Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Carpenters/archive2

< 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

The Carpenters edit

previous FAC withdrawn and immediately restarted by same nominator.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am self-nominating the Carpenters article once again, because I made the appropriate edits from comments from the old nomination, and the quality is much better than now than before. Please leave constructive criticism. Thank you! Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 04:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the three solid opposes already given. Please do not withdraw and simultaneously restart nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a sample only, here are two sentences (sort of) in the lead:
  • It has been estimated that the Carpenters' album and single sales total more than 100 million.[2] easily putting them high on the list of best-selling music artists.[citation needed] During their fourteen year career, the Carpenters had ten albums, five of which contained top 10 singles (Close to You, Carpenters, A Song for You, Now & Then and Horizon), thirty one singles, five television specials, and one television series.
  • Strong Oppose: due to many missing references.--Redtigerxyz 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing references in "Carpenters" section and lead , critics views etc. Also I suggest a more suitable sub-heading should be found for the "Carpenters" section. A sub-heading, X in an article named X appears absurd.--Redtigerxyz 11:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done. Fixed the lead, and renamed the "Carpenters" sub-heading.
    • To Cuyler91093: Please see WP:CITE, "Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations" section for referencing as a book has been named several times.--Redtigerxyz 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please eliminate or expand the one liner Albums section.--Redtigerxyz 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • checkY Done. Fixed the albums, and wikilinked to the page List of the Carpenters albums. Cuyler91093 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Add a summary to 'Albums and Singles' or just put the links in See Also.--Redtigerxyz 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • STRANGE BUT TRUE. THE ARTICLE REFERENCES (1,59,60) ARE FROM WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. AND NOT ANY ARTICLE BUT "THE CARPENTERS" ITSELF. THAT IS WIRED. Changing to "Strong Oppose". --Redtigerxyz 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because three people opposed it before I re-edited isn't good reason for opposing it. I made the corrections to everybody's constructive comments. What more do you want besides references? Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images need Fair use rationales, the song soared to #1 reference?, The song did become a double (awkwardly written), "Gold: Greatest Hits." full-stop should be outside and the DVD should be in italics not speech marks, "As Time Goes By" CD another album which should be in italics, .[1] external link needs to be converted to a reference, "Both have been honored with Grammy Hall of Fame awards for recordings of lasting quality or historical significance." both what? the members of the carpenters? this one sentence paragraphs reads like trivia, web references need to be formatted to include a title, publisher (the website), date and author if applicable and a date retrieved (check Reign_in_Blood#References for an example on how to do this. M3tal H3ad 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Working on it. Fixed the "Both have been honored..." Reformatted most of the citations, and added over 40 to the article. I shall work on fixing speech marks to italics tomorrow. Cuyler91093 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done. Alright, I finished correcting the periods and commas outside of the song and album quotes. The only ones I left are the ones of spoken quotes. I believe it's okay now.
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but in my view this article isn't close to being FA ready yet. Go to WP:FA#Music and look at some of the existing FA examples there; you can focus on comparable singles-oriented pop artists' articles such as Celine Dion or Kylie Minogue or Mariah Carey, and see how this article compares to those. And you still don't have the discography right — the full albums and singles tables should be contained in a separate article (or two, if you really think they can't be combined), while the main article should contain a summary of just the studio albums and just the major hit singles with fewer columns of information. If you look at the other FA articles you'll see what I mean. Also, what references you do have are not in proper format. Again, study other FA articles. Wasted Time R 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on formatting the references. If you check, there are more references now, and I formatted them in MLA (if that's good, then good. If not, someone can fix it, because I put way too much effort into this). I shall look into the featured musician's articles. Just please keep giving me suggestions, because I want to get this article featured! Cuyler91093 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done with moving the huge single chart to List of songs by the Carpenters. Cuyler91093 08:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**What has that got to do with anything? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against regarding the contents of the page itself. Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 08:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • One issue with WP popular culture articles always is, is this a serious analytical look at artist X or is this a thinly-disguised fan page for artist X? When the biggest booster of article [[X]] is named X's Biggest Fan, reviewers will naturally tend to fear the fan page possibility and their reading may be thus influenced. Wasted Time R 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Now are you happy? Cuyler91093 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My dad loves this group. Too many one-sentence paragraphs and refs are no where near ready.Sumoeagle179 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added more references. It went from under 30 to 45. I will continue adding references. Projected estimate will be around 100. Cuyler91093 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Now, there are 67 references total. How much do you guys recommend I put in the article? Cuyler91093 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Its not about quantity, its about quality. You could have 100,000 refernces and still get opposition, or you could have less than 50 and get unilateral support. The key when citing is to hit the information that you think is likely to be challenged, and if people oppose on the grounds that the article lacks citations request (politely) that they add {{fact}} tags to the info that they wanted cited so you can see what needs referenced. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no. Article lacks any context or insight, and is riddled with stubby paras, incomplete refs, and blue links. Ceoil 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Carpenters/archive2&oldid=1078807655"