Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1999 in music (UK)
Thought I'd nominate a slightly unusual article. This is primarily a chart summary of music in the UK in 1999 (that and the 2000s years have been started to date). Mostly worked on by an anon (81.155.151.132, now going under the name Ultimate Star Wars Freak I believe) after I created the chart tables and did a short summary. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Good idea, this is what all 'Year in music' pages should look like! David 5000 22:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- object While an OK article, it only has one reference and is at least half lists. --[jon] 23:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- With regards to the number of references, well that is the only one! All the information comes from that single reference or from the linked articles (ie. Westlife etc). The second point, well I think that there's enough of the writing for it to classify as a featured article. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support Bush Me Up 00:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Its okay-ish but with statements like "...it was necessary for 1999 to be a memorable year in music" and "Fusion kings, the Chemical Brothers knocked Jamiroquai off the No.1 slot..." it osunds more like material for SmashHits Magazine than Encyclopedia FA status. Also fallacy in the second sentance; I don't know Wikipedia's official line – but 2000 was the actual end of the millenium not 1999.--ZayZayEM 08:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the anon that expanded it greatly has used some "magaziney" language and am cleaning it up slowly. As for the millennium ending, while not technically 1999 it is popularly 1999. If the writing style were to be improved would it have your support? (I'm off to do some more in a second) violet/riga (t) 14:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Removed what I believe to be the remainder of that type of language - if there's any more then please feel free to just delete the sentence and I'll sort it out. violet/riga (t) 15:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Better... But I'm still objecting. Same reasons as before. Additionally insomniac mullings ended up with wondering if this should be 1999 in Pop Music (UK) it seems rather focused on official mainstream charts and popular music.--ZayZayEM 06:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Removed what I believe to be the remainder of that type of language - if there's any more then please feel free to just delete the sentence and I'll sort it out. violet/riga (t) 15:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the anon that expanded it greatly has used some "magaziney" language and am cleaning it up slowly. As for the millennium ending, while not technically 1999 it is popularly 1999. If the writing style were to be improved would it have your support? (I'm off to do some more in a second) violet/riga (t) 14:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)