Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Queen (band)/archive3

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Queen (band) edit

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum (such as at http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=963642), please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article meets the criteria of a featured article. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article is well-written, has a sufficient number of references and satisfies all the conditions and criteria for FAC nomination; that's why it deserves FA-status. The problems associated with the previous nomination, which caused the nomination to fail have been properly addressed. Please assume good faith before reviewing the article. XXSaifXx 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prose looks awfully chunky, I'm wondering if you'd be better off combining a bunch of those subsections. Also, you use a lot of fair use images, none of which have a fair use rationale. I don't see any of them as a problem in use, but you have to explain why each of them is worthy of fair use at the image's page. Oppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most of the issues you've mentioned. Would you please check out the article again and perhaps return with favorable support? :P. XXSaifXx 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the images have rationales, but the prose is still really chunky. Have you tried a peer review? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article and learned quite a bit about the band. The sentence structure is quite good and the use of literary devices is commendable. support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackbrown1 (talk • contribs)

- Account has four previous edits. Ceoil 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article still need to be worked a bit more, but it's already good enough to be a featured article. It's really useful and full of interesting info. support. Rafael840 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above account was created today with two edits - both supporting this. M3tal H3ad 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know about him but I don't really understand what you mean? Do you mean that he made the account just to support the article's nomination or do you mean that you support the nomination as well? XXSaifXx 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as nominator, I forgot to give my vote as it seems one can do that...so yeah. support XXSaifXx 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been on Wikipedia for a loooooooooooooong time but I hope that doesn't disqualify me from voting... but anyway, from a neutral point of view, I'd say the article is well-written, definitely. But I think there is some kind of consensus problem on the page maybe??? Because last time I checked the intro was well...I don't know...a bit better perhaps? Anyway, nice article overall; good job to those who worked on it. support Eric Straven 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. XXSaifXx 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't edit or create articles in Wikipedia, but I do read a lot. This article on Queen is well made and complete (to a certain extent). It is based on one of my favorite rock bands and that is not the only reason I'm going to support. The author and end everyone who edited this deserve their article to be nominated for Featured Article. support Riksalot 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This is account's first edit. Ceoil 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support. The article is great, maybe need some fixing...--Gustav Lindwall 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Account was created yesterday and has thirteen edits to date, including three to this page, and three to one of Queen's later, lesser albums. Ceoil 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Needs a lot of work still:

Lead is not an adequate summary of article per WP:LEAD.
Considering the bands stature and lenght of time together, the article seems slight. In particlar the "Pre-Queen" & "Finding their sound" sections are underdeveloped (either expand or merge as "Early years").
Refs are inconsistently formatted, and are missing author name, publication and retrieval dates in many instances. The level of citation is good overall, however.
Prose are choppy, and there are many stubby one and two sentence paragraphs that could be merged to help improve readability.
"Quotes from fellow musicians" section lacks quotation marks, and not sure a list of accolades is necessary or appropriate in an FAC.
Needs a copy edit:

"Gordon Fletcher of Rolling Stone said "their debut album is superb"[8] and The Chicago Hearald calling it an "above average debut"[9]." - Chicago Hearald called it.
"However, it drew little mainstream attention, as the lead single "Keep Yourself Alive", a Brian May composition, sold poorly." - Confused, did mainstream press ignore it beacuse of poor sales, or was it the other way around.
"The single "Killer Queen" also reached number two on the British charts, and was also their first U.S. hit." - Both also's are redundant.
"the entire album featured incredible diversity in music styles" - reads as POV. Also you should describe an album's sound in the present tense.
The album featured the huge worldwide hit, "Bohemian Rhapsody" - drop huge, it's implied in 'worldwide' and in the following statments.
"At this time Jim Beach negotiated the band out of their Trident contract, leaving Queen without a manager" - This seems unclear; Who is Jim Beach? What is Trident? How did the first event lead to the second?

"so they contacted John Reid, Elton John's manager." - Did he accept?

"where it recorded what may have been mistaken as a companion album to A Night at the Opera" - which may be mistaken - but you need to cite this openion.
"reached number one on the charts" - Which charts?
"critically panned at the time but has gained recognition" - has since gained.

I stopped reading here, can you comb through the remainer of the text for similar problems. Ceoil 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I've addressed the issues you've mentioned, could you please re-evaluate? You're probably the only one who has constructively criticized the article. =) XXSaifXx 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Per Ceoil, one sentence paragraphs, unreferenced section and paragraphs and sock poppet votes. M3tal H3ad 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By unreferenced section do you mean the film and television section? XXSaifXx 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object per Ceoil. And I would like to also point out that Wikipedia works by building consensus, not just by vote tally. Teemu08 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object As per the following reasons:

Too many one sentence paragraphs.
Needs a through copyedit by multiple experienced users. (Try contacting League of Copyeditors).
Needs more citations.
Genre disputes need solved.
Inconsistent referencing, needs to all be in footnotes.
Lead needs work. Darth griz⁹⁸ 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.