Wikipedia:Featured article review/Calvin and Hobbes/archive2


 * 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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009.

FAR commentary
This article was promoted in 2004 and last reviewed in 2005. That's a long time ago. I feel this article no longer meets the Featured Article criteria. Over half of the article ("Recurring Subject Matter") is mostly trivia. Additionally, much of the sourcing is poorly done, and there are many parts that need referenced in the first place. For those reasons I'm opening this review.  Grsz 11  22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The recurring subject matter is too extensive in detail. It looks pretty good though. I don't want to work on it but I could see some people appreciating it on the main page. The Wurdalak (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the existence of such recurrences is characteristic of the strip. It could be shortened, but much of that would be removing the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see... then maybe keep it like that. I'll look more closely at it. The Wurdalak (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Images
 * Eleven fair-use images is too many. They should be used to illustrate the characterisation of the main protagonists or how the drawing-style of the artist developed, i.e. the actual artwork, rather than be decorative. I suggest removing two out of the three covers, the two small pictures of Calvin and Hobbes (instead use "Calvin (left) and Hobbes (right)" for the main image), and one of the pictures of Rosalyn (it is only necessary to depict the character once). DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to put in work that's felt needed. Hiding T 17:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine it might be possible to get one fair use image that includes many of the main characters, if the numbers are a problem.--Patrick «» 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not numbers that are the problem; I suppose someone might object to 20 fair use images since we're supposed to be a free encyclopedia, but if they all fly by WP:NFCC it's technically fine. But all the images right now are used solely for identification and illustration, which doesn't jive with image policy. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just ran into this FAR as well. Please feel free to tag issues in the article, or give me a to-do list here, and I'll see what I can do.  I have access to a couple of repositories with which statements can be sourced, as well as two of the commentary-bearing works (tenth and complete). Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, trivia, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist as current. If there were just image issues I'd just deal with it, but there's mounds of trivia that need to be trimmed, minutiae that detract from the article if someone is not familiar with the subject, and an over-reliance on primary sources. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't actually help me work out what's wrong, to be fair. Also, what's the point about high quality images relating to by YellowMonkey ? Give me actualities and I can work on them.  Hiding T 09:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey's referring to the change in criteria which requires high-quality sources, not images. Basically all the images save File:Calvin and Hobbes Original.png fail to meet WP:NFCC. There's issues with original research, for example describing bonus content in the treasuries as easter eggs, and entirely unreferenced sections on the minutiae of the strip (basically the running gags). I would say a good rule is if you can't find a secondary source for a bit of the in-universe content, scrap the section (I started with the blatant ones, but plenty of trimming could continue.) Finally, there's an over-reliance on simply citing the strip, which smacks of original research and synthesis as well. Some of the other sources (for example, is patently a bad source.) I'm also concerned about a lack of out-of-universe depth; are you really telling me there's no sort of academic commentary of the subject? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 12:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, ta. I misread that about the sources, don't know why. Right, I'll see what I can do. Hiding T 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns and other issues raised, above. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist due to excess fancruft in the "Characters" and "Recurring elements" sections and elsewhere. Additionally, several paragraphs are unsourced, and this article jumps the line into original research. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.