Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evanescence/archive1

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 not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Evanescence edit

It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, all the images are free. I think there aren't criterions at issue. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review:

References: biblio info (author, publisher) looks good. Is ShowandTellOnline.com a reliable source? Astro.com.my? On the latter, note that google-cached urls are not permanent, and the current cached version is almost certainly not the version being referenced. Archive.org doesn't work for that one? Leading Edge (Destramusic.com) seems like a commercial site. Quite a few refs to go Evanescence.com (or EvanescenceTheOpenDoor.com) - that's ok for things like tour dates but it's best to cite statistics to independent sites if possible. EvanescenceReference.info is a wiki. Normally wikis are not used as references, but I think here if you make it clear that it's the radio interview being cited and the wiki is only a convenience link, it's ok.
Images: Image:Evanescence.svg (fair use, ok), Image:Evanescence Oct 24, 2006.jpg (GFDL), Image:Evanescence early line.up.jpg (at commons with CC-BY, posted at flickr with non-derivative license), Image:Evanescence lezenith.jpg (commons CC-BY-SA), Image:Evanescence concert.jpg (commons CC-BY-SA and reviewed). The non-derivative-licensed image is a problem.
- The commons image has been deleted. Also, the Wikipedia:Logos guideline now says that logos should not be in svg images. This specific advice is relatively recent but is worth knowing about. 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Music samples: I'm going to assume the samples are just that, and not the entire song. Still, six samples seems a bit much, and the songs are only mentioned. If the words or music of the sample are not analyzed, is this really fair use? (Please don't compare the Pink Floyd article, which had no samples when it was promoted, and has far too many now.)
Lead: This is a short article but lead should probably be a bit longer.
Prose: Looks quite good.
Completeness: Most band FAs have a section on recurring themes or musical style. This is discussed in other sections here, but it makes the article seem a little less complete. Should Mystary EP be mentioned in the Fallen section?

Gimmetrow 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Mistary EP, I think it's ok because the Mystary EP was used for the promotion of Fallen before its release. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lead should at least be two paragraphs. M3tal H3ad 10:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
opposing has only been a Good article for a small amount of time (February 22, 2007) Good article no doubt but not yet a FA Article in my mind Max 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About two weeks ago, some articles that get GA are nominated for FA the same day and you didn't bring up any criteria it fails so your objection will be ignored. M3tal H3ad 07:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOnly a few things. Firstly ref number 21 should be after a punctuation mark, but I wouldn't know where to put it. Another thing is one of the quotes in the labeling controversy section; it says "What the f--k are we even doing there?" I don't think it should be censored. If there is a reason it's censored to then it's fine. Finally it's a bit short but it's better to be comprehensive and short than redundant and long. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that footnotes do not have to be after punctuation, only that it must be placed after a punctuation mark if it properly occurs in that area (except, I believe, for semicolons). Also, in this case that word is censored only because it is a direct quotation from the source. Quotes should never be changed for spelling, grammer, or anything else. (Since adding a comment regarding this in the code, I don't believe we've had anyone attempt to uncensor it.) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Support. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the caveat that I am a significant contributor (really, copyeditor) for this article. We'll work on taking care of the issues that Gimmetrow has raised, and welcome criticism and suggestions from any other editors. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object until these things are fixed. Lead should be 2-3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD, after mentioning Amy Lee the first time, you only refer to her as Lee other times (same with other members). The article only has the history of the band and labeling controversy, what about style? influence? M3tal H3ad 04:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about 1800 words or 10kB long. WP:LEAD#Length says 1-2 paragraphs is appropriate. Gimmetrow 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only in cases when it's still "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any" — which isn't the case here. Oppose as well, regardless of other problems in the article. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said above the lead could be longer, but requiring a certain number of paragraphs is a bit artificial. Gimmetrow 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criterion 1. b. The article gives no examples of critical reception to the band's albums. In this I don't mean chart positions before the nominator says as that is in no way critical reception - critical reception is what the magazines / newspapers etc. said in their reviews.

LuciferMorgan 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh???????????? Isn't that topic for the specific album article?? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I gave this article a copy-edit a month or two ago, but I agree it still needs more work before it can become featured. — Deckill er 00:07, 14 April 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.