Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jack Sparrow/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 kept by Nikkimaria 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sparrow

Featured article candidates/Jack Sparrow

Notified: Alientraveller, RadioKirk, PNW Raven, Obi-WanKenobi-2005, Bignole, Tbhotch, Technobabble1, WikiProject Disney

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

For criterion 1a, it has multiple run-on sentences and other prose issues. It may be solved by GOCE copyediting.
For 1b, some of the sections, like Tie-ins, are too short and do not cover its topic comprehensively. I personally cannot propose any solutions.
For 1c, there is a rather major lacking in references. As above, I cannot solve the problem myself.
For 4, the section on appearances is very large, while other sections, such as Tie-ins, are very short. The appearance section could be cut, but then the article will become quite short for an FA.

I hope that the article can be improved to current FA standard. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The information in Tie-ins shouldn't be difficult to source. As for Characterization, it's quite a long section (my background is in video games, and I'd be laughed out of FAC if I nominated an article with this level of cruft), so the unsourced information could easily just be snipped. Tezero (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently forced to FA, refering to the FAC.Forbidden User (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Looks like it just had lots of supports; criteria were looser back then. Tezero (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only serious voice (which picks a lot of prose issue, and brings up the verifiability problem) was overwhelmed by people who sounded like WP:ILIKEIT...Forbidden User (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will fix this myself. Feel free to close.Forbidden User (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: Forbidden User , how is this going? It looks like there's still a referencing tag on one section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section mainly deal with coverage and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - outstanding queries: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rescue attempt goes awry and Barbossa maroons Jack and Elizabeth on the same island was left on before. - pronoun left out - think it's a "he" but not sure as I forgot the plot....

One section needing sources - otherwise looks in ok shape and can be kept I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleared the remaining tags. I believe this article meets criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c and 4.

On 1b and 1c: in brief, the article appears to include all the pertinent available information about the character from reliable, third-party sources (since there are not very many). There are two points of concern: (1) aspects of the character from the non-film primary sources, i.e. the back-story in books and comics and games, etc., are not described. This does not seem to be a case where these tie-ins are considered "non-canon" by fans, and therefore excluded. However, since all of the back-story is from primary sources, there is a valid argument that it is all irrelevant and non-notable. (2) There might be some extra mileage from sources such as Queer Buccaneers: (de)constructing Boundaries in the Pirates of the Caribbean Film Series by Heike Steinhoff and The Handbook of Gender, Sex and Media by Karen Ross (Chapter 18: Why doesn't your compass work?), but the suspicions of movie executives that the character was too gay and the fetishistic aspects of the pirate-ship dynamic are touched on in the article, if only briefly. These brief mentions could just as easily be argued to be sufficient.
On 2b, yes, the tie-ins section is the difficult one. The article doesn't seem comprehensive without it and yet it is the weakest in terms of sourcing and notability. It doesn't fit seemlessly into the whole. On balance, I don't think we can do without it and I don't think it will fit better anywhere else. So, I guess it will have to remain.
On 3, I have some vague disquiet about using 2 fair-use images when there are images at commons, but again there are valid counter-arguments: the image of the main character should be the canonical, official image of the original character not a derivative; and the image of the character before its full development is informative of the production process. It is not entirely clear whether a sand sculpture, as a work of art, can be copyrighted. If it can be, and it was, then freedom of panorama does not apply and the photograph would be a photograph of a copyrighted work and hence not free. However, the sand sculpture is already a derivative of Disney's copyright and is clearly a transitory and impermanent creation. On balance, I think any claim of copyright is likely to be considered absurd and essentially unenforceable. So, there are insufficient grounds for removing or changing any of the images. They appear to meet criterion 3.
Essentially, I don't much like this article but all of the above concerns are arguable niggles. There is nothing I can point at clearly and say it does not meet the criteria on that point. I fear my concerns might be desperate excuses that are really based on prejudice against a pop culture article rather than based on the featured article criteria. Consequently, if forced to make a declaration, I will have to stomach a keep. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know if I have the stomach for the keep yet; the prose is just tortured and bounces all over the place. A good independent ce is needed;~~ maybe Curly Turkey or Miniapolis would take on an independent copyedit. ~~On the MOS trivials, a WP:PUNC review is needed.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have Tezero and Forbidden User revisited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, Forbidden User, hasn't edited since September. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha, Curly Turkey to the rescue! Perhaps Zziccardi could also lend a hand and bring this one over the hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your hopes up yet! I've gotten down to the "Characters" section and am having a bit of trouble figuring out what the text is trying to say. I've "seen" all the movies over my kids' shoulders, but I've never actually sat through one, so it's not always clear to me how I can reword things without potentially distorting the meaning. I have no idea what "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc" is supposed to mean, for instance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Well, I couldn't make heads or tails of what most of the article was trying to say, and thought there was a secret key ... as in, maybe I shoulda seen the movie :) But your edits are improvements! You may come to wish I hadn't discovered the Power of the Pingie Thingie! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I loved to be loved. Another one I can't figure out is "he wore contacts that acted as sunglasses". The source is a video I son't have access to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone can clarify "Sparrow has several gold teeth, two of which belong to Depp, although they were applied during filming." Is this supposed to mean that the two Depp actually owns are also removable? I don't know anything about gold teeth—I assumed they were shoved into the sockets of the replaced teeth...? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now, heh. Okay, I will vote...
keep...
but would prefer the first paragraph of Tie-ins be bolstered with citations if at all possible. There are also some passages I'd rather see written differently, e.g. "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc, in which Sparrow tells him a pirate can be a good man, like his father" (whose?), "At World's End was meant to return it tonally to a character piece" (return what?), but IMO nothing worth removing FA status over. Tezero (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will enter a begrudging Keep because the glaring issues have been addressed, and no one has entered further commentary after three weeks. But, I suspect this article will be back at FAR soon, unless Curly Turkey, who did most of the prose cleanup, keeps it watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last thing: empty the lead of ref's per WP:LEAD. But the same content must stay sourced in the body of the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at WP:LEAD, there is no "exception to citation requirements specific to leads", and there is no need here to "empty the lead of refs". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kailash was referring to WP:LEADCITE, which indicates that citations are generally not used in lead sections. Anyway, this article doesn't look too bad now, so I'm going to say keep. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was also referring to WP:LEADCITE (a subsection of LEAD), and there is still no reason to delete the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 00:39, 22 January 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.