Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fightstar/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2017 [1].

Fightstar edit

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. While I will be largely busy on weekdays due to tough school classes, I know I will have time to work on this on weekends because it usually takes a while to get the coordinators to close FACs. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! Please, please review this. The last one got ignored. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Reference 78 is dead for me, and needs to either be replaced with a different link or restored/rescued through a website archive. Just as a note for the future, I would highly recommend archiving your sources to prevent all of your hard work from being lost due to link rot or link decay.
Reference 85 is not working for me (it leads to a redirect/"oops" screen), and needs to either be replaced with a different link or restored/rescued through a website archive.
While looking through the references, I noticed website names (i.e. gigsandfestivals.com or myspace.com) and other item (i.e. AllMusic and BBC Radio 1) being represented in italics when they should not put that way. I would advise you to correct this. There are also things not in italics that should be in italics (i.e. AbsolutePunk). I am noticing this in a lot of the references so I would go through each of the references to make sure that everything is correctly cited.

That's extra annoying. They should fix that. When putting something in the publisher parameter, it doesn't italicize, but under the website, where it's not supposed to, it does by default. That's bothersome. Regardless, I will do so, but I should talk to someone about this sometime. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note that I have received a lot in past FACs, FLCs, and even in a few GANs. Please make sure that all of your works/publishers for each individual references is linked. I think this is done so anyone can find out more information from clicking on any reference without having to go through the list of references to the first time a work/publisher was referenced and linked.
In the lead, you mention that they released an album of B-sides and rarities. Could you please define "rarities" in this context as it can be interpreted differently in different contexts? I could see this meaning unreleased material, album tracks that were never released as singles, or singles that were not as popular depending on the context.

From what I've known, "rarities" are almost always live performances or demos that were recorded but never released or were changed significantly before official release. Would you like something in the article changed based on this? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the phrase "they were viewed sceptically" in the lead, who was viewing them this way? Music critics, the general public, fans of a specific genre of music? I would advise you to clarify this.
I am little confused by the placement of the image in the origins subsection as the title of the image places it in 2006, which would make it belong in one of the following subsections rather than this one. This is a really minor note, but it is important to keep the timeline straight for both the text and the images. Some clarification on the use of the image would be helpful.
In the first paragraph of the origins subsection, I am a little confused by the switch in pronouns for Simpson's quote on venting (i.e. second sentence). It may be best to substitute the "I"s with [he] and similar pronouns to keep the pronoun usage consistent with the start "said that he had".

A bit of a point, but I don't like this solution. I removed the quote altogether and paraphrased it. Does it look okay? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the first sentence of the second paragraph to the end of the first paragraph as it is pertaining to the party discussed in that paragraph. When reading for the first time, I was a little confused on whether or not it was referencing the same part or another event entirely.
This is just a suggestion so feel free to say no to this, but it may be more beneficial to move the audio sample down to the "Musical style and influences" section as it may help to better illustrate the band's sound.

Lol, thought this before I even got to this point of the review. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on Fight Club should read "the EP was inspired by David Fincher's film Fight Club". Chuck Palahniuk wrote that book Fight Club, but David Fincher was the one to actually direct it. Also add in the release date for the film (1999).

Great job with the article. These are the major things that I have noticed while reading through it. I am not familiar with this band or type of music at all, so it was a very interesting read. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Hopefully this receives more attention in the future, specifically from more qualified users/reviewers than myself as I am rather inexperienced with Wikipedia and the FAC process as a whole. Also, feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments for my review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time remembering how I found this band too, now that you mention it. I would expect that this would be a band that mostly British hardcore kids were familiar with, for the most part, but I'm from northwest Pennsylvania, lol. Very much appreciate the look, will get right to work. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I've done all of these. Thanks Aoba! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my points. You have done wonderful work with this article. I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for a long time now, but there has been no activity for a month now. I'm afraid we have no consensus to promote and we will have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.