Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nightwish/archive1

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

The article was removed 10:33, 6 February 2008.

Nightwish edit

Review commentary edit

Nominator notified original author (User:SoothingR). Messages left at Wikiprojects Musicians, Finland, and Metal. BuddingJournalist 21:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article severly needs cleanup if it is going to keep FA status. I counted 12 fact templates, 7 dead links, and tons of other issues. Thank you,
Skeeker _[Talk] 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete notifications. Also, providing the "tons of other issues" would be helpful. Joelito (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is an issue. The table of members takes up alot of unneeded room (I'm not sure if it is a problem, but it looks tacky). Too many external links. They have a vast discography and there should be a seperate page for it. Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify and post a list of notifications back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an excessive number of completely unnecessary non-free images (album covers) peppered throughout the Band history section. There is no critical commentary on the images themselves that I can see so I don't see how it's covered under fair use. Rehevkor (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notified User:AkiShinji (157 edits), User:SoothingR (99 edits), User:ReyBrujo (90 edits), and User:Painjoiker (53 edits).
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are {{fact}} templates in the article, non free images, txt issues, the table for line up changes could do without it takes up alot of un-needed space, there should be a page for the discography, alot of dead links, unreliable sources (Metal Archives ref 7) A WIKI! thats not reliable! (ref 13), the sources are not proper {{cite web}} formating, and too many External links (WP:EL). This article has some major issues, it shouldn't be FA anymore. It is not up to todays standards. Look at the newest Metal FAs (Godsmack and Tool).
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the articles fault if references turn into dead links after time. And according to policies, it doesn't matter. Someone just should try finding them at http://www.archive.org or similiar. --Pudeo ⺮ 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't take care of the other problems. This going really slow. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), general clean-up (2), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Unnecessary overuse of fair use pictures, a huge table of members which should be separated from this article, references need to be formatted, variation in formatting songs and albums-quotes or italics, bad prose-in one section each paragraph starts with "On DATE..", [citation needed] tags, POV and OR-"some fans and medias suggest the band's turn to be pop metal. This is seen the clearest on songs such as". I could go on but I'll stop there. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as nominator, and nothing is being done about the issues listed on here. Too many tables, not enough sources, and they are not in the proper format. There are way too many problems for just a slight cleanup. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Very poor FA. Brutal use of non free images, poor sourcing (not to mention the lack of formatting on the sources...) and even basic stuff like formatting album titles in italics is not followed. One redeeming feature is the infobox image, which I think is a great idea, and should be taken advantage of in other articles. With some cleaning, this could be a good article, but it is gonna take more than a little cleaning for it to be worthy of FA. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~ for now - article has promise, but there is a lot of clutter - everything past the "Line Up" header needs to be cut, (former members, charts, singles all that stuff) or moved to it's own article, as Slayer's and Megadeth's lineups/singles, ect are. I am not knowlegable in the band, but for someone that is this one is prety close. I can try and clean up some of the wording issues, and other small things. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've begun a revamp of the article, although it is a bit tough being that I am not familiar with the band. Yeah... it's a lot farther off that I thought. Lots of work needed here, it seems the original aurthor might not have been a native English speaker? Prose needs major work thoughout. I'll keep working on it. Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Marskell (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually may be better to delist this one for now, and when a dedicated editor comes around, resubmit to FAC - this thing is going to need major work, and I don't know how much I am going to be able to do in the next little while. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the work you did do, Skeletor. Marskell (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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