Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Humphrey Bogart/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Humphrey Bogart

Article is still a featured article.

I think this is a very detailed article. Just a pity it has zero citations or references. The user Taxman made a request for references on the article's talk page almost two months ago, and has received no response. Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Has some now. Remove, no references. - Taxman Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder, should we suspend the de-featuring of articles for lack of references until a version of WikiMedia comes out that has a better footnotes system? We are just encouraging people to implement our current references and footnotes systems, which will have to be migrated to the new system later anyway. 205.217.105.2 16:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well that doesn't even appear to be on the horizon, though I admit I haven't checked any feature roadmaps. It is one we often talk about around here, but I'm not sure the developers are aware of that. In any case, it's not likely to be too soo, and even if it were the work required to change footnoting isn't so onerous that it is worth reducing article quality in the meantime. - Taxman Talk June 28, 2005 14:50 (UTC)
  • Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • For who to fix? The article was written by an anon three years ago. There are no requests for references on the various anon talk page. Asking for references on this article in the above manner was almost certainly doomed to fail. Besides all the info in the article looks just like the stuff that would be verified in one of the biographies of Bogie that could be put as further reading. Do no t remove. Pcb21| Pete 07:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It could be, but hasn't been. If you've got a better method to get the 100 odd FA's that have no references to a higher standard I'm all ears. And it certainly is not doomed to failure, it worked for about 40 articles. - Taxman Talk 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • It will only have worked on the subset of articles for which the original author is still maintaining the article. Pcb21| Pete 17:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did take a look at the page's edit history before I submitted it as a FARC, but I think that as far as this discussion is concerned (i.e. whether the article stays featured or not), the age of this article doesn't really matter. The fact remains that the article does not contain any references, and thus does not meet the featured article criteria. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now contains references. Pcb21| Pete 17:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, good article, give Taxman more time to fix references--Fenice 15:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have neither the familiarity with the subject matter nor the available references to cite this properly. But apparently neither has anyone else, since it has none. - Taxman Talk 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I confused you with the writer. The article actually has references now.--Fenice 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as Pete. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very good article, references don't seem to be needed, nothing is disputed Sam Spade 23:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, references are always necessary for a featured article. Spangineer (háblame) 15:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added references to the extent that I can credibly can. To bolster further I have added further reading.
      • Changed to neutral until inline citations are included and/or the entire article is verified. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it now has imdb and ibdb references, Halliwell's and the "Time Out" Film Guide. I have also added "The Official Web site of Humphrey Bogart", which includes biographical details, as a reference. I suspect the two entries in "Further reading" are also actually references. Ok? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To be completely above board, I added the further reading having scanned all the Humphrey Bogart books in a large bookshop in central London and picking those two as looking like the best. I strongly suspect they will also verify many of the things beyond the obvious like dates but am not guaranteeing that. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Your efforts are admirable, but to be honest, I don't think anybody should assume that the books you have selected will be able to verify all of the information. Also, some inline citations would be nice, particularly with the quotes from Bogart, Bacall, and anyone else. I think the nomination should still stand, and that the article should be demoted from FA status. It's good that you and others are trying to resolve this problem, but the article has a long way to go yet. Extraordinary Machine 28 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)
  • Which parts of the article are so oddball that you don't think will be verified by the books (that presumably you have never seen?).
  • Inline citations may well indded be nice, but their absence is not a reason for defeaturing. Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 06:04 (UTC)
  • Well, I gathered from your previous messages that you hadn't gone through them thoroughly yet (or explored all of the Humphrey Bogart official website), but I apologise if I misinterpreted your comments. I'm changing my stance on this article to neutral, but only because I trust that you will examine the books you scanned in detail, and verify each fact and quote presented in the article accordingly. Extraordinary Machine 29 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I am being over-sensitive, but I detect a sliver of facetiousness in your response. Assuming good faith, I suppose it is worth saying that I doubt any FA has undergone that level of second-party validation. Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to be facetious. In fact, I just looked at the article's edit history page, and I noticed that you said you know the references you listed verify most of the article. I didn't realise this before I wrote my previous response. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Extraordinary Machine 1 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
  • It's kinda borderline. It's a well-written article, but it would be unlikely to meet the Featured Article criteria today if it were up for FAC, due to the lack of inline citations. I realize that it is a lot of work to add inline citations, especially if the article was not sourced to begin with. Nathan256 29 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, I notice that today's RMS Titanic featured article of the day only has eight inline notes. I say, Keep Humphrey Bogart unless someone can point out some mistaken facts in the article. Nathan256 29 June 2005 14:38 (UTC)