Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coonskin (film)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 3:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [1].
Coonskin (film)[edit]
Review section[edit]
I am nominating this featured article for review because is decidedly substandard. It seems to have been pushed through in 2007, with by an editor who is now permanently banned for sockpuppeting. It has changed little since 2008, despite Wikipedia's Featured Article standards improving immensely through that time. Specifically, using the current Featured article criteria, I note that:
- 1b: There is only one paragraph of critical reception, compared to seven paragraphs and four quotes in The Care Bears Movie, which is only a Good Article. This is despite that theoretically there should be much more to write about. The article is very short compared to other film featured articles as well such as The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and Fritz the Cat (film), other Bakshi works written by that same banned author.
- 1c: There are only 22 sources. Compare this to the 233 citations in The Care Bears Movie, which was prepared for Featured Article status in 2011 but never nominated. Of those sources, six are heavily relied on and cited multiple times. Why is Care Bears 10 times more scholarly and thoughtful? Speaking of that reception paragraph, every single citation is to one source; the original reviews are not cited. There are no citations at all to the cast section.
- 1d: The section on Controversy is not neutral at all: it verges into total approval of Bakshi's views by repeatedly quoting him on how stupid the protesters were, what sellouts they were, how much smarter he is, etc. In one short paragraph alone: "Bakshi asked", "Bakshi stated", "According to Bakshi", "says Bakshi", and "Bakshi states". The subtext of this is that (the articles says) they clearly were wrong and Bakshi was right. This obviously is POV. The black activist perspective is mocked and only gets a buried paragraph to barely speak for itself. The actual reason the activists cared about the movie, e.g. what they took issue with, which should be the whole reason the controversy happened, is never explained, and the impression the article gives is that the boorish thugs of frequent political punching bag Al Sharpton (the only evidence for Sharpton being present is Bakshi's later claims) came from nowhere and nothing on the day of the screening. The author is known to be pro-Bakshi as he had already promoted two of his movies and tried desparately to get the main Ralph Bakshi article promoted to FA nine separate times over two years.
The original Featured Article candidacy, in 2007, barely had any discussion and the few reviewers did not notice these problems then, but they are quite glaring. Over two weeks, there have been no comments on these concerns on the talk page (as already said, the sole active editor is permanently banned). I believe this needs to undergo at least a FAR for these issues to be addressed. --Dagko (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I was too young to see the film in 1975, I'm old enough to remember the controversy that surrounded its release. I am amazed that Bakshi is virtually the only source cited in the article's "Controversy" section. Quite aside from its FA status, its potentially BLP-violating allegations about Al Sharpton should require reliable secondary sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. Nobody is working on it, and as it stands now, the BLP issues are still very unresolved, and may have to be removed. --Dagko (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC per Dagko. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality, and coverage/comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – I could live with the number of sources if the ones used provided comprehensive coverage, but the issues raised by Malik and Dagko show that there is probably more that can be said. I'm not a fan of Sharpton, but that whole paragraph seems designed to take shots at him, rather than neutrally describing his objections to the film. As Dagko said above, this lacks any sort of context in that regard. We learn in the lead that CORE objected to some of the content, but there's nothing expanding on that other than the one Elaine Parker quote. As someone who wasn't around there to see the release, I still don't have a good grasp of the controversy after reading the relevant section. There was also a needless contraction at the start of the Sharpton paragraph, which doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest of the prose. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – I would also like to see if the other Bakshi articles, written by the same now-banned editor, contain similar weaknesses. Most are GAs or FAs. --Dagko (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist and I think the banned editor's other featured articles should be examined. I recall dealing with him during the nine Ralph Bakshi FACs and my memory is that serious issues continued to surface even then (behavioral issues aside). --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2016 (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) 23:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.