Wikipedia:Featured article review/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial/archive1

Notified: User talk:HAL333, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction

Issues were raised under WP:FARGIVEN back in 2021 and largely seem unaddressed. Main concerns are citation style and source integrity.

Lack of sourcing in "Cast" section.
"Accolades" table is extremely huge and indiscriminate, and laden with [citation needed] tags.
Unreferenced sections in "20th anniversary version".
Inconsistent ref formatting:
- Reference 14 (Den of Geek) is missing publisher
- Reference 16 (Production notes DVD booklet) is incomplete, and I'm not sure if it's usable as a source
- Reference 28 (The Reunion DVD) is incomplete, and I'm not sure if it's usable as a source
- Reference 37 (Inside the Actors Studio) is incomplete
- Reference 45 (Billboard) is incomplete
- Reference 52 (The New Yorker) needs a page number
- Lots of other sources are horribly formatted: missing publishers, inconsistent formatting with other sources, etc. To keep this from being an overly tedious list, I'm not going to include every last one.
What makes the following references reliable sources?
- Reference 24 (Rediscover the 80s)
- Reference 36 (Movie Locations)
- Reference 81 (an advertisement)
- Reference 84 (ET Kuwahara); citation is also incomplete
Reference 177 (Golden News) is a permanent dead link.

I checked mostly for sourcing issues, so I haven't done much digging on prose quality.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC I believe that it could rely much more on high-quality books: as it is, specific page numbers are not really given for book citations. There are, for instance, 8 unique references that refer to the page range 323–38. There are also some serious issues with weight and balance. For instance, the "Short film sequel" (which is just an Xfinity ad) is given a lengthy four paragaphs. The prose is rough in many places, especially the accolades section, which is effectively an unreadable stream of consciousness: compare that section to the FA The Dark Knight's. I also believe it to not be comprehensive: for instance, it doesn't mention the Michael Jackson tie-in song "Someone in the Dark" and the ensuing legal fiasco with the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial soundtrack album. ~ HAL333 00:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]