Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gremlins/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:05, 22 June 2009.

Review commentary
My main concern is 2c, as the sources seem very thin. Very large chunks of information are unsourced. The "legacy" section is also listy, poorly sourced, and reads like a trivia section, which also seems to be unfocused (section 4), straying too far from the topic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article no longer appears to be of FA quality. The plot is excessive, at nearly 900 words, failing criteria 2 (WP:MOSFILMS. Cast list seems unnecessary and should be smerged into plot as indicated by same MoS. The few bits of prose are completely unsourced, failing criteria 1c. If sourcable, move into production section. Some of the background content seems a bit off-track, unfocused. The initial stages section has more unsourced content, as does the Casting, Music, Reception, and Merchandizing sections. It also fails criteria 1c in that it is using unreliable sources, including IMDB, and many of the sources are badly formatted (and 23's a combo of 2 or 3 sources). Several "references" are also just notes without sources to confirm them. The legacy section does indeed appear to be a trivia section, with questionable sourcing for much. Some actual bits could be moved into reception after cleaning out the bad bits. There is also an excess of external links in the EL section.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments from


 * Comment from

May be worth comparing the article's current revision with the revision at the time it was promoted: diff. The "Cast" section was added since the promotion, and the "Legacy" section has been expanded. (That particular section seems fairly trivial to me.) In addition, the "Charges of racism" section could be improved (avoiding the weasel wording of equating Film Quarterly critic Jonathan Rosenbaum's opinion as "Some observers"). The Turner citation seems to be a worthwhile addition that could possibly expanded. Overall, though, I can tell this is an article from the earlier days of Wikipedia and WikiProject Films, where we do not have as high standards for film articles. It's a Good Article at best, and I do not think it benefited from much copy-editing nor research. From what I can tell in a cursory search, there is coverage in Cinefantastique, American Cinematographer, Cinefex, and Journal of Popular Film and Television. Judging from the lack of results at WorldCat.org, though, there are no books or full chapters critiquing the film. I think some of the additions to the article since its promotion indicate that any retrospective detail about Gremlins will be fairly piecemeal. (I found a couple of paragraphs in a horror film book via Amazon.com about how Gremlins and Gremlins 2 attacks Reagan ideology.) — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The prose is really a fair distance from our 1a standard--and, frankly, I don't believe it should have been passed under the 1a definition at the time (June 4, 2006): "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." The prose is serviceable, at times labored. At any rate, it is not of a professional standard. This article would require a full-dress effort on several fronts to represent our best work. DocKino (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * ''Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, focus. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and above comments. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, article has sadly not been touched since FAR started beyond some vandalism. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist as nominator, clearly no longer FA quality as FA has gotten so much tougher. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist due to inability to meet FA criteria and no real improvement since coming to FAR. We can do better than this for Featured Articles of films. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.