Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eva Cassidy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 20:27, 31 March 2008.

Eva Cassidy edit

Self-nominator. Passed GA on March 5th. Had a peer review that ran two weeks. Addressed the one review. Onesixfivedottwoone (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the reader what the article is talking about when it speaks about the low quality black and white video being played on a music television program. Would that rationale fit WP:NFCC#8? I fixed the other two issue(hopefully). --165.21.154.92 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image isn't even in black and white. Why do we need to see an image to understand that there was a music video (do we think that little of the reader's intelligence)? How is our understanding significantly enhanced? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A black and white video got played on a pop music tv program. Despite the low video quality, it was very popular and contributed significantly to her commercial success. You don't think a picture illustrating the quality of the video we are talking about adds to the reader's understanding?--165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the reader's understanding isn't the test. The test is significantly adding to the reader's understanding. The prose in your reply here is itself adequate to demonstrate that the video had an impact on her success. Seeing the video does, I would argue, nothing to assist our comprehension of this fact – at the very least nothing significant; it's usage here is decorative, which is not acceptable per WP:NFCC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a separate rationale below the first one. Apart from the purpose of use, all the other fields would have been the same. I filled in another rationale template just in case.--165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link but kept the cite.
    • http://www.evacassidy.org/eva/otr.htm is a memorial site? I'm not sure it's the best source for the fact that a Washington Times article called a performance a "show stopper" Better to link to the actual review.
      • I found the actual article, but it's pay to view. And the preview doesn't show the quoted part, but you can see the quote using this search result. I dropped the evacassidy.org link and cited the paper.
    • I'm not sure you need to wikilink the Burley et al references. It's not a big deal, but it's something that probably doesn't need to be done.
Well, it's already done, so I would prefer to leave it. --165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the goole search here, you can access the "view as html" link. Not sure why the direct link is not working.
    • http://evacassidy.org/eva/harr96.htm is to an online backup of the Washington Post article that isn't hosted by the Post. It would be nice to have a link to the article as hosted by the Post or make it clear that the online link is to a non-Post site.
I can't find a Post link except for pay to view sites. Do I just add a "Hosted on evacassidy.org" after the retrieved date? Is there a recommended style for that?
I think there is a style, I just don't know it exactly. Hopefully an MOS-maven will step in here.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, it says that they are rebroadcasting the story on her, indicating that the emails are positive. Would that constitute OR? I don't mind removing it though as the album sales on Amazon and the repeat broadcast due to demand is already indicative of the reaction.
I lean towards considering it OR, personally. They don't specifically say that the emails were positive, just that they got a lot. Like you, I am pretty sure they were positive, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the site, but google news links to it. I think it is a reliable enough source for what we are citing. Google news also turns up this article from another site I know nothing about but backs up the first link.
All other links check out okay with the little link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. There is good information about her albums, but not about her life.
    • The second paragraph in the early years section seems a little off. First it talks about High School, then goes back to age 11. This should probably be reorganized.
    • Please make sure that in the citations, newspaper names are italicized. I fixed some of these for you, but there are more.
    • Are these reliable sources?
      • Washingtonian.com
      • broadwayworld.com
      • steve-smith.tv

Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 31 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eva_Cassidy/archive1&oldid=1138459915"