Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jean-Luc Picard/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Jean-Luc Picard[edit]

This is a long, well-written article on one of the most famous fictional characters ever. It fits the FA criteria well - apart from that it is a little long, but although it is long, it is all to do with Picard, sticks to the point show in the header of the relevant section and accurate. Jh fireboy I'm listening 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It mainly talks about the characters' in-universe feats. The only snippet of real-world information -- about Patrick Stewart's casting -- is relegated to the Trivia section. Oh, and the article has a trivia section. No references to real-world significance, such as inclusion in texts and courses on leadership, or even all those TV Guide covers. "A Dynamic Character" section uses first-person perspective and is OR or uncited. Indeed, only two entries in the References section, and one is a primary source. And this from someone who's put a fair amount of work into the article. --EEMeltonIV 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not long; the readable prose is 27 KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Trivia section, short choppy and listy prose, mixed reference styles, mostly uncited, almost entirely in-universe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about the fictional character Jean Luc Picard, not about the actor that played the character (who has his own article). Therefore, I would expect the article to include in-universe information almost exclusively. Snottywong 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While fictional articles understandably contain some of this make-believe information, Wikipedia's focus is on real-world significance. The process by which the actor got the role is appropriate for this article (an the actor's). But all articles, esp. FAs, need to answer the real-world "So what?" question. --EEMeltonIV 12:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Snottywong: Please read WP:FICT, which is the guideline for fiction-related articles. Articles should NOT take an in-universe perspective. While reporting of the characters in-universe life is appropriate and germaine, that fact that this article is almost ENTIRELY in-universe in its writing is the problem. It should be expanded to include more critical out-of-universe perspective.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 1c and 1b - the article does nothing to explain the creation of the character and how writers developed the character. LuciferMorgan 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to all of the problems cited above by EEMelton, Sandy, and Lucifer, the lead is very short, especially for an article of this length, and there are far too many fair use images- how many times do we have to see Patrick Stewart as Picard? Oh, and while this was mentioned above, I have to say it again: one reference?! I would (very kindly, and in no way disparagingly) ask the nominator to read/reread WP:WIAFA if they think this meets the criteria. -- Kicking222 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "One of the most famous factional characters ever" You've got to be kidding, right? --128.253.240.31 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough out-of-universe critical perspective, trivia section has got to go too!. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), you shouldn't treat a fictional character as if he is real. This article is written like a biography of Picard. The nominator, and regular editors, should look at Jabba the Hutt, Padme Amidala, and Palpatine for how an article about a fictional film character should be written. Also, another good thing to read would be Wiki's opinion of trivia sections. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend withdrawal—needs information on how the character was created, how Partick Stewart portrays him, as well as references. — Deckill er 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and WP:SNOW for the following reasons:

1b - This article is far from comprehensive because all it does is discuss the character within the context of the show. It does not discuss the creation of the character, Stewart's views on the character, much about the changes of the character, the place of this character within science fiction, the fan culture surrounding the character, etc. Whole sections are missing. The "life of the character in the show" should be a single section in the article. Wikipedia is not a fan site - it should not reflect the pecedilloes of fans (and I am a fan of Picard) but rather the scholarly consensus on Picard.
1c - This article could have been so much better if only the editors had done some research. Scholars of popular culture, science fiction and fan culture have written a ton on Star Trek. That they have not looked at any of this material reveals that they are not serious about writing a respectable encyclopedia entry.
4 - The article is poorly organized; it spends far too much time describing the details of the character in his universe rather than from the perspective of why the character is important in culture. The article links to Picard's biography at "Memory Alpha," a Star Trek wiki. That is the more appropriate site for this kind of biography and, indeed, they have a very in-universe biography of Picard there (and, as a fan of Star Trek, I think it is fabulous), but for wikipedia see WP:FICTION. Awadewit ^Talk 19:40, 8 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.