Article is poorly sourced: only one reference is listed, and only one inline citation or note is made. It was nominated when
"I think this article is cute" meant that an article was able to get FA status, and WP's standards have greatly raised sense then. It is certianly not one of Wikipedia's "best works". In conclusion it is a "färcrÿ" from modern featured article status. -
Aknorals13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - There are 16 inline citations and a footnote. General references listed include seven online sources, and the book used for the footnote. Nevertheless, it is heavily list-oriented; when I saw the article a few days ago I wondered if it might be more appropriate as a Featured List.
Gimmetrow13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Ah, your including the single square bracket links... can those be changed to footnotes that state the day they were last refrenced (profesional-like and whatnot)? That would be better, consitering links may die, etc. -
Aknorals14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Section 4 of the article is way too listy, which needs to be addressed. All this disjointed prose needs to be tied into real paragraphs, as right now it's a violation of criterion 2. a.
LuciferMorgan15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Some obvious citations are missing, such as the 2002 Spin magazine article and the Neal Stephenson quote. I could understand reclassifying this as a list. Yet, having created two FLs myself, I doubt the entries are sufficiently documented to pass FLC. Given the vast number of websites about music, shouldn't this page link to stable sites that reproduce album cover images and diacritical marks in titles and lyrics? When I verified
Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc the popular music section was the easiest thing to source...erm, maybe that should be Jöan of Ärc.
Durova19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Personally I'd zap sections 4 and 5, and try and get citations for everything else. This is relatively serious article about a fun topic but as it stands it's not quite up scratch. I think the Featured List idea isn't a winner because it's the list part which brings the article down. Zap that and restore it to prose and it would be much better. --
kingboyk17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove Looooong listy sections. Only one inline citation. Poor references. Poor organization of the very few references, citations and external links. Definitely not featured quality.--
Yannismarou17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove - Just not up to today's FA expectations.
Durova 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Based on the request below, please refer to my FAR comments: the text itself appears to be excellent but the article is considerably short on references. Listiness isn't a problem for me, but it would be for most editors, and the shortage of references applies to the list portions as well as the main text. Durova05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove - sadly, but it's had it's 15 minutes of fames. Poor referencing, crappy list section, prose is less than brilliant in places. --
kingboyk17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove. The lists should probably have been syphoned off into daughter articles/lists. Stubby paragraphs elsewhere. (Tony)
Comment: Could I remind reviewers that general negative comments such as "Not featured quality" don't carry much weight. Please let us into your substantive thinking, even if expressed in only a phrase or two.Tony01:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Article is poorly sourced: only one reference is listed, and only one inline citation or note is made. It was nominated when
"I think this article is cute" meant that an article was able to get FA status, and WP's standards have greatly raised sense then. It is certianly not one of Wikipedia's "best works". In conclusion it is a "färcrÿ" from modern featured article status. -
Aknorals13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - There are 16 inline citations and a footnote. General references listed include seven online sources, and the book used for the footnote. Nevertheless, it is heavily list-oriented; when I saw the article a few days ago I wondered if it might be more appropriate as a Featured List.
Gimmetrow13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Ah, your including the single square bracket links... can those be changed to footnotes that state the day they were last refrenced (profesional-like and whatnot)? That would be better, consitering links may die, etc. -
Aknorals14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Section 4 of the article is way too listy, which needs to be addressed. All this disjointed prose needs to be tied into real paragraphs, as right now it's a violation of criterion 2. a.
LuciferMorgan15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Some obvious citations are missing, such as the 2002 Spin magazine article and the Neal Stephenson quote. I could understand reclassifying this as a list. Yet, having created two FLs myself, I doubt the entries are sufficiently documented to pass FLC. Given the vast number of websites about music, shouldn't this page link to stable sites that reproduce album cover images and diacritical marks in titles and lyrics? When I verified
Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc the popular music section was the easiest thing to source...erm, maybe that should be Jöan of Ärc.
Durova19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Personally I'd zap sections 4 and 5, and try and get citations for everything else. This is relatively serious article about a fun topic but as it stands it's not quite up scratch. I think the Featured List idea isn't a winner because it's the list part which brings the article down. Zap that and restore it to prose and it would be much better. --
kingboyk17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove Looooong listy sections. Only one inline citation. Poor references. Poor organization of the very few references, citations and external links. Definitely not featured quality.--
Yannismarou17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove - Just not up to today's FA expectations.
Durova 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Based on the request below, please refer to my FAR comments: the text itself appears to be excellent but the article is considerably short on references. Listiness isn't a problem for me, but it would be for most editors, and the shortage of references applies to the list portions as well as the main text. Durova05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove - sadly, but it's had it's 15 minutes of fames. Poor referencing, crappy list section, prose is less than brilliant in places. --
kingboyk17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Remove. The lists should probably have been syphoned off into daughter articles/lists. Stubby paragraphs elsewhere. (Tony)
Comment: Could I remind reviewers that general negative comments such as "Not featured quality" don't carry much weight. Please let us into your substantive thinking, even if expressed in only a phrase or two.Tony01:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)reply