Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1

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 removed by Dana boomer 13:49, 29 May 2012 [1].

Katie Holmes[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1

Notified: Users: (the only three that edited the article in the past year) Nymf, Malkinann, MarionFrazier. Projects: Ohio, Actors and Filmmakers, Scientology, Religion, United States.

Article was promoted in 2006. Talk page notice was given in September 2011. Work was performed in the interim but there are still issues present.

1a Many areas of the article have the "In .... and on..." disease and are list-like in their appearance as single sentences. The phrase enchanted the press is a bit of glowing narrative but also the cherry picked quotes of praise are quite noticeable. The addition of material since the article passed FAC in 2006 has been inserted without considering the flow of the article.
1c There are maintenance tags present, factual accuracy, dead links, not in citation given, update and others. Are mainstream entertainment publications considered "high-quality" sources?
2a Lede needs to be more comprehensive in explaining the article contents. It's short and outdated presently.
2b I don't understand the purpose of the bibliography and further reading sections. They contain articles that are already listed in the citations for the most part.
2c Uniformity, uniformity. There is a mixture of mdy and ymd dates; it should be one or the other. Some publication names are not italicized. Please update the retrieved on dates.
Reduce wikilinking wherever possible. Brad (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, maintenance tags, yet no work on the article since it was nominated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, MOS compliance and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate query: do any reviewers have an opinion on this article? Do its current issues merit delisting? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm troubled that no one seems to watching this important BLP, but can't convince myself that one section that needs updating is enough to delist it. Wish someone who works in this area would have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here that isn't fixable. I'll take a shot at it next eek. Courcelles 18:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist', as the article currently stands. I just can't see that this page would pass FAC if nominated today. The lead is too short, the "Early work" section is actually just a description of how she came to get the role in Dawson's Creek (while there actually is some information about her early work in the "Early life" bit - poor organisation). The second half lacks flow, with lots of stubby paragraphs (many just one sentence), and little information beyond "In X year, Holmes did this". I just don't think it has that professional, polished feel to it that means the page "represents Wikipedia's best work". --Lobo (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I agree completely with Lobo512 Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I'm a bit confused by Sandy's comment that there's only one section that needs work. Are we looking at the same article? The entire body is littered with one- and two-sentence paragraphs, making it more a collection of facts than an actual article. The sentences themselves are not particularly well-written either: "...Batman Begins along with art house films such as The Ice Storm and thrillers including Abandon." This and this and this = bad writing. The lead is too short, the reference formatting is inconsistent, Checklinks turns up multiple dead links. If it wouldn't pass FAC today (and it wouldn't, let's be honest), then it shouldn't be a FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)
Delist', missing a lot of information. I also see a lot of consecutive sentences starting with "in" near the end. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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