Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joss Whedon/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015.

Joss Whedon

 * Nominator(s): Cognissonance (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the American screenwriter, director and producer Joss Whedon. I'm not the creator but the primary author of the page itself. It has gone through a successful good article nomination and now has been improved and fine combed in such a way that warrants a featured article nomination. Cognissonance (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the article is excessively long and suffers from what I believe to be fundamental plagiarism issues. I copied the "Marvel Studios" subsection into my sandbox and removed all text within quotation marks; readable prose in the excerpt fell from 1099 words to a mere 395. Further eliminating text that leads-in to a quote (eg. "he spoke of x, saying," or "he continued," yields just 273 words of actual information. The rest of the article seems equally overinflated with irrelevant quotations. Take these two examples:
 * "They didn’t actually want me to make it. It’s like, ‘Uh, Joss, we really wanted you to do [Age of Ultron]. Instead you created a TV show, you moron.’ ‘I thought you wanted me to!’ ‘No, we just wanted you to make a movie.’ ‘Oh. My bad.’ ... It went from being absolutely 100% the driving force and totally hands-on to ‘That sounds great, Jed! You should do that!’"
 * "It is pretty dark and it's all me. So people will pretty much know what that means if they look at my body of work. But it's a new universe set in the present day with a new concept for me and a new bunch of characters. It's been a long time since I got to do that, so that's really fun"
 * Near as I can tell, they contribute nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject's career, and are borderline incomprehensible to anybody who isn't a fanatical follower of Whedon's. I've yet to find the most basic idea or fact in the article that isn't then dwarfed by lines and lines of copy-and-pasted follow-up material. Further to that, almost none of the 330 web references are academic in nature, instead linking chiefly to blogs, sketchy review sites, and sources like BuzzFeed. I hate to be so blunt, as it seems that you spent quite a lot of time on the article, but it needs to be completely restructured and overhauled to appeal to a more general audience and take on a more factual form. I'm not sure why it passed GA, to be honest. With apologies, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, thanks for the review. Your arguments make the nomination seem redundant now. What's to be done with it? Archive? Cognissonance (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can archive the nomination if you wish to withdraw it to work on it some more. Just let me know. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wish to withdraw it. Thanks Laser brain . Cognissonance (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.