Wikipedia:Featured article review/Humphrey Bogart

Humphrey Bogart

Article is no longer a featured article.

Review commentary

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Humphrey Bogart/archive1, but the main points raised related to a lack of references, due to the fact that the article was written before this was a requirement.

I believe it needs to be reviewed for the following reasons :

1. Insubstantial lead paragraph. The "overview" section, which I think is intended as a "de-facto" lead section, goes into too much detail of his "iconic" status so it would be unsuitable as an article summary. Therefore a lead needs to be worked from scratch.
2. Too many headers and subheaders. Use of film titles as subheaders creeps towards POV.
3. Not structured very well. The oddly titled "Bogart parties" section falls in the middle of discussion of his acting career.
4. The years from approximately 1942 to 1952 - quite a substantial chunk of his career - is discussed only in relation to his marriage to Lauren Bacall, and even so is barely covered, with most of the section related to his personal life. There is a "request for expansion" link in the middle of the text ("Later career") - hardly inspires confidence that this is the "best of Wikipedia".
5. Some of the writing style could be tightened to give it more of a "news report" (encyclopedic) tone, as some of it is colloquial, anecdotal and conversational in tone. There are other sections where the writing is too blunt and rather than flow from one idea to the next, there are several very choppy sections where consecutive sentences and paragraphs jump from from unconnected point to the next unconnected point. There are some POV issues with specific words used that could be substituted for something more neutral. example a couple of performances are described as "subtle" and unless we know who called them subtle, can only assume that the author of this article did so.
6. Images - Image:Bogart stamp.jpg being a postage stamp, does not qualify as fair use and should be removed (IMO). Image:Humphrey Bogart - 1955 - The Left Hand of God.jpg, Image:Thebigsleep.jpg and Image:Casabl meetrick.jpg are either incorrectly tagged, or do not provide a sources or fair use rationales. This leaves only one image (Image:Humphrey Bogart by Karsh (Library and Archives Canada).jpg with a correctly detailed image description page.
7. A lot of unsourced material, (or at least not sourced to the present standard). This alone is not reason enough for its featured article status to be removed, but is something that could and should be looked at as part of a review. Rossrs 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Another one with very substantial issues. This comes very close to hagiography. At the least perhaps the section headers could be rationalized. I'll try and have a go at that myself. Marskell 12:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, are you still planning to work on it? The Table of Contents is crazy-making. Sandy 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Promises, promises huh. I'll try in a day or two and move it to FARC at the same time to accelerate it. Marskell 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I replaced two of the unfree images w freely-licensed ones. Jkelly 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), writing style (2a), and images (4). Marskell 12:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—None of the issues raised in the review has been satisfactorily addressed. Here's what's been done, or not ... [1] Tony 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Problems not addressed, per diff above. Sandy 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Without even reading the article, I see an insufficient lead, images claiming fair use without rationale, an image with a bad tag, and insufficient inline citations. Pagrashtak 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)