Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/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 Ucucha 14:38, 28 November 2011 [1].
Otis Redding[edit]
Otis Redding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Hello everyone!
After an unsuccessful GAN; copyeditors helped to improve the prose; reviewers helped to construct the article (this was the latest version until I started to develop it on my sandbox), I now believe it meets the FA criteria and I myself don't see any issues. I would also like to see it on the mainpage in Dec 10.♫GoP♫TCN 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry. I don't want to be at all discouraging but the nomination is premature. The GAN was not successful and the issues raised there have not been fully addressed. The subsequent peer review was closed after only seven days and I think more patience was required – reviewers should have been solicited. The prose, although not far off GA standard, is long way off FA standards. Here's a sentence taken at random from the article, "Redding's wife was dissatisfied that it did not sound like a typical Redding song". It's clunky, clumsy prose. And here, "The Stax crew were similarly dissatisfied; Jim Stewart thought that it was not R&B, while bassist Duck Dunn thought its sound would damage Stax". For a sound to cause damage it has to be pretty powerful. Does this mean "Stax's reputation"? There are many more examples of non-professional writing throughout the article. It needs to go back to peer review and this nomination withdrawn. Graham Colm (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed this peer review because I asked so many editos to review it, but nobody had time, were inactive or had no desire to perform a top-to-bottom review. 7 days is very long; I am pretty sure that an experienced reviewer is able to polish the prose of a short article like this in minimum 1 day. I don't know how much time you spent to write this comment, but if you could name just examples, why others can not? --♫GoP♫TCN 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry GreatOrangePumpkin, but as you pointed out at my talk page, it isn't ready yet. In addition to the article's problems with prose that you commented on at my talk, I'm also seeing WP:MOS inconsistencies, sourcing issues (Find a Grave, for example, is not a high-quality reliable source), and media concerns (non-free samples are meant to be no more than 10% of total song length - File:These_Arms_of_Mine_-_Otis_Redding.ogg is nearly 20%). I understand it's frustrating to struggle to find reviewers, but your best bet would be to go through a successful GAN/PR first. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.