Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jaws (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:58, 24 March 2010 [1].

Jaws (film)

Review commentary

• Featured article review/Jaws (film)
• Featured article review/Jaws (film)/archive1

Notified:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks

• Comment in addition to the issues noted, I'm not entirely sure the article is "comprehensive". The "critical reception" is rather insanely light, with only two short paragraphs of reception, and seems to suffer from a bit of OR and unsourced bits snuck in). The references are not using a consistent style, and there are only four book citations, further supporting the complete lack of comprehensiveness of this article. Some of the citations are of questionable quality, at best. At this time, this article does not meet the
  WP:FAC. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see
  WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, original research, MOS, citations YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delist while improvements have been made to the article, including a much needed EL clean up, fixing some vandalism, and fixing of the bits tagged with citation needed, there are still unsourced parts of the article, the reception section is virtually unchanged other than the removal of some of the OR, and the ref citations are still inconsistent. As such, it still is not back to FA level yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll give this article a shot after work tomorrow. It shouldn't be too difficult to expand the critical release section and grab a few more sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist
  • What makes the following reliable?
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20080307073711/http://www.sharkisstillworking.com/video2.asp (ref 21)
    • http://www.tonmo.com/reviews/beast.php (ref 45)
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20060908002842/http://www.scifilm.org/reviews/blacklagoon.html (ref 48)
    • http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/1999/24_Sep---Film_Score_Friday.asp , http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/1999/14_Sep---A_Study_of_Jaws_Incisive_Overture.asp (refs 57, 63)
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20070213082036/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2822/is_n1_v21/ai_20633217 (ref 60)
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20070317211802/http://www.spielbergfilms.com/jaws/1346 (ref 65)
    • http://www.sharkisstillworking.com/ (ref 66)
    • http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Universal-Planning-A-3D-Remake-Of-Jaws-16954.html (ref 72)
    • http://movies.sky.com/jaws-to-be-remade-in-3d (ref 73)
    • http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a202152/universal-planning-3d-jaws-remake.html (ref 74)
  • Formatting problems, refs 32, 33, 36, and 37 (for example) need to have the newspaper as the publisher, not the name of the website
  • Deadlinks (and probably not reliable): http://www.jawsmovie.com/1/benchscript2.htm , http://www.ez-entertainment.net/features/Gregory_Peck.htm (refs 46, 47)
  • Ref 64 redirects —
    majestic titan) 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delist due to not meeting the FA criteria of comprehensiveness. I researched the film last weekend and found a lot that this Wikipedia article was missing. Nehrams2020 added a bibliography in the article's "References" section of publications to be used, and there are additional references found on the talk page. This article became Featured during a time when the bar was lower, and like the_ed17 pointed out above, the article uses too many relatively weak online references. Such references cannot be the foundation of a Featured Article for an older film like this; effort must be made to pull together references that are not found a Google search away. In any case, any work on this article would have to go beyond its original state, and I think it is better for the article to undergo the FAC process for higher scrutiny than if we tried to recover it for passing the FAR/FARC processes. Erik (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Erik, you're right. I wasn't gonna choose yet because of Nehrams2020's comment about fixing it up. Then again, I think its not gonna help right now.
  GamerPro64 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist Cleaned it up a bit and added a few sources, but it definitely could use some more that are more centered on the film (some were only Spielberg biographies). We'll get it back up to FA at some point, but in its current state, it doesn't meet the criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Erik; clearly needs a major effort to fish for offline sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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