Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert A. Heinlein/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 Joelr31 03:20, 14 March 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP:Biography, WP:Science Fiction, WP:Missouri, WP:Kansas City, Bcrowell

I'm nominating this article for FAR because it plainly does not meet present day FA standards. Perhaps it did at one time. I've checked on this article now and then since it was TFA in 2006 and it continues to disintegrate into readers' own opinion and analysis of Heinlein. It is inadequately reffed, even the parts that are factual, rather than analysis. It needs serious work to retain its star. FA criteria 1c, 2c, 2d.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you also contacted the editors who made it into a featured article to begin with? Those are the most likely candidates to bring it up to snuff. - Mgm|(talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be Bcrowell. He's inactive, judging by his userpage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed this page, and previously said on other talk pages (eg. Science fiction) that this is not up to FA standard. It has all the basics one would expect, but a lot of the thematic discusion is completely unsourced and too ORish for my taste. I can do some improvements (about his approach to sexuality, and his fantasy writing), But i don't have the sources at hand for all the sourcing this needs. Unfortunately, i don't think removing the unsourced content would be helpful in itself, as these topics have been discussed in many reliable sources, so need a sourced discuion here to be comprehensive. The SF project is too disorganised for a concerted push on this, although i'll contact some members that might have more sources.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are plenty of analyses of Heinlein by RS, books and articles.  I don't have them either.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are issues with the interpretation of author's work, in the direction of hagiography. Not up to FA standard, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.165.5.221 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be delisted. There are a lot of opinions, and a lot of things that essentially read as back-and-forth arguing between editors (phrases along the lines of "it could be argued that..., although some believe...."). It also seems to have accreted a lot of cruft and digressions since 2006. E.g., there's material in the lead that clearly isn't important enough to belong in the lead.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Image problems
 * File:Heinlein-decamp-and-asimov.jpg: no source
 * File:Red-planet-cover.jpg: no fair use rationale
 * It does have a fair use rationale. I've made the rationale more detailed.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have a rationale for its use in this article. It needs to have a separate rationale for each use of the image. DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Fixed. Thanks for the explanation.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Starship troopers2.jpg: no fair use rationale
 * File:Heinlein-crater.jpg: no source. DrKiernan (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources and images. Joelito (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist 1c  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist as nominator, 1c, 2c, 2d. The amount of work needed to bring this into line would be huge, it would detract from my own work, and there would be constant sniping from those whose personal opinions would have to be eliminated.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. I looked at working on this, but no-one at the Sf project is interested, and i think it needs a massive overhaul.YobMod 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist 1c. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist - per Wehwalt. I worked on the article briefly and could get no help by posting on the talk page. An enormous amount of unsourced material has been added over time. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per Wehwalt. Entire sections unreferenced.  Important genre writer, but not up to FA criteria by today's standards.  The number of sourcing problems with the images is especially worrisome.  Durova Charge! 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.