Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Brothers Karamazov/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 07:42, 19 May 2007.
The Brothers Karamazov
Review commentary
- Message left at User talk:Jonesboy1983 Awadewit 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Additional messages left at Books and Novels. LuciferMorgan 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks sources and resembles sparknotes more than an encyclopedia entry, with its long plot summary and character descriptions. The "themes" section is pitifully short and is not backed up with reliable, scholarly sources, nor is the bulk of the article. Awadewit 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The unfree images do not have fair use rationales. Jay32183 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's practically zero in-line referencing. There's very little referencing period. -- Rmrfstar 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources (1c), structure (2), and coverage/focus (4). Marskell 07:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c issues mostly, also I'm not normally bothered by an overly long TOC but this one is excessive it seems to arise from giving each character his or her own short one paragraph section. Incidentally, the appeal to authority in the lead has two of the supposedly renowned thinkers redlinked; I'd do away with the whole sentence anyway for some other method of establishing how the novel is regarded. Quadzilla99 09:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for the following reasons.
- 1b - There is very little here on the themes of the novel or the style of the writing, two key components of any novel. Also, the "Influence" section does not include a reception history; it details only the reception amongst famous thinkers.
- 1c - This article does not rely on scholarly sources, of which there are plenty available on the Brothers Karamazov.
- 2a - The lead is a poor introduction to the article because it does not summarize the article.
- 3 - Not all images have a fair use rationale.
- 4 - The plot summary and character descriptions are too long - they are not summaries. Awadewit Talk 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c and 1a. Also the article fails to discuss the receoption to the novel. LuciferMorgan 13:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per the above. Trebor 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.