Wikipedia:Featured article review/300 (film)/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

300 (film)

 * Notified: Mercenary2k, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, 2020-12-15

Review section
Fun fact: every section in the article's source starts with a hidden warning: "ATTENTION! PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING! Please present potential changes to this section in the Discussion area prior to making them, as consensus has been reached on a number of issues that tend to be repeated here." Apparently there hasn't been consensus on how to keep its featured article quality more than 10 years after it was promoted.

The not-retired RetiredDuke brought up many problems with this article on its talk page three months ago, and although many edits have been made since then, none of them addressed the problems. No representation from academic literature, statements un-cited or using questionable sources, the prose of the "Iranian criticism" section is not organized well, the plot section is 12 words too long, and the reception section is a quote-farm of 1% of all critical reviews of this movie. Also, I think it's fair to assume some sections of an article about such a big production (reception, production for example) are incomplete. I wouldn't even promote this article to "This is Sparta" status due to its many issues... That joke should tell you the current quality of this article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments
 * This article was promoted 8 months after the movie was released for the first time (at a film marathon), and just 5 months after it hit the theaters in March 2007. I don't think anyone at the time was anticipating what a behemoth it would become in popular culture, and I'm of the opinion that the article does not reflect the continued coverage the movie got in academic sources, for instance. The Iranian criticism subsection could be cut in half, and I've highlighted some unreliable sources in Talk. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If this article does happen to be delisted, I'd be happy to read the academic literature online and find more via Google Scholar. I'm really interested in doing it cause it's got feminine men and meme-worthy material aplenty ;) I'm working on a themes section (or article if there's enough info) for the Paranormal Activity film series, which will probably train me in doing the same for 300 and its lesser known 2014 sequel. As it stands, though, RetirdDuke is right. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing comments

I have doubts about the reliability of the following sources:
 * About.com
 * Comics2Film.com
 * Broken Frontier
 * Avatar Movie Zone
 * SuperHeroHype.com
 * What is Movie Wave?
 * What is Music on Film?
 * 300onDVD.com
 * I think we can find a better source for the description of the real battle of Thermopylae than unsupported referencing to Herodotus
 * Axccess News
 * What in the world is the reference that is just "300 wows Sparta home crowd despite some critics' complaints"."
 * Comingsoon.net
 * CanMag
 * What is AfterElton.com
 * What is How to Split an Atom
 * What is backwardfive.com
 * What is moviepilot.com

Some of these could well be reliable (I'm not familiar with most of them), but these generally look like non-ideal sources. I get the strong impression from looking at the sourcing of this article that it relies on dodgy web sources way too much when there is academic literature about this topic. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Move to FARC - Only real work that has occurred is some referencing formatting fixes, which doesn't solve the very significant sourcing issues. Hog Farm Talk 21:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist. Concerns over criterion 1c: high-quality reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist does not meet the current FA criteria with many issues and those are unaddressed, such as high-quality sources and bad prose. Chompy Ace 09:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - Some removal of uncited text did occur, but the overuse of questionable sources and underuse of scholarly sources remains. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.