainment is a publisher not a work. Same with AMC, Stan Wilson School, check for others

MSNBC, PR Newswire, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN6: the catalogue itself is the work, so should be in that parameter rather than as part of the title

FN12: date doesn't match source. Same with FN94, 19, check for others

FN16 is missing author. Same with 52, 142, check for others

150, 123, check for others. Also be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first, and how you are ordering Bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN17 and 22 appear to be the same. Same with 88 and 89, check for others

FN23 title is missing italics

What makes Beyond the Marquee a high-quality reliable source?

Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

Missing full citation details for Larson 1985

FN49 should use pp not p. Same with 29, 30, check for others

FN71 is missing agency. Same with 69, 68, check for others

FN97 is missing page number. Same with 98, check for others

Billboard is a work not a publisher. Same with Custom PC, check for others

Filmsite.org, Film.com, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Above the Law should be piped. Same with Custom PC, check for others

No citations to Browne or Shay

Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

Oppose pending cleanup of citations and response to point 1. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for taking the time to look this over. I'm working the references but I don't understand what you mean by point 1. There are a broad range of sources used in the article. If you mean I haven't used as many books I just prefer to use sources that people can check at will rather than sources people have to ask the References noticeboard to go look up. That's just a personal style, I want everything able to be evidenced as immediately as possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that means you're going to be including in the article primarily the content that can be supported by those kind of sources, and missing out on interpretations that are not typically reflected there - for example, something like this, or this, or this, or this. I'm not saying you need to use these particular publications, but by excluding academic sources I'm not sure you can say this article is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as required by WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is every change I've made based on your input. I believe I've addressed the errors with the existing references but please let me know if I've not implemented them in the manner you meant. As for your other issues:

The scholary sources, are you meaning for them to be used in a thematic analsys of the film's content? I mean I have tried to do that in the section already there but it was a struggle to find sources, which isn't aided by the genius decision to release a 2016 film with the same name. I don't mind using sources if they exist, but at the same time I'm not going to spend $150 buying access to those documents. Maybe one day being an editor will be a paid position but sadly we're not there yet. Certainly if you can suggest an alternative I'm happy to incorporate information, but I've developed the article to the best of my ability with every source I could find.

Spending $150 is not your only option for accessing sources - we have a resource exchange which may be able to help, or possibly your local library, where no open copy is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask at the resource exchange, but to clarify, are you meaning that this information should be used for thematic analysis?

Nikkimaria, I'm working through the references I've been able to get from scholary sources but is this really what you wanted including? The one about Immigrants for instance is just like...projecting stuff onto the film. I want to make sure before I start inserting this into the article because I'm not 100% on the purpose of it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, my argument is not that these specific sources must be used, but rather that the article should reflect the scholarly as well as the popular press on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BeyondtheMarquee. I did debate this but I believe wholeheartedly that the content it is sourcing is genuine and factual. The text is present in the video made alongside the person being interviewed so I do not believe it to be in error, according to this, other sites/notable people do comment on the site, they seem to have a clear, informed team, and a staff structure. They are the only site I've found that contained all of this information, and I believe I found the site as it was linked to by Gizmodo, who linked from Aintitcoolnews. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done another pass based on your feedback which you can see here. I was ordering Bibliography entries by surname. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has dropped into the "Older" section with open opposition regarding the sourcing and no other substantial review. It seems that a good amount of work is needed before this is up to par, and it should probably undergo some peer review outside of FAC to ensure the sourcing is up to the quality available for a topic like this. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference on the next nomination, a good amount of work is not needed. NikkiMaria wants academic commentary which I'm trying to add but it's incredibly boring and I don't agree with it so it's moving at a slow pace. The referencing issues were addressed, NikkiMaria did not respond to most of my comments responding to theirs, and I did actively try to involve them in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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