Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Open Here/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2019 [1].

Open Here edit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 album but the English rock band Field Music. It recently reached GA status and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria as well. — Hunter Kahn 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

I have to say that I'm leaning toward oppose at the moment, given the issues on prose and a few other things.

General points
IB & lead
  • Genre field includes "indie rock" and "art rock": no supporting citation in the body
    • I've added citations for each of the genres listed in the infobox. The first citation (Pitchfork) covers the first three genres; I didn't use the citation three times but rather put it at the end of the third one, but I can list it after each of the three individual genres if you prefer... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "occasionally heavy topics": So they are heavy only sometimes? And is a heavy topic one on lead or iron?
    • I replaced the word "heavy" with "serious or cynical"; I kept in "occasionally" because I believe that is still accurate, but let me know if you think that's a problem... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Photo caption: "A photo of Peter Brewis": we really don't need "A photo of"
  • "and a follow-up to their 2016 album Commontime.[1][3][4][5]" Do we need four citations for those nine words?
    • It's just one citation now... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a press release, David Brewis": as this is the background, I would have expected the names of the two bandmembers to have been provided first.
    • Modified this so the two band member names are provided first... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same press release: "[3][6][7][8]" one press release needs one citation, not four
    • This is just one citation now. There are other instances in the article where I use several citations where I could have used just one. Generally speaking, I didn't see the harm in this, because I feel using multiple citations simply reinforces the accuracy of the cited facts. But if there are other examples where you think I should reduce the citation numbers, I am more than willing to remove them as needed... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prepackaged" should be "pre-packaged"

I'll be back tomorrow to have a proper look – these are just the bits that caught my eye on a quick flick over the top part of the article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your thoughts so far. I'm ready and willing to respond to anything more you have... — Hunter Kahn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done. I found describing the album cover a bit challenging, so if that alt text needs further work, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FURs for all three non-free clips need to be completed. Additionally, given the length of the original Count_It_Up_by_Field_Music.ogg exceeds the 10% max of WP:SAMPLE, as does Open_Here_by_Field_Music.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have uploaded shortened versions of Count It Up and Open Here. (Had to hit refresh on my screen before the new versions replaced the old ones on the article.) I believe they now adhere to the length requirements in WP:SAMPLE. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all appear to be working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent in the italicisation of online magazine sources – e.g. The Quietus (ref 19), Stereogum (42 & 43) and maybe others are italicised, while musicOMH (14, 30) is not.
  • Be consistent about stating language for foreign sources (see 16, 17, 48 etc)
  • Quality and reliability: The chosen sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your sources review! — Hunter Kahn 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

I've added this to the Urgents list, but after being open for several weeks without any support for promotion, it may have to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to give this some feedback within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present even with a possible pending review. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2019 (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/Open_Here/archive1&oldid=910720943"