Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Donen/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 18:49, 13 February 2012.

Stanley Donen

 * Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on it for several months and think that it is complete, thorough and well written. I think that Stanley Donen is an important and innovative film director for the reasons stated in the srticle and that he is relevant today due to recently renewed popularity in the musical genre, which he contributed to shaping.Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: What is the justification for the use of copyrighted image File:Kelly in rehearsal.jpg? I can find no reference to this image in the text, and no basis for the use rationale that it "supports critical commentary specific to this television special in article section 'Working methods and influence on filmed dance'" – a section which does not actually exist in the article. I suspect you have imported this from elsewhere, along with the rationale. Advice: get rid of it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the same concern with all of the non-free images. None of the rationales explain why the image should be in this article. It looks like rationales were written for other articles, then had a backlink to this article added. The movie posters say the movie is the subject of the article, and on of the screenshots explains why the image is needed in the Gene Kelly article. Jay32183 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Relatively few edits (about 25) are attributed to the nominator (although the nominator has taken the article through a peer review). The – already substantial – article seems to have been adopted late last year. Do you have copies of the sources? (Which, by the way, should be under a Bibliography heading, and not "Further reading". And, the books by Yudkoff, Hirschhorn, should be there too, complete with ISBNs.)  Graham Colm (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose in view of the above comments and these additional issues relating to sources:-
 * Why are source books listed as "further reading"?
 * Book titles should be italicised
 * Ref 7 book lacks publication year
 * Check that all page ranges have "pp." not "p."
 * Check that page ranges use ndashes not hyphens
 * Many online sources lack publisher information
 * Ref 33: spelling "Dialouge"?
 * Same ref, what does "4, #4" mean
 * Ref 85 and others: separate titles from publisher
 * Refs 93, 111, 120, 138 etc non-standard formats
 * Ref 109 is dead for me, please check.

This is not an exhaustive sources review, but it is clear that further work is required in this and in other areas. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, could someone whose actually read the article weigh in, just to be fair?--66.212.72.44 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further note> I believe a delegate should look at this article's edit history. There is no evidence that the nominator has made more than 2 edits unless he/she is using several IP identities. The article's main editor, IP 206.188.55.236 is a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. The second main editor, IP 66.212.72.44, is Seattle Public Library. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal in view of the blatant lack of preparation and Brian's significant concerns above.  Auree  ★ ★  17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You people are all truly ridiculous, do what you want.--66.212.72.199 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


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