Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard III (1955 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 removed by Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WikiProject Film

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet the featured article criteria of being well-researched and comprehensive, and it does not appear well-written either. For what exists in the article body, there are numerous passages that lack inline citations. The structure is also poor; there are a lot of short paragraphs throughout. In addition, I conducted research on this topic and found numerous references to use; they are listed here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delegate note - This review is currently on hold pending a talk page notification, as one was not completed prior to nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A week has passed since the talk page notification, and WikiProject Film was also notified. With no contributions, we should go ahead with the featured article review. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As there has been no action on the issues noted above, this review may proceed as normal. Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes Criterion.com, Richard III Society, DVD Beaver, DVD Movie Central or Listology reliable?
 * There are links to Amazon and IMDb that should be changed.
 * The bullet lists should be… a table maybe?
 * Far undersourced in every way.

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist per my comments. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist article as heavily under-referenced. There are many references (as seen on the talk page) that warrant a look. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:49, 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.