Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gremlins 2: The New Batch/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 Dana boomer 16:22, 28 July 2011 [1].

Gremlins 2: The New Batch[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Comedy User CanadianCaesar not active since 2009.

This article promoted back in 2006 and it has not been reviewed since. My main concern that article is failing 1c. Some unsourced statements like "Gremlins are drinking various chemical mixtures altering their structure." and "which hurt the sequel's chances of success." are unreferenced, including dead links. JJ98 (Talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related links for the review. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments If it's felt that the article doesn't meet 1c please explain what parts and why.

Checklinks reports no dead links.
Amazingly enough the two non-free images are correctly licensed and acceptable. (Hello Blade Runner)
There does seem to be unreferenced additions made to the article since its promotion. This would fall under 1c. Brad (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article has been listed at unreviewed featured articles. The paragraphs like "There was plans for Gremlins 3, but got cancelled because Gremlins 2 didn't do well at the box office." and "Another rock music appearance with the song "Sling Shot" by Jeff Beck occurs midway through the movie when the Gremlins are drinking various chemical mixtures altering their structure." are unreferenced. My main concern that sources are thin just like main article Gremlins which was delisted back in 2009 due failure of 2c issues. I have feeling that this may fail 2c. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, statements in the article such as you point out should simply be removed without question. I'm not familiar with the topic at hand but overall it appears the article only has a few minor problems. Maybe if you went through the article and placed {{cn}} tags where you think there needs to be a cite would help clarify things. Brad (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Commentary on Featured article criteria of concern in the review section focused mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as an nominator. I see little improvements, but I don't see any concerns addressed above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you've been specific enough as to what criteria the article is not meeting. What are your concerns? You claimed dead links but there are none. I've taken a closer look and removed some of the more silly trivia and video game instructions that were present. I cleaned up per WP:LINK. Some of the references are a bit weak in the HQRS department but even those are still acceptable. It's unusual for me to defend an article at FAR because normally there are multiple criteria not being met. This isn't the case here that I can see. Brad (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I attempted to "save" the article from delisting but on closer inspection that's just not possible in regards to 1c. I found links that are "not dead" but their content is no longer what the citation claims it was. Promoted in 2006, the article is just not up to 2011 standards. Brad (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Brad. Too many citations to IMDb and Amazon, and the low number of sources indicates a lack of "depth" to the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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