Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R.E.M. (band)/archive1

R.E.M. (band) edit

I'm nomming this for a featured article because I've been an R.E.M. fan nearly my whole life and I find it to be very well-written. LoomisSimmons 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Don't let fan worship blind you to the technical merits of an article compared to FA criteria. Not nearly enough imagery or references. Probably wouldn't quite pass GA-class muster yet. --Kitch 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass, much? "Fan worship"? "Blind"? I think it's a fantastic article. If you don't, fine. But keep the snide comments to yourself. Maybe if it was about 70 more KB of bloated dreck, it would meet FA quality? Geez, I hope not. LoomisSimmons 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your mouth, son. Profanity and sarcasm do not a good rebuttal make. I did not intend to be rude, but checking the featured article criteria is the first step in the nomination process. --Kitch 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you Mr. Wikipedia? Is Jimbo Jones your dad? Are you even an admin? I mean, I could ignore you altogether, but now I'm curious as to who you think you are that you can give me orders. I may be taking to Wiki royalty and not even know it! LoomisSimmons 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not giving you orders. I'm reading the top of the Featured article candidates page, which is agreed-to Wikipedia policy. Now please stop with the immaturity. --Kitch 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still here? Wow, you must really hate R.E.M.! I mean, you've given your vote; what more could you possibly have to say? I mean, if you keep kicking your feet and crying, does your vote count twice or something? LoomisSimmons 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I love R.E.M. Loving a subject has nothing to do with whether or not it's worthy of an FA nod or vote. I love the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and I opposed its FA nod on technical merit. This is no different. Now I'd suggest keeping quiet about it. You're only making a fool of yourself with your own "kicking your feet and crying". --Kitch 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give you credit - you refuse to ~~shut~~ give up. You must have an admin nomination around here somewhere. "See, Daddy! I can be a complete asshole just like you! Pick me, pick me! I'm ever so rude!" Geez, I never thought I'd root for the presence of furries, but whatever would distract you right about now would be a plus. LoomisSimmons 19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cool it guys! Being rude to each other won't help matters at all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Kitch. Some P. Erson 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is FAR too premature. A solid bit of the Warner-era material still holds the music review / editorial type writing that affected the entire article until a few months ago. And it seems like we skipped a step - this article should have been put up for peer review first. -- ChrisB 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of that, but you're right. That makes a lot more sense. If you link me to the instructions for that, I'll take this nom down and start with peer review. LoomisSimmons 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews can be requested at Wikipedia:Peer review. Instructions on listing an article for review can also be found there.

Oppose. It needs more inline citations. Also, the information in the trivia section should either be integrated elsewhere or removed entirely - trivia sections aren't generally recommended. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Loomis withdrew the nomination and requested a peer review instead. Teemu08 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]