Wikipedia:Featured article review/Calvin and Hobbes/archive1

Calvin and Hobbes

 * Article is still a featured article.

Too much infodumping about single-strip gags, poor citation of sources, and little discussion of the strip's significance or its influence on later artists. I have tried to move the more peripheral (or less verifiable) information to subsidiary pages, like Calvin and Hobbes in translation. Still, there is more in "Recurring themes" than rightly belongs in the main article. There is probably a nice, strong FA within this page, struggling to get out. Anville 18:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's definitely nicer now, so I'm inclined to vote keep. Most of the watery material added since the FA vote is gone, and the citations are much better used.  Anville 18:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Much improved. Alanyst added the references he had used, and added inline citations for them. I'm sure more can be done, and I hope he continues improving it, but that was my major beef. Actually isn't clear there is any use of references. - Taxman Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Significance" and "influence" can be slippery and subjective; if it's a solid exposition of what's within the four corners of the strip, that should be good enough. The rest can be added. Monicasdude 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove its very good, but appears to be based almost entirely on Watterson's writings in the 10th Anniversary book. Peregrine981 03:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove - Agree with Anville and Taxman. Keep - much better now. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anville; it needs less length and more subarticles. Just too much bulk, and seems to lack organization. I also suspect it's been worn down a bit since the vote by additions and changes here and there that haven't necessarily helped the article, and it could probably use some determined reworking. Everyking 07:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I still think it's a very good article; I've added a reference section, but it only contains the 10th anniversary book for the moment. The thing is, most of the references are there, except that they're placed in the "external links" section. Only needs a slight reworking IMHO Borisblue 30 June 2005 02:36 (UTC)


 * Keep I've just gone through and taken out single-strip gags. This trimmed it from 67kb to 46kb.  -- Norvy (talk) 1 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)


 * Keep, thanks to Norvy. -- A Link to the Past July 2, 2005 08:10 (UTC)


 * Keep. It has been improved. --Alabamaboy 6 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)