Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randall Flagg/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Randall Flagg edit

Self-Nomination Was rejected before due to improper image licensings, missing citations and some speculative information. That has now been fixed. The article is a lengthy analysis on Randall Flagg, his roles in all the books he has appeared in, the miniseries appearence, and the poem on which he was based.--CyberGhostface 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • After a section on "Names, appearance and role" you have the following sentence in "Origins": Flagg had many aliases, almost all of which have the initials "R.F."–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent tense in Flagg plans to attack and destroy the other emerging civilization in Boulder, Colorado, leaving his civilization as the only survivors. His plans were foiled when the hand of God is turned upon him causing a nuclear bomb to detonate in front of his assembled followers.–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there is still some speculative unreferenced material, such as Prior to The Dark Tower, some fans suggested that the original edition of The Stand and the expanded edition are actually parallel dimension variations of the same story. –Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the speculative bit.--CyberGhostface 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object: Again, some issues with the Fair Use images. I still believe that the article uses too many; each should be used to illustrate a specific facet of the subject, but at the moment a few seem to be just decorative. The lead image is good, and Jamey Sheridan definitely belongs, but what does Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg show that the others dont? Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg doesn't show the character very clearly (though it might still be worth keeping), and I've still no idea which of the two characters in Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg is supposed to be Flagg and which is King Peter. Aside from the images, the "Aliases" section in its present form seems more of an extended piece of trivia than anything, especially with most of his important pseudonyms already mentioned within the text of the article. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg represents Walter o'Dim, Flagg's only other significant alias (as it says in the beginning, Walter is Flagg's 'real' name and how he considers himself), as he appears in the Dark Tower series. Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg shows his death scene. And I'll try to make Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg more clearer.--CyberGhostface 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure about the images (thanks for clearing up the Flagg/Peter ambiguity), but not enough so to oppose on those grounds. Could you give some justification for the Aliases list though? I really don't see what it adds to the article beyond a trivia point, which are generally discouraged in FACs. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The aliases are now gone.--CyberGhostface 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always liked this article.
It seems to me that if the concerns over image licensing are resolved then it would make a good candidate for featured article status. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this entry seems to have kind of died off, with no supports or objects. Anyone at all have an opinion on the article? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any admins we can ask for opinions?--CyberGhostface 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure which users are currently paying attention to FAC, though generally if an entry doesn't receive enough feedback or no decision has been reached, Raul654 will repost it to garner some more responses. Patience is the key thing :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The article is listed as having invalid ISBNs. Also may be this and this are worth of mention as a kind of cultural influence? --Brand спойт 10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which ISBNs are innaccurate? I would disagree with the cultural influences bit: I usually prefer not to add trivia bits like that as it comes off irrevelant to the character and the article as a whole.--CyberGhostface 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Not happy with the writing (1a). Let's take the lead, which suggests that the whole article needs a serious copy-edit.
Randall Flagg is a fictional character created by Stephen King. He is considered by many to be King's "supervillain", a recurring archetype of personified evil who appears in a number of King's writings. Flagg made his first appearance in the 1978 novel The Stand as the central antagonist. This was followed by central roles in The Eyes of the Dragon and The Dark Tower.
Randall Flagg is generally described as having an everyday appearance, dressed in casual American-style clothing. His goals typically center around spreading destruction and causing conflict, and he often prefers to work behind the scenes. He goes by many names, from the "Dark Man" to the "Walkin' Dude." He is also a magician, is said to come from the "outside", and has lived for at least 15 centuries, but cannot remember every life he has had.
    • "He is considered"—Coming straight after Stephen King, we momentarily wonder whether that is the referent for "He". Not kind to the reader.
    • "Writings"—why not say "books and plays", if that's the case (no idea, but precision here would be easy).
    • "Central" twice in seven words. "Roles" makes them sound like films.
    • Described by whom? Reword to avoid the need for references.
    • Is it the appearance that is dressed? The grammar of that sentence is not satisfactory.

Tony 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the problems that you mentioned. If you find anymore, tell me, and I'll rewrite them as well.--CyberGhostface 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. I've provided examples of why the whole article needs serious attention, not just the fixing of a few specified glitches. Here are more, taken at random.

    • "Still, even in this case it is possible that"—Not really encyclopedic language.
    • "hints are made to this when a connection between"—hints to?
    • "The two characters are even further connected by"—awkward/unidiomatic/unclear.
    • Winding snake that needs chopping up: "Because Flagg here acts and looks slightly different from how he did in The Stand, (most likely because The Eyes of the Dragon features a medieval setting while The Stand took place in modern times) some have argued that the two are different versions of him from two different dimensions, given the presence of parallel dimensions in the Dark Tower series." And here's another rambler, soon after: "Due to the fact that the story takes place in the same world as The Dark Tower, it could be assumed that, if he did in fact die, then he had reincarnated once again in this same world, much like in the case of the extended version of The Stand."
    • Huge, two-paragraph quote starting ""He had, in fact, come to Delain ...". I think this is a problem.

Really, I think that this is not FA prose. Tony 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its fair that you are listing your complaints without saying what needs to be improved, especially when the majority of it is just minor grammatical errors. The others here managed to list their doubts with the article, which I later fixed appropiately.--CyberGhostface 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get it. The problem is that the article is full of "minor" glitches. If they were just the ones I've listed here, I wouldn't have bothered. Do you expect me to list every single little error in the whole article? No way. It's your job to find someone else to fix it throughout, if you can't do that yourself. If the deficiencies in the prose fell neatly into one or two categories of deficiency, I'd tell. But they don't; they're more random than that, and require a good copy-editor to fix. Tony 13:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again...I get what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with your complaints. For example, that whole thing with "He is considered" and people might be confused if thats referring to Flagg or SK, or asking if its the appearence thats being dressed, all of which are minor errors that most people probably don't even catch up on.--CyberGhostface 14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "professional" standard of writing, as explicitly required, does not have lots of minor errors. People may not consciously "catch up on" these errors, as you put it; no, it just affects the readability and overall authority of the text. So, in your statement here, some apostrophes are used, but three are missing. That's the kind of thing I mean. FA-standards of writing are achieved by careful, thorough copy-editing, and writers who really do care about micro-errors. I'm tired of arguing about it; I shouldn't have to. Tony 08:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Tony. Too many Fair Use images, prose is not compelling or brilliant. Sandy (Talk) 15:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There is no citation given for the fans' reaction to Flagg's death. Also, there are just not enough sources beyond King's own works. MLilburne 09:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What sources are needed if not the works of the writer who wrote all his appearences??? And regarding the citation for Flagg's death...forums, blogs, etc aren't suitable 'sources' but that doesn't change the fact that the fan response for Flagg's death was overwhelmingly negative. You aren't going to find a Boston Globe article talking about it.--CyberGhostface 16:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As this is an article on literature, you may want to look at other Featured Articles on literary subjects in order to get an idea of the sort of sources that are appropriate to use. Make Way for Ducklings, which was recently promoted, has more references to reviews and literary criticism than this article does, and Make Way for Ducklings is a children's book. As for sources for fan reaction, I understand the difficulty in finding acceptable ones, but it is problematic to have that section completely unsourced. Are you sure there's nothing out there? There's plenty on fan reactions to, say, the cancellation of Firefly, or to the latest Harry Potter book, and so on. Have you looked at book reviews in major newspapers? MLilburne 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This site touches upon it briefly, but does not mention Flagg by name as he is trying to avoid spoilers. This site mentions it. Here is another one. And here's one more. Granted, big name sources aren't going to mention really spoilerific material, and I don't know if these are adequate enough.--CyberGhostface 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Randall_Flagg/archive2&oldid=1138469712"