Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)/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 User:Marskell 16:19, 6 June 2008 [1].

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified parties

The article for Buffy the Vampire Slayer no longer meets the requirements for being a featured article. In particularly, it fails the first FA criteria 1c which requires the article be factually accurate with all claims being verifiable through reliable sources. There are several unreferenced statements in the text, including several completely unreferenced paragraphs. Some of the worse instances include:

Writing - almost entire second paragraph has no source
Music - same problem
Format - section is completely unsourced
Angel - most of section is unsourced, sans first paragraph
Expanded universe - only one out of the four paragraphs has any sources
Fandom and fan films - unsourced lead out to main article
U.S. ratings - spotty sourcing in table, all of prose is completely unsourced
Series information - main section prose unsourced and entire DVD section unsourced

Additionally, several of the sources used within the article fail WP:RS, with the heavy use of fansites, including whedonesque.com and and IMDB. I posted a note to the talk page about these issues, but no response nor reaction was seen after 3 days. I'd also question whether it meets criteria 4 for being an appropriate length that doesn't go into unnecessary detail - such as having a six paragraph section on spinoffs that were never even created and which already have a main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up similar issues in November 2007. By Feb. 2008, nothing had happened. So, this isn't just a 3 day no response issue, this is a several months no response issue. The issues I brought up were subsequently archived without further response. Given AnmaFinotera's current load of 2 FARs, it was discussed on this talk page (see the history) that I would take over this article in the review. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the lead could probably be tweaked to better represent the article as a whole. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above; since no-one seems to be attending this article anymore, I suggest it be moved to FARC since the problems are not likely to be redressed, per Bignole. Eusebeus (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, sourcing issues remain completely unaddressed. Also needs MoS fixes, and some lead work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I have to agree. No one seems to have cared to even put forth an argument on this page, let alone clean up the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove refs less in spinoffs; WP:LINKS; pop culture, fandom and DVD are stub sections. Ultra! 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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