Wikipedia:Featured article review/Only Fools and Horses/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 delisted by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 3:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [1].

Only Fools and Horses[edit]

Notified: Bucs (FAC nominator, inactive), Ritchie333 (October 2014 comments on talk page); the WikiProjects with tags on the talk page: BBC / BBC Sitcoms Task Force / Comedy / Television / London / England

Notified: the three editors with the highest number of edits to the article (FAC nominator is fourth on that list): SteveO, FlapjackStantz and NewTestLeper79 - stats tool wasn't working yesterday so couldn't find out who the main editors were until now. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review section[edit]

2006 FA, not reviewed since. Complaints about lack of citations in 2011 and in October 2014, unaddressed. Also unreliable sources (fan/self-published sites like www.ofah.net and www.epguides.com, tabloid newspapers). FA nominator Bucs is inactive. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333

In my view, the following are all deal breakers and mean the article does not meet the FA criteria, and I would pull up all these issues for discussion on a GA review as well:

A source "Clark (1998). Only Fools and Horses Story. p. 15." does not comply to FA standards - there is no mention of publisher, full name and ISBN. I realise this is actually mentioned in the prose down at "Merchanside" but ISBN numbers are part of references, not text. FA quality sources must make verification as easy as is practically possible.
The second paragraph in "History" is half-unsourced
"It attracted a respectable, though unspectacular (by those days' standards) 9.2 million viewers" - "respsectable" and "unspectacular" are just too POV for an FA. Just saying "it attracted 9.2 million viewers" would be better, and if the reader requires more information, a footnote listing typical audience figures for soaps and the most popular entertainment shows in 1981 would be informative and neutral. Additionally, this is the only place in the "History" section that gives viewing figures, the remainder is in the "Reception" section
"and allowed for more pathos in the series" - is unsourced
"The seventh series, which was to be the last, was aired in early 1991" - this is confusing, given that 12 years later you could still watch a new episode
The "Main cast" section is just far too rambling. This article may be read by somebody in America or India who may have a cursory knowledge of the show via syndicated repeats but even Brits who remember the show from day one (like me) would probably agree there is just too much detail here. Are "naive", "generally gormless" and "lacking common sense" good encyclopedic terms for Rodney?
The presence of File:JimBroadbent07TIFF_cropped.jpg seems to be a case of an article looking for a picture and not especially relevant to the show
The "Minor cast" information has too few sources. I realise a lot of this is of the "not challenged or likely to be challenged" variety, being simple "'x' played 'y'" facts
"Scenes such as .... have become iconic British comedy moments" - iconic is far too POV (and are they really as iconic as "Don't Tell 'em Pike", "Don't Mention The War", "And it's goodnight from me...", "Look, this isn't an argument", insert audio clip of David Brent singing Disco Inferno here etc etc)
"Other British slang words commonly used and popularised in the series include "dipstick", "wally" and "twonk", all mild ways of calling someone an idiot." - unsourced, "commonly used"? "popularised"? Says who?
"Several books have been published, most notably the officially sanctioned "The Only Fools and Horses Story" by Steve Clark" - see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED
"It also featured on a cavalcade of everyday items" - I would not have expected to see the word "cavalcade" here, and the information following is unsourced, so I've got no idea if any of the spinoff merchandise is important, whether it's collectable or not, does it fetch a good price on eBay, who knows?

I appreciate that is just a brief scan through the article, but from just that brief spin through I think it is currently around B/C class, certainly nowhere near an FA. The lack of sourcing is a showstopper, without that I cannot see any way of this article being quickly salvaged to retain current FA status, and would support a motion to delist.

Also pinging @SandyGeorgia: who was involved in the original FA review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal. In the FAC, I only got to citation formatting issues, said I would read through it later, but never got to it; I think I bowed out there because it was so odd that an editor with a name too close to mine was editing right behind me. I don't think it should have passed FAC, but standards were lower then. The articlehistory was wrong;[2] something seems to have changed in the date formatting department. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that date thing. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here is the version that passed FAC; it had a competent GA reviewer (RelHistBuff was a good editor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My review of this article at User:Dweller/Featured_Articles_that_haven't_been_on_Main_Page implies that I felt it was fairly iredeemable as an FA. Unless someone is going to volunteer to put in one heck of a lot of legwork, we might as well start talking about defeaturing. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases like this, it is unfortunate, but we still have to wait two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Sandy. Fair enough. Though a little voice in my head goes "Why?" --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because some fool or horse may appear and fix the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol. User:Rodney? --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, SteveO has replied to my message, saying "It has been obvious the article has needed work for some time, I just haven't had the time or inclination recently. I'll try to get round to it at a later point, but it won't be before the FAR ends." Bencherlite ^Talk 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - only edits since nomination have been to tidy reference format (and remove one sentence with an unreliable source), leaving the bigger issues untouched. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Main concern: Verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per all the above unaddressed concerns. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I think this one is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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