Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/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 User:Dana boomer 13:54, 21 March 2013 [1].

Halloween II (1981 film)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Fuhghettaboutit, WikiProject Film

This article has problems. IMDB is used as a reference. I'm not convinced that the HalloweenMovies.com is reliable. More than one non-free image is used, but I'm not thoroughly convinced that either File:HalloweenII title.jpg or File:HalloweenIIscreencap.jpg is necessary. George Ho (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article underwent the FAC process in May 2006, and I believe that the process has become more stringent since then. I searched for Halloween II in WorldCat.org, and it looks like this covers the film and is not referenced here. There is also this that covers the film in part, but it is newer and can be excused. From what I can tell, there are not any books about this film and not too many specific chapters about the film. Seems like content is piecemeal, and I think there are probably more print sources covering different parts of the film. One can tell that whoever worked on this article had to work with what was available online, either originally or re-printed from periodicals. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the sources let it down, and I doubt it would pass FA now. That said, I wouldn't support the removal of the halloweenmovies.com interviews from the article, though IMDB should certainly be replaced. --xensyria^T 09:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process – I understand why those here feel that the article has problems, but there has been no prior notification on Talk:Halloween II that an FAR was imminent without improvements. This step is required by FAR instructions, to provide an opportunity for issues to be fixed before a potential FAR. With that in mind, I think one of the delegates should remove the nomination for now. It can be brought back later, after the proper talk page notification has been made, if the issues remain. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~This review is delisted. If no improvements for one month, then it'll be relisted. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's a little over one month, and there are no significant changes other than the plot summary. Time to relist this thing. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I count 7 IMBD pages used as sources, and I'm unconvinced that many of the horror movie websites seen here are that reliable. In short, I agree with the other reviewers who say that better sourcing is needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nothing's changed in the article, it's still a prime example of an old FA not meeting current standards. What needs to happen for it to lose the star? --xensyria^T 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been moved to Halloween II (1981 film), per consensus on the article talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article clearly doesn't live up to the featured article criteria. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – The sourcing doesn't look any better than it did before the FAR started, and I don't believe it would pass muster at a 2013 FAC. Therefore, I must count myself among those thinking that this doesn't meet FA criteria any longer. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per WP:RS/IMDb. Needs a lot more work nowadays. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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