Wikipedia:Featured article review/Porgy and Bess/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 09:26, 15 February 2008.

Notified WP Musical Theatre and WP Opera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Message left at AlbertSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page will need some serious work if it's to stay a featured article. There are no sources whatsoever in nearly half of the article; whole sections are totally devoid of sources. In addition, at least one of the source links is dead. The sources that do exist are also cited inconsistently (such as the use of "See note 3").

Some passages also read as original research, such as the following:

• "...a daring and visionary artistic choice at the time..."
• "...it was not widely accepted in the United States as a legitimate opera until 1976 when the Houston Grand Opera... established it as an artistic triumph..."
• "Despite this success, the opera has been controversial; some, from the outset, have considered it racist."

For these reasons, I believe that this article should undergo a review. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a review is appropriate but I'm not convinced by all you points. All the WP:OR examples you give are quotations from the lead section and much of it is summarising the article. The race issue is certainly expanded on in a section below and I have no problem with that sentence in the lede. I agree that the referencing is rather sparse and that "See note 3" is rather odd. Content-wise I would hope that an FA would have rather more detail in sections such as "compositional history". There were a lot of contributors? How did they work together? I know Puccini corresponded heavily with his librettists and demanded rewrites. Was Gershwin like that? How many drafts were there? How long did it take to write? etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article, on the whole, is extremely well written. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't well written (except for a couple unverified claims). It's just largely unreferenced, and FA-class articles are supposed to be fully referenced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the passages quoted above read like OR to me, although they may need referencing. Johnbod (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong remove:

• WP:MOS#Captions, full sentences have punctuation at end, sentence fragments do not.
• The first thing the reader encounters in the article is a list, with no prose describing the characters, significance of their roles, etc. Suggest reviewing guidelines at WP:FILM for guidance on how to better write this section, and review some FILM FAs. A straightforward character list as the first item in the article is just not compelling prose, and the article may need to be restructured.
• Incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs where WP:DASHes should be used, see Plot section for example. Throughout the text, mixture of hyphens and unspaced emdashes.
• Cite needed tags throughout.
• Insufficient information about the writing and development of the musical; very thin on development.
• WP:MOSNUM, recorded a 3-LP album ...
• Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in film and television.
• Unformatted citations and raw URLs.

I'm surprised this article is FA: it is seriously deficient at this point and appears abandoned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if improved on points. SG's points need addressing, and the list of characters and plot summary should go lower down, below a longer lead, a story summary and maybe the history of the composition (but not the production history). But certainly capable of saving, if someone is ready to get stuck in. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Of course it would be a keep if improved! However this seems unlikely at present and this therefore should be removed per 1c, character section etc. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:12, 13 February 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.