Wikipedia:Featured article review/Judy Garland/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [1].

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Women,

I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't meet today's FA standards. Dr. Blofeld previously started two threads about how the article wasn't up to par, and I can't say these have really been fulfilled. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I find when comparing this article to the FA criteria:

• 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

• Could be better. As an example, "Emmy nominated" should be hyphenated (if mentioning noms at all), "Film appearances became fewer" reads rather awkwardly, and I'm not sure about the tone of "hit on a winning formula". There are also lots of rather short paragraphs which make the text look choppy.

• 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

• Certainly not. It doesn't talk about her genres of music or any studio albums she recorded, and the "legacy" section says nothing about her impact/influence on society or the music and/or film industries.

• 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

• I wouldn't say so. There are dead links that need to be fixed, and many ^{[citation needed]} tags within the article. Not sure if "Digitallyobsessed.com", "Dangerous Minds", "RYSE", or "Thespec.com" are reliable.

Fixed all dead links but the Google News link about an article in St. Petersburg Times. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

• This needs work. "Notable" in "Other notable roles" is a POV description. Same with "memorable" in "her most memorable role", "attractive" and "dowdy" in "the attractive leading lady, rather than the dowdy girl next door", "notably" in "Most notably, she performed" and "disastrous" in "A 1964 tour of Australia was largely disastrous". "Tremendous" in "a tremendous critical success" is borderline puffery.

• 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process

• This is absolutely A-OK.

• 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections

• No. I don't really see the need for mentioning Mickey Rooney here, and there's nothing on her musical works except for Judy at Carnegie Hall. Not even her song "Over the Rainbow" is mentioned. As for accolades, it's best to just include what she won to avoid over-focusing on awards, and have any mere nominations instead be included within article body.

• 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

• Seems fine to me.

• 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)

• One bare link, and url names shouldn't be listed when work titles are already included

Fixed all bare URLs, and which one is the listed URL name? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See citations 133 ("activemusician.com" → "Active Musician") and 139 (The Sydney Morning Herald, which should be italicized, has "smh.com.au" as its work title) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

• No copyright concerns that I can find, but Garland's face in File:Judy Garland Over the Rainbow 2.jpg seems to somewhat blend into the background and she's blurry in File:TillTheClouds3.jpg. Something better like File:The Wizard of Oz Judy Garland Terry 1939.jpg could be used in place for the former, and it's probably best to have a pic of Garland in real life as opposed to a movie screenshot for the infobox where she'd look more natural (especially given how she had to wear a wig and go on strict diets while filming The Wizard of Oz). For File:Judy Garland at Greek Theater.jpg, "before a concert" isn't very descriptive as it doesn't tell where this performance was or anything.

• 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style

• Maybe. I'm not sure if "Her daughter Liza Minnelli made her film debut at the age of two and a half at the end of the film" is necessary. Not so sure this needs to go into detail about nominations she lost when there are other accolades she won.

This clearly is going to take some work to salvage, and the promoted version doesn't look much better even if FA standards weren't so strict back in 2008 when it passed FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Demote the citation needed tags alone would keep it from being even GA. HalfGig talk 14:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Demote while there have been some improvements since I opened this review, they're nowhere near enough to make the article FA quality. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. In addition to the points raised here and tagged in the article, there are unresolved issues on the talk page, such as whether her sister's suicide should be mentioned. DrKay (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, 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) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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