Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OverClocked ReMix/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 by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [1].

OverClocked ReMix edit

Nominator(s): Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/OverClocked ReMix/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it is clearly up to date on information, well referenced, and easy to read. I can't see anything further that's needed to make the article better at this moment. Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm the primary editor of the article, so just noting that I'll keep an eye on any criticisms and suggestions regarding the nom. Thanks! - Liontamer (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does File:OverClockedReMix.png significently increase the readers understanding of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think so. For a website, it helps to illustrate what it looks like. Pretty standard to have it, and the caption provides additional information & context. - Liontamer (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration is not grounds for taking private property in our articles, and neither is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, oppose failure to meet criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4chan, a recent FA, also has an infobox image of the website, because it is useful to the reader to be able to visually tell what the article is talking about when it refers to "posting" songs or "publishing" albums. Also, dismissively citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a really rude, please refrain in the future. --Pres N 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what "taking private property" implies. After reading Criteria 3, the image appears to meet no qualms. Please elaborate further on what exactly needs fixing. Orichalcon (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Image's alt text does not describe the image's appearance.~~ Please see WP:ALT for advice on good alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got you. I made an edit that I believe should work. Comments welcome, thanks. - Liontamer (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it necessary to have the album list hidden? It's not exactly long. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sort of standard on that? I've seen it done both ways. - Liontamer (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, fails criterion #3. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Where exactly has the article failed? 203.59.135.16 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At times, some ppl like Stifle doesn't know how to read: "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."

It does not fail #3. It does not need images.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remark - not knowing anything about music or sounds, and being tone-deaf, i can't support or object. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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