Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/A Series of Unfortunate Events/1

A Series of Unfortunate Events

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: No opposition. Obvious citation and original research issues. Delisted. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has a problem with original research/verifiability (see 2c): although many of the cn tags in there were added by myself, a decent number weren't and all of them need addressing anyway. References are thorough in a couple of sections (like "Genre"), but sparse for most of the article. For instance, the long analytical "Recurring themes and concepts" section has only 4 sources, 3 of which are just sources to the books next to quotes taken out of them. I'm sure it would be a great piece of writing on a fansite or forum, but is not referenced.

There also seems to be an issue with images (6a), although I'm not an expert in this area: while the book set picture of the English version is fair use, as I would expect, File:Série de livres Les désastreuses aventures des orphelins Baudelaire.JPG and File:Řada nešťastných příhod.jpg (the French and Czech translations) are from Commons.

The sales subsection could perhaps do with some expansion — I know, for instance, that not all of those 41 language editions will have printed the whole 13-book series of ASOUE (and very few supplementary works like TBL or TUA or Horseradish). Are there reliable sources somewhere that go into more detail? If not, the subsection is far too small (one sentence!) to be left on its own, and should be incorporated into some other part of "Reception". (The main section "Genre" might also have the same problem.)

I'm sure I've neglected to mention many issues the article has, but just the referencing issue means it fails GA criteria. The article hasn't been reviewed since 2007 (and I would say it should have been delisted then): it definitely doesn't meet the criteria now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)