Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C. S. Lewis/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

C. S. Lewis[edit]

I think this article is in a FA status. Tomer T 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, remove to peer review, abuse of process. This article failed GA a week ago for lack of citations ~~(it has none).~~ It also has an External link farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose could use attention as well—there are numerous one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and an external jump in the prose:

Several C. S. Lewis Societies exist around the world, including one which was founded in Oxford in 1982 (see their website) ...

And there's a strange "For more details on this topic, see ..." in the middle of the text. Gosh, those inlines are distracting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Although it's a bit short on citations, it does have a fair number of them. They're Harvard style. I do, however, agree that the link farm has got to be weeded out. MLilburne 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might be willing to show support if the there was citation. There are plenty of references they just need links in the article. Buc 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object it does have inline citations of the Harvard form, though it's not what I'd call well-referenced; even facts and figures such as the movie gross are missing citations. The reference sections are also bizarrely formed; why in the world is 'References' (presumably these are the works references by the citations) below 'Books about Lewis', and why is there both a 'Biblography' and 'References'? There are also weasel statements that need cleanup ('Lewis's work is not without its critics') and the header style 'the author', etc. is an affectation that begs for fixing. Opabinia regalis 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The article is GA, but I'd much rather more references, and all of them in standard format. Something bugs me about Harvard. Wiki-newbie 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To be candid, it doesn't matter what you like. Harvard does not make or break a FAC. It is the content, not how it is referenced. One style is not superior over the others.-Hairchrm 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Harvard citations are usually enclosed within ref tags on Wikipedia, so they don't interrupt the flow of the text. Doing this would also make it easier to see what's a reference and what is just a parenthetical statement. Jay32183 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view Harvard makes it difficult to see what is being cited. Wiki-newbie 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue isn't that they're Harvard style, but that they're parenthetical rather than footnotes. There are other FA's that use Harvard citations, but still enclose them in <ref></ref> so the flow of the prose isn't interrupted. Jay32183 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly oppose - I've been putting a lot of work into this article to try and get it up to GA standards, but I know it's definitely not good enough to meet FA criteria. I have no doubt it will get there sooner rather than later, but this nomination seems somewhat premature. It is helpful however, to hear others' comments, so I welcome it for that if nothing else. Martin 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fair use Lewis in 1919 image, C.S. Lewis with his books image do not contribute substantially to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not too far off FA, but why not the standard inline refs? May not be compulsory (?) but other FACs all seem to have them. cheers Cas Liber 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.