Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rocky Horror Picture Show/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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 31 October 2008.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

 * Nominator(s): Amadscientist 

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

Amadscientist (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has significance to the Halloween holiday..
 * The article has been well researched, properly structured and follows wiki guidlines.
 * The article is a part of several projects and has been improved drasticaly since it's conception.
 * Why not? (humor..little bit)


 * Oppose
 * Too much information is unreferenced. Several paragraphs go completely uncited.
 * Remove the spaces before inline citations; they should not have any spaces preceding them.
 * Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates.

Gary King ( talk ) 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Images do not meet WP:NFCC; various Manual of Style issues; reference concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per concerns above, some weaknesses in prose, and nothing on production financing. One would expect to see more critics' comments, from the release reviews or later. Oakham Court is not, in real life anyway, a castle. Needs a prose copyedit & lots more references. But the basics are there. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for you comments and the fixes needed. I will work these out and even if it still is opposed after the changes.....at least i know I did what was needed and can reference this conversation as i work on the article. I started this early so i could see what others felt needed to be done....so there is still hope this can be approved by the Halloween weekend. If not...the article will still be improved. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment

Oppose
 * Too many sections unreferenced, unreliable sites (www.imdb.com, www.filmreference.com, www.thehorrorblog, www.crazedimaginations.com, www.rockymusic.org, etc.), deadlinks showing up on the link checker tool, references lacking publishers. This is without going into the prose, strongly suggest withdrawing and submitting to Peer Review, which is a system to help improve articles, which FAC is not. FAC is for recognizing articles at a high standard, not a method for improving articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. as for unreliable sources......I have to agree. While many are perfectly fine sites they don't fit wiki standards and many editors try hard to balance between relialble and wiki acceptable source.
 * Comment

The article has been through peer review but certainly can be resubmitted again. If I am unable to make the changes within the week I will withdraw the nomination and go that route. It worked well when I attempted to get it to GA status.....but I assure you, the act was not simply to improve the article. I do disagree with you about FAC. The Feature Article canditates page is where we improve an article. All the other features of wiki are geard towars improving the articles. I want the article to be good enough for Feature status, but it has to earn that status. I can continue on with other editors towards consensus on direction and get more editors envolved. The fair use problem the page had has been resolved. It was my doing so I undid it. Apologies. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the article is not ready. There are many problems, particularly with the prose, comprehensiveness and referencing, (reliability and shortages). Graham Colm Talk 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Having an image in the lead crushes the prose between two images. Move it down to the main article for better reading. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this candidacy untill editors can fix all the areas mentioned including prose, references and other problems not mentioned here.

Thank you all for your help!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will archive this on my next pass through FAC; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the template in place until the bot goes through.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.