Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Our Gang/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Our Gang[edit]

(better known as The Little Rascals) Something of a self-nomination, though at least two others have assisted with parts of both the main article and linking. The article has been significantly expanded to include a full history of the series, and creation of a category for the kids in the series [1]. (Nominated by B Touch, Dec 5)

  • Comment - About half the page is a list of the various casts which I agree should be available but maybe not in the page itself--Evil Monkey 20:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point. I took the personnel section and created a breakout page for it: Our Gang personnel. --b. Touch 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs references (Wikipedia:Cite your sources) and some explanation what can be found on the mentioned websites, besides only the creator's name. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)Support - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • There are four references listed; the first is a comprehensive history/study/filmography on the series, the second two are primary sources from two of the kids in the series, and the last one dedicates a number of pages to the African-American children in the series. The two websites belong to former Our Gang kids, a point which was more apparent when the cast list was on the main page. That has now been fixed, and the references have been reformated. --b. Touch 19:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now. Object. Were the resources listed in the 'Further reading' section were actually used to add or fact check the material in the article? If so, the section should be called references. Further reading is entirely ambiguous as to whether the resources have actually been consulted or if they are just there for the interested reader. - Taxman
  • The two autobiographies were not used as references; the other two books were. I will make changes accordingly. --b. Touch 03:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. Two is really the minimum I am willing to support, but two print references and two more further reading is not bad. If you have extensively used a reliable external link, that can be considered a reference too. - Taxman 18:59, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I found this comprehensive, well-written and interesting to read. I like the use of images (have not checked them for copyright status) and the listing of references. I did some c.e. and linking, but I would not consider this a self-nom. Quill 23:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)