The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Slug (song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed once again. The previous nomination from a couple years ago failed due to some needed copyediting. The article has since been thoroughly copyedited, and some new information has been added to expand on the subject, bringing it up to FA standards. – Dream out loud ( talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: I can't think why this article has had to wait nearly four weeks for any FAC attention; it's been here before, and there is usually sufficient interest in popular music articles to create some discussion and interaction. This is not really my area of music, but I hope that my review will provoke others to chip in:
That is all for the moment. I will post a brief sources review shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Image and sources review: The single image is appropriately licensed. Sources look fine, and citations are properly formatted. The one nitpick is that it is usual to give book publication years rather than exact dates. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Many song articles are a bit thin, but this one seems to be pushing the envelope; I'm not even certain it would survive an AfD nomination. Is this song really notable? If it is, then the article certainly doesn't get across to me why. I'm also surprised to see so many prose problems in a second FA nomination. A few examples:
Eric Corbett 23:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Slug (song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed once again. The previous nomination from a couple years ago failed due to some needed copyediting. The article has since been thoroughly copyedited, and some new information has been added to expand on the subject, bringing it up to FA standards. – Dream out loud ( talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: I can't think why this article has had to wait nearly four weeks for any FAC attention; it's been here before, and there is usually sufficient interest in popular music articles to create some discussion and interaction. This is not really my area of music, but I hope that my review will provoke others to chip in:
That is all for the moment. I will post a brief sources review shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Image and sources review: The single image is appropriately licensed. Sources look fine, and citations are properly formatted. The one nitpick is that it is usual to give book publication years rather than exact dates. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Many song articles are a bit thin, but this one seems to be pushing the envelope; I'm not even certain it would survive an AfD nomination. Is this song really notable? If it is, then the article certainly doesn't get across to me why. I'm also surprised to see so many prose problems in a second FA nomination. A few examples:
Eric Corbett 23:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply