Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abyssinia, Henry/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abyssinia, Henry[edit]
- 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 kept by Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Abyssinia, Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Hotstreets, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Television
As of right now, this article is not only the oldest article based on an episode that is FA status, but it is the first one to reach that status. However the article has not aged well after its promotion. One main issue that can be seen is its lack of information. One example to this is the "Production" section as it seems a little empty as it only mentions the famous ending of the episode and nothing else. Compared to other episode articles, (Ex: No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)), its pretty much in poor quality. GamerPro64 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GamerPro, could you be a little more specific in your concerns? I've had a quick look through the article, and the sources that are currently there look good. I then looked through Google Scholar/Books/Web, and didn't see anything that would provide information beyond what is currently in the article. Now, I'm not a TV/film buff, and don't usually edit in these areas, so I could be missing something, but do you have sources that you think should be used to expand the article? If there is no further information out there, it would seem that the article is currently a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't have any sources that can be used to expand the article. Mainly I thought that as a whole it was missing important stuff an episode article should have like its writing or the filming. Like for example, if there was ever an article on the last episode of St. Elsewhere. The episode to this day has one of the most famous endings to a series in TV history. And if the article only talked about its ending or anything related to its ending and neglect anything else important to mention in the "Production" section and was promoted to FA status. Would it eventually lose its status when it lacks comprehension? I mean to me that's what I thought the problem to the article was. GamerPro64 18:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done another search for sources, and can't find any, especially regarding production of the episode other than the final scenes. If the sources aren't out there, I don't think we can ask people to create information from thin air. Overall, I think the article is in fairly good shape (although improvements are always possible to any article), and without further HQRS being found, I fail to see how we can delist it from FA status just because we think there should be more sources to use, rather than there actually being more sources to use. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. If you want to close this you can. Probably wasn't the right choice to put up for a review. GamerPro64 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, should have been more clear. I'm commenting as an editor, not a delegate. I'd like to get some further thoughts, if there are other interested editors, and I'm not going to close/move this, since I've expressed a definite opinion! Dana boomer (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. If you want to close this you can. Probably wasn't the right choice to put up for a review. GamerPro64 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done another search for sources, and can't find any, especially regarding production of the episode other than the final scenes. If the sources aren't out there, I don't think we can ask people to create information from thin air. Overall, I think the article is in fairly good shape (although improvements are always possible to any article), and without further HQRS being found, I fail to see how we can delist it from FA status just because we think there should be more sources to use, rather than there actually being more sources to use. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't have any sources that can be used to expand the article. Mainly I thought that as a whole it was missing important stuff an episode article should have like its writing or the filming. Like for example, if there was ever an article on the last episode of St. Elsewhere. The episode to this day has one of the most famous endings to a series in TV history. And if the article only talked about its ending or anything related to its ending and neglect anything else important to mention in the "Production" section and was promoted to FA status. Would it eventually lose its status when it lacks comprehension? I mean to me that's what I thought the problem to the article was. GamerPro64 18:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. This review is not going anywhere. I would like to Withdraw this. GamerPro64 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.