Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stratocaster players/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 20:02, 8 September 2008 [1].
List clearly meets FL criteria and should be recognized as such. Washburnmav (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting article. Well sourced. An excellent companion piece to the main Fender Stratocaster page. Libs (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with the above, in that this is a very interesting article; however, I see just a few things that could be improved.
Comments from Killervogel5
- Section headings (A-E, etc.) should use en-dashes instead of hyphens.
- Bullets in the lead begin with capital letters; grammatically, they shouldn't because they are not complete sentences.
- The first sentence of the lead should be something more interesting than "The following is a list of...".
- Reference lists should not be 3 columns per MOS; reduce to 2.
- I like the way the list is put together, but it's grammatically incorrect. Nearly every entry starts with a sentence fragment. These need to be fixed.
Review by Killervogel5
Fixed all of the above Washburnmav (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- My final concern has not been fixed. This list is still replete with sentence fragments. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- That is just the writing style of all the "player" lists. This article was modelled after the, already featured, List of Telecaster players. The Gibson player, Epiphone player, Ibanez player etc all use this same writing style as it is comparable with most of the "player" books currently in publication which tend to be fairly technical and less poetic.
- Just because a list is based on another list doesn't mean that both lists shouldn't change and evolve to meet new standards, which do change. If I had reviewed the first list, I would have said the same thing, and I think that the other one should be changed too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think the writing style of this article is just fine. Having participated in the push to FL for the Telecaster players list I can speak on some of the pre-history of the page. It was created to mirror the Tele player as mentioned. The writing style of both is done on purpose to give the list a "pseudo-glossary" look, as a technical writing would do, and also to give the page a feeling as though the text were a narrative lifted straight from a TV documentary about the subject. Were it done as a visual each list entry would start out with the player name... and then jump straight into the content without wasting time. As an example. Ever view "The Compleat Beatles?" A great music documentary. And Malcolm McDowell's narrative throughout the entire programme is built on sentences that start in the middle. Just like the last 3 or 4 sentences in my text here. Broken, but narrative or conversational. A style which gives the page life. It's encyclopedic. But doesn't stifle the word down to a barren cold list. A long time ago a user tried to re-do the entire page as a horrible table with a gallery at the bottom. The user broke the inline citations away from the text they were intended to source and put them into a column. That user was reverted quickly. This isn't a list of inanimate objects. It's not the periodic table. It's a list of guitar players, written by guitar players in a style guitar players are used to reading. It is a worthy featured list candidate just the way it is. Ready for elevation. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well put, but I haven't changed my position. I oppose, and will continue to oppose this list until grammar is fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the writing style of this article is just fine. Having participated in the push to FL for the Telecaster players list I can speak on some of the pre-history of the page. It was created to mirror the Tele player as mentioned. The writing style of both is done on purpose to give the list a "pseudo-glossary" look, as a technical writing would do, and also to give the page a feeling as though the text were a narrative lifted straight from a TV documentary about the subject. Were it done as a visual each list entry would start out with the player name... and then jump straight into the content without wasting time. As an example. Ever view "The Compleat Beatles?" A great music documentary. And Malcolm McDowell's narrative throughout the entire programme is built on sentences that start in the middle. Just like the last 3 or 4 sentences in my text here. Broken, but narrative or conversational. A style which gives the page life. It's encyclopedic. But doesn't stifle the word down to a barren cold list. A long time ago a user tried to re-do the entire page as a horrible table with a gallery at the bottom. The user broke the inline citations away from the text they were intended to source and put them into a column. That user was reverted quickly. This isn't a list of inanimate objects. It's not the periodic table. It's a list of guitar players, written by guitar players in a style guitar players are used to reading. It is a worthy featured list candidate just the way it is. Ready for elevation. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just because a list is based on another list doesn't mean that both lists shouldn't change and evolve to meet new standards, which do change. If I had reviewed the first list, I would have said the same thing, and I think that the other one should be changed too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- That is just the writing style of all the "player" lists. This article was modelled after the, already featured, List of Telecaster players. The Gibson player, Epiphone player, Ibanez player etc all use this same writing style as it is comparable with most of the "player" books currently in publication which tend to be fairly technical and less poetic.
- My final concern has not been fixed. This list is still replete with sentence fragments. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose from Killervogel5
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Current refs 18, 19, and 20 shouldn't the title of the webpage be in the link and what is now in the link be the publisher? Lacking a last access date also. Also these links timed out so I couldn't evaluate their reliability.
- Current ref 21 is just a bald url. Needs a title formatted correctly as well as publisher and last access date at the least.
- Current ref 35 is lacking a publisher and last access date at the least.
- Same for current ref 41.
- Same for current ref 54.
- Current ref 59 is lacking a publisher.
- Current ref 63 is lacking publisher and last access date.
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.