Wikipedia:Featured article review/H. P. Lovecraft/archive1

H.P. Lovecraft[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Major review commentary[edit]

I really hate bringing this up, but this is just not good enough... The intro is short, the whole article is pretty messy... --UVnet 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that the rules require the criterion/criteria that are at issue to be stated at the top. I guess it's 2a; any others? Tony 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur...A lot can be spun off into daughter articles, like the list of places featured in his stories. This needs a good clean-up. The Disco King 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's come to a consensus re: what should be done. Some suggestions:

- Extraneous detail, like the house he was born at, etc., should be removed
- Lead must be expanded
- IMHO, more information on his works and less reaction. Having never read Lovecraft, most of the analysis was incomprehensible to me.

Any other suggestions? The Disco King 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Here's a snake that our poor readers will have to navigate through: "When Lovecraft was three, his father became acutely psychotic at a hotel in Chicago, Illinois where he was on a business trip and was brought back to Butler Hospital in Providence, where he remained for the rest of his life." There are others.

Slightly awkward usage: "His grandfather also stirred young Howard's interest in the weird by telling him"—"the weird"? It's weird! And: "accommodations which were much smaller and less comfortable".

The text needs a good massage to make it nice and easy and clear for our readers. Why do the references at the bottom lack publishers and dates? These items need to be findable, both for credibility and for the practical reason that readers may wish to consult them. Tony 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Main FA criteria concerns are whether it is well written (2a) and comprehensive (2b). Marskell 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, (2a), I couldn't get beyond the first section, and am surprised that the prose wasn't fixed during the lengthy review process. Sandy 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, (2a): per above comments. Excessive details should be removed and the lists under "Adaptations" section need to be in a separate article. --BorgQueen 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Again, I contacted initial nominator without reply. The TOC is a mess to begin with. Too much extraneous detail in body but an insufficient LEAD. This has enough raw info for a good page on the topic, but it's sloppy at present. Marskell 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]