Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr. Octagonecologyst/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 23:13, 18 April 2009 [1].

---

Dr. Octagonecologyst

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a significant amount of rewrites, copyedits, and a good article nomination, and I believe it meets the qualifications for FA status. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I am passionately in love with this album, I feel that the prose right now is too sloppy to gain my vote. The first paragraph of the lead, for example, moves between past and present tense, and is made up of many short choppy sentences. Some referencing problems also appear to me straight away — for example, superlatives like "gaining more attention than any non-mainstream hip hop album released in the same period" deserve a footnote. (Is this even verifiable? If not, it should be reworded.) I may be willing to help improve the prose (since it's such an important album to me and the world of hip hop), but I can't commit to anything right now. (If I am to help, I'd rather see the nomination withdrawn so we're not under severe time pressure.) Scartol • Tok 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That sentence is cited, under "influence". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
    • Okay, I've added a duplicate footnote to the lead. (I think that's just one critic's opinion, but I suppose it works so long as we consider it a definitive statement.) Scartol • Tok 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've re-read the article after the recent copyedit, and it looks better. But a number of problems still appear to exist in the text. For example: In both the United States and United Kingdom, the album was issued on vinyl as a double LP, and on compact disc, with bonus tracks. In the UK, the album was issued by Mo' Wax as a triple LP reflecting the track listing of the Bulk Recordings compact disc edition. It's unclear why (or whether) Mo' Wax released both a double and triple vinyl version. Other problems still remain in the prose; the lead, for example, says: "The distinctive sound of the album crosses multiple genres, including..." This would be much more effective written thusly: "The album's distinctive sound crosses genres such as..." I'd like to see the final two paragraphs of the lead combined, and there are a number of quotes from reviews in the "Production" section for reasons that are unclear. Et cetera. We're getting closer, but I still don't think it's there yet. Scartol • Tok 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Looking into another copyedit. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
          • Copyedited by RevZoe. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I still have some serious concerns about the prose style (that sentence about the double/triple LP/CD MoWax/BulkRecordings is still very confusing to me), but I think the multiple copyedits have pushed it just over the line into acceptability. Removing my oppose vote, but I'd still like to see the writing clarified. Scartol • Tok 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ....not certain that I get a vote, but the article, yes, has great potential. It still lacks, however, lots of proper citations. It needs a moderate amount of tweaking, but it's headed in a great direction.Buddpaul (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — The sentences you tagged were all in the lead. The statements you refer to are properly cited in the main article. The lead doesn't need that many citations - it summarizes the rest of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

• Comments -
• http://pitchfork.com/article/record_review/17129-dr-octagonecologyst/ deadlinks
  • Found correct link. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Before anyone points out the iUniverse published book, note that it is used to source the fact that the writer of the book ranks the album ... and the information is properly attributed as the author's opinion, thus fulfills' WP:SPS.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review The disambiguation and external links are up to standards (as checked with the tools in the toolbox at the right), as is the ref formatting (as checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree.....changing my vote.....looks great! Buddpaul (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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