Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/"Weird Al" Yankovic

"Weird Al" Yankovic

Self-nomination. Drastic improvements in coverage, references, layout and consistency since I started seriously working on the article, and if I may say so myself, I feel it meets all the requirements. It should be stable now that I've stopped re-wording the biography section, which I felt needed work before FA nomination. ~ Gromreaper 14:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now You note in your nomination itself that the article is instable. You've made so many changes in the past 36 hours that it fails WP:FA? right off the bat. However, I love Weird Al, and the article looks great, so if you just let the article lie for a couple of weeks, I'd possibly (if not probably) support. -- Kicking222 16:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply." from WP:FA?. All my edits were the subject of suggestions on the article's talk page and does not reflect instability, which refers to edit wars and the like. ~ Gromreaper 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the talk page suggestions. My bad. Opposition stricken. -- Kicking222 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until I have a chance to really read it, but leaning toward support. Oppose as long as fair-use cover art is used in the discography table, which is contrary to Wikiproject Music's MUSTARD guidelines (see WP:MUSTARD#Images and notation and WP:MUSTARD#Discographies). Additionally, the other images used in the article lack sources and fair use rationales; and, regarding the image in the infobox, photos of living people are considered "easily replaceable fair use" and there's currently a debate over whether they're suitable for use in Wikipedia. That's just the images, though — I haven't gotten a chance to read it thoroughly yet, but the text looks good at first blush. --keepsleeping slackoff! 19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that adequate? I've added fair use for the DVD covers. I'm not good at copyright in any way, and I don't know what constitutes a "free" image. Any help? ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've sort of been using the Elliott Smith featured article as a guideline for this, and the image rationale for his infobox seems to be the same kind of justification as the Weird Al infobox. ~ Gromreaper 03:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elliott Smith, unfortunately being dead, isn't easily photographable. Yankovic, thankfully being alive, is :) I've left some suggestions on your talk page about replacing the fair-use image with a free one (and even found one that would work). --keepsleeping slack off! 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image replaced. --keepsleeping slack off! 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging the sections "Awards and album certification" and "Discography", like current Featured Article Marilyn Manson (band), which would eliminate both the MUSTARD problems and the redundancy of having all the album titles listed twice. --keepsleeping slack off! 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the images and merged and culled the section. Wasn't sure whether to include the Canadian certification with the US, so I kept it separate for now. Any other suggestions? ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The instability thing means that there are no edit wars or POV issues in progress or potentially brewing. I've passed three FAs with over a hundred edits made the day of nomination, so unless you're making some caustic assertions in the biography section, it should be okay. --Zeality 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clear-up...Kicking222 had me worried. ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~ObjectMild support~~ Support ~~For now, at least. I'm a big fan of Weird Al though, so I'd love to see this brought up to FA status.~~ Some comments:
- Unsourced statements:
  - -Yankovic commented, "Millions of girls actually found me hot for the first time!"
    - Replaced with another sourced statement ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - -Furthermore, most novelty artists are often one hit wonders, but Yankovic's continued success (including a top 10 single and album in 2006) has enabled him to escape the "one hit wonder" stigma often associated with novelty music.
    - Now sourced ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - -Kurt Cobain called Yankovic an American "rock genius" in his private journals.
    - Couldn't find a source, so removed for now. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - -Their mission is to "solicit, collect, and raise the necessary money, and to compile the information needed for the application to nominate 'Weird Al' Yankovic for a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame." and most of that section.
    - More sources added...seems the weirdalstar.com link was removed a while ago. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although his "official" look does not feature facial hair, he is often seen with a goatee; most notably, on the album art for the 2006 release, Straight Outta Lynwood. - Second clause is not an independent clause, so that semicolon is out of place.
  - Re-worded to Although his "official" look does not feature facial hair he is often seen with a goatee, including on the cover for 2006's Straight Outta Lynwood. I hope that's what you wanted addressed... ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yankovic is best known for his song parodies... - Be careful when using the phrase "best known". Aim for more factual statements such as "While his song parodies have proven more popular according to the charts...".
  - Done ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yankovic's recurring jokes include the number 27 and the names Bob, Frank and Leroy Finkelstein. - Might want to give some example songs (in parens) in which these occur.
  - Done ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Does the misattribution issue on file-sharing sites really merit a spot in the intro? Seems kind of trivia-ish to me...~~
  - I figured since it has an entire section devoted to it, it should be mentioned in the intro. I was following WP:LEAD. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first half of the "Songs" section ventures into a non-NPOV territory, at least to me, as it delves into analysis of his music. Not sure what WP's policy is towards analysis of music in articles though.
  - ~~I'll work on this tonight. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)~~ Done. ~ Gromreaper 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Analysis of a musical style is totally acceptable if not recommended. We could discuss where it should be placed (here or in a seperate section), but, in any case, it definitely adds to the article's comprehensiveness and quality. Under the term, of course, that it is balanced and NPOV. I think that it this case we don't have such problems and the analysis is well-done.--Yannismarou 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My only comment about the "Songs" section is that the two first pars are unreferenced.--Yannismarou 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well in that case, I guess I'm reluctantly OK with the analysis (I've definitely seen far worse and for more biased analysis on Wikipedia). There are, however, only four sources in the entire section, although this is probably to be expected in analysis (another reason I tend to dislike analysis). Gzkn 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added some more references and re-worded the paragraph about the way his parodies are recorded. ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks great. Changed to Support. Gzkn 09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref number 41 no longer works.~~
  - You mean the E article about the star? Now fixed ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gzkn 06:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Look forward to seeing how the "Songs" section turns out, as that and the unsourced stuff, which are now fixed, were my main objections. Gzkn 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support. Under the term that "Songs" will be properly citated, I support the article. But I underscore the conditionality of the support!--Yannismarou 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full support from me.--Yannismarou 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "Songs" now has some references and re-wording of the way his parodies are recorded to sound less amaturish and POV. ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the article is a bit unstable, I am in support of it becoming a featured article. And I am a Weird Al fan. Karrmann 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's with that vandalism template? I couldn't easily find its placement in the history. Was the article really getting vandalized, and how far ago was this? --Zeality 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was vandalised many times by IP users after the White & Nerdy music video was released and the Atlantic Records page was vandalised and protected. Those that couldn't vandalise Atlantic Records went to Weird Al's page instead and added the text "YOU SUCK" (as in the video), oftentimes deleting entire sections. It was protected about a week ago, I think ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template was added on October 24th. Michael Greiner 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. Well done. -- Kicking222 12:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Only thing stopping me from support is that you have failed to follow the idea of putting citations at the end of sentances. When moved I will change to support. Inform me on my talk page.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue addressed; all citations are now at the end of their sentence. ~ Gromreaper 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support My only concern has been addressed--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done. Satisfies criteria - easy to read, comprehensive and comes across as impartial. Cas Liber 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is well written, well cited, and interesting.HeBhagawan 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written, easy to follow, very accurate, and very comprehensive. --Elvis 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]