Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dog Day Afternoon/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 removed by Dana boomer 20:38, 28 October 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WT:FILM, WT:LGBT, User talk:Staxringold


 * Plot section is way too long.
 * Cast table is unsourced.
 * "Director's cut" section is only two sentences. Could it be incorporated elsewhere?
 * "Historical accuracy" is choppy.
 * Overall, the article is very short. The sections are extremely curt and underdeveloped (1b). In particular, are there more reviews from the film's era?
 * Inconsistent citation formatting. Many are lacking authors, work names, etc., and one just has [1].
 * Multiple dead links.
 * Citations to IMDb should be removed.

It's really disappointing to see older FAs from 2006 were so often left in statis instead of being checked against the increasingly strict guidelines of FA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I think that when it comes to films, editors have specific interests. They don't go out their way to improve this kind of article unless they are already interested in the topic. Applies to me too; I can help list resources, but it's more time-consuming to retrieve resources, go through them, and implement them. For this film, I listed references to use here. These come from books; there may be more from periodicals, including newspapers, film magazines, and academic journals. If a film this old is using mostly online resources, it's clear that the research did not go very far. Not to mention the other issues that you listed. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist This was one of my first projects on Wikipedia and I definitely did 0 non-internet research. I've had little interest in editing this article since those early days, and it's not kept up with the times. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delisting happens in the FARC process. :) See WP:FAR. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's headed there. I feel dirty every time I look at this article. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's main problem is that it does not use the available materials. I would support a removal. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include references, comprehensiveness and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist, nothing at all has happened to the article since it was listed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist per lack of improvement; list of beneficial references to aid in comprehensiveness have been unused. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist Per above. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist 1a 1c, 2c. Brad (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


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