The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 16:31, 14 May 2013 [1].
This article, which passed FAC in 2007 and had a minimal FAR in 2009, no longer meets the FA criteria, specifically:
I have raised many of these concerns at the talk page and they have not been addressed in two weeks, so I am nominating here. Rs chen 7754 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments—
As for the lead, I have not read the full article, but I will take the nominator's concerns there on good faith. The other MOS issues need to be corrected as well. In short, I agree with the nomination here. The article needs to be repaired in the formatting department to justify retention of the FA label. If that was all that was needed, I would volunteer my time and assistance to help, but the research issues give me greater concern. At this time, I won't spend energy polishing an article back to modern expectations and requirements of a FA only to have half or more of the article gutted over source issues. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 16:31, 14 May 2013 [2].
I highlighted some concerns on the article's talk page about two weeks ago and some issues were fixed the same day. No other work was done, so I just made a copyedit myself. However, some of the writing is still confusing, and some parts of the article still lack sourcing (track listings/formats). And a few dead links need to be taken care of. Also, I don't know what makes "Rock on the Net" a reliable source with no editorial policy given. Till 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 16:31, 14 May 2013 [1].
This article, which passed FAC in 2007 and had a minimal FAR in 2009, no longer meets the FA criteria, specifically:
I have raised many of these concerns at the talk page and they have not been addressed in two weeks, so I am nominating here. Rs chen 7754 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments—
As for the lead, I have not read the full article, but I will take the nominator's concerns there on good faith. The other MOS issues need to be corrected as well. In short, I agree with the nomination here. The article needs to be repaired in the formatting department to justify retention of the FA label. If that was all that was needed, I would volunteer my time and assistance to help, but the research issues give me greater concern. At this time, I won't spend energy polishing an article back to modern expectations and requirements of a FA only to have half or more of the article gutted over source issues. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 16:31, 14 May 2013 [2].
I highlighted some concerns on the article's talk page about two weeks ago and some issues were fixed the same day. No other work was done, so I just made a copyedit myself. However, some of the writing is still confusing, and some parts of the article still lack sourcing (track listings/formats). And a few dead links need to be taken care of. Also, I don't know what makes "Rock on the Net" a reliable source with no editorial policy given. Till 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC) reply