Wikipedia:Featured article review/Night of the Living Dead/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 22:55, 27 April 2012 [1].

---

Night of the Living Dead

Review commentary

Night of the Living Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Night of the Living Dead

• Featured article review/Night of the Living Dead/archive1

Notified: Dmoon1, DrJohnnyDiablo, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Film

This article uses IMDB as references, yet IMDB is a self-published source. Keith Wayne is claimed to commit suicide as a result of death, but I could not find one reliable source in Google. Nevertheless, suicide is possible. Also, is the information about the cast intricate or necessary? I still don't know which other issues this article has, but the entry looks well-written, and citations look well-stylized. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The cast information I believe works, but the section should be trimmed to only include entries with actual information—not to just simply list roles. IMDB should be avoided entirely, but I doubt any information sourced to it needs to be, as this is a well-known film and that information should be available elsewhere. Looking at it, though, a lot of that information is unnecessary. Judith O'Dea's filmography is irrelevant to the article, after all. I think this could be retained with a little work, and I'm prepared to go through the sources and find better ones within the next few days. GRAPPLE X 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_of_the_Living_Dead&action=historysubmit&diff=473655580&oldid=473089332 --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here's my take:
  • Several of the refs are malformatted, with <greater than and less than signs> around the links or [1]s for the links.
  • What makes Homepage of the Dead a reliable source?
  • Most of the revision section is full of red links. These should be combed over — I'm not sure how many, if any, are relevant.
  • The Revision section also contains citations to Facebook, YouTube and Amazon that need to be removed.
  • What makes House of Horrors a reliable source?
  • What makes Films 101 a reliable source?

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall pointing this out to you before, TPH; red links are not a valid reason to oppose a FAC or delist a FAR. If you can show that this article is incomprehensible or not comprehensive because of some missing information, then the red links might be relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know they aren't, but when you have too many of them, it looks unsightly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Keith Wayne should be considered a possibly living person. IMDB is unreliable, so the info was removed, and the stand-alone article of Keith Wayne was redirected to this article. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as items of concern in the review section mainly focused on various aspects of sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Can we please get some thoughts on whether this article should be kept or delisted? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delist, nothing's happening. Cast section is still clumsy and list-y. First section of "Music and sound effects" is unsourced. I see many unreliable sources like Homepage of the Dead, Bloody Disgusting.com, facebook pages, etc. Many refs also have bad formatting with bare URLs, <greater than and less than signs> and the like. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Pending Comment - I did the "citation <citation>" thing because... I figured it look unique and special, especially since Modern Language Association. I might vote for "Delist" because of some original research. As for the unreliable sources, I want to remove them, but they must have verified the "OR" stuff. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• George, I'm not sure what you mean by "pending"? Are you waiting for something in particular? Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now it's a comment, not pending. --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• After thoughts of considerations about interests of the film itself, I choose Delist. Making changes to the whole article itself requires a lot of effort, not to mention sandboxes in either a user sandbox page or an article's sandbox. Recently, someone added information about an upcoming remake. I mean, who's interested on this film, besides millions of downloads, enough to fix this article? Statistics of box office records and of home video sales are valuable to read but challenged by verification standards. Even some sections, such as Influence, are bad. --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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