Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samuel Beckett/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 02:19, 25 June 2009 [1].

Samuel Beckett

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland ‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry, User talk:Saposcat, User talk:Yossarian.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Could use an image review for File:Brocquy Image of Beckett.jpg, File:Beckett-grave-paris.jpg and File:Sam beck 20euro gold Reverse.JPG. WP:LEAD is a bit short. Could use copyediting, pass for cites, overall. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On images, File:Beckett-grave-paris.jpg lacks requisite source information such as author (which from the minimal text, appears to be different from the uploader? But it's not clear.) File:Brocquy Image of Beckett.jpg should be tagged and deleted as copyvio (I'll get around to it today if someone doesn't hop on it sooner), as the author of the image did not specifically permit CCbySA2.5 licensing. The coin image... meh, it could be fine, but it needs a better use rationale. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is incomplete. The page is not comprehensive enough with research (lacks education and development, discussion of early works). Not enough citations. Writing seems more personal essayish than encyclopedic - too much subjectivity. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to defeature, but it could do with a cricket infobox, in line with all other first-class cricketers. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we could use some more detailed description of what is actually missing. I'm not convinced there is a problem with this article. For example, what is lacking an inline citation that requires one? What information is missing? I see your list, OR, but... those sections are in the article. So, I'm unclear what you mean. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the Brocquy image as copyright vio, and managed to find enough info to salvage Beckett's grave image. That just leaves the FUR for the coin image, which I added to but still think is rather weak. Unless someone objects I'll remove. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, completely fails WP:FA criteria for referencing; lead also far too short, and the ELs need serious trimming. Certainly not featured quality. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per concerns brought above. Requires complete overhaul. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Weak lead; external link farm. DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I have to agree and don't have the time or resources to fix it. ww2censor (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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