Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Article is no longer a featured article

I don't think the problems with this article are insurmountable, but it its current condition I don't think it qualifies as the best Wikipedia has to offer. On the whole, it needs a major copyedit and references. (Also, in my opinion, the plot summary is excessively long.) Some examples in more specific detail:

1. The article has no References section, though there are some references scattered throughout the article.
2. Articles are referred to without providing a citation. (e.g. Psychologist Sheldon Kopp demonstrated in a 1970 article in Psychology Today that the story has parallels to the processes individuals undergo during psychological therapy—but no citation to the article is provided.)
3. Confusing prose, such as: The Wizard tries to persuade the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion that what they lack are not brains or a heart or courage, but faith in themselves. But he still agrees to meet each of them and to give them (without their knowledge) a placebo which brings out the qualities they had all along. So the lion doesn't know he gets a badge of courage? The scarecrow is unaware of having received a diploma?
4. Inappropriate tone, such as: (Sure, the nation was slowly recovering, but this is still politics).

There are a lot more examples that could be given, but I'd like to hear other opinions. --Tabor 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. It needs a real good cleanup. I left a note on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz about this. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove for other reasons as well. I'm a huge Oz fan, and I was never comfortable with this article's Featured status. The article devotes far too much space to the populism allegory debate, and far too little space to the history and evolution of this book. There is room to expand on the collaboration of Baum and Denslow, critical response to the book, sales, imitations, adaptations and pastiches, Oz fandom, the International Wizard of Oz Club, the role this book played in the development of American Children's Literature... and I agree, the plot summary is too detailed. --Woggly 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, the whole "is or isn't The Wizard of Oz an allegory on populism" debate should be moved to a seperate article. This is clearly a disputed aspect of the book, but it is far from being the most pertinent or interesting aspect of the book. I'd mention the debate in the article, and link to a seperate article, so as to draw the edit wars away from the main article. --Woggly 08:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sad Remove I did add a references section, BUT have to agree with Woggly. I think maybe this article should be top priority to fix and get BACK to FA status. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Problems right from the lead paragraph: "It is well regarded in popular culture and has been widely translated as the first American fairy tale due to its setting." Huh? Does that mean that it has been widely translated, because it is the first American fairy tale, or that the translations all make particular note that it is the first American fairy tale? Does that mean its setting makes it a fairy tale, or that its setting has made it well-regarded/widely-translated? And what does "well regarded in popular culture" mean? And is "the first American fairy tale" a verfiable/citable claim? ("Some consider it the first American fairy tale" would be unacceptable in a FA.) There's stuff like this throughout the article. I agree with JonMoore that bringing this back up to Featured quality should be a priority for the next few weeks. Andrew Levine 03:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)