Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courtney Love/archive5

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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 [1].

Courtney Love

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about singer, musician, and actress Courtney Love. I have worked on this article vociferously over a course of years, and for whatever reason have been unable to get it promoted in spite of numerous approvals during prior nominations. It covers the subject adequately, has been thoroughly cited, and re-worked for fluidity of prose. —Drown Soda (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've reviewed it several times already, and it still looks to be in good condition. It's a bit long, but I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl
- "Love has practiced several religions, including Catholicism, Episcopalianism and New Age religions," - this does not read terribly well. I'd scrap the latter use of "religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this article. I've made a few minor tweaks of my own too, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as before. I went through the article again, and copyedited a little, but there was nothing significant wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Do we have up-to-date image and source reviews anywhere? If not, they can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections.
Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

The sound file has an appropriate rational for fair use and it is appropriately used to illustrate a section about Love’s music.

The image review passes. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a very solid article and it was a very informative and compelling read. I wish that I could add more in the form of feedback/comments, but it looks a majority if not all of the potential issues have already been covered in past FACs for this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Aoba47:. Is there anything I could do to try and further a promotion for this? I've nominated it numerous times and tried reaching out to other WikiProjects and the like, but haven't seemed to have been able to move it beyond the nomination stage. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drown Soda, I know how often you've given this one a go and based on the above I think this time your persistence and continuing desire to improve the article may well pay off -- for the moment I think you can afford to sit tight and await a source review (we may also need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing unless one took place in an earlier review, will check). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, going back through the previous FACs I couldn't see such a spotcheck but in any case I notice Sarastro has requested it at the top of WT:FAC, so just wait for that too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The Earwig Copyvio detector gives the article the thumbs up.
FN 256 and 274 are dead
Random check: FN 69, 124, 144, 159, 167, 177, 180, 242, 270, 283, 302, 315 are all okay
FN 55: Put this with the books, with an ISBN etc. And find page numbers.
FN 108 says p. 74, but should be pp. 75-76, and doesn't give the February 1995 date.
FN 152 only supports the first part; need a second source for "therefore Nobody's Daughter would remain Love's solo record, as opposed to a "Hole" record.
Link Poppy Z. Brite

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hawkeye7:. I think I've addressed each of these things—as far as FN 152, I removed the Vulture source altogether and instead provided an archived source for the original NME article that applies to both the reformation of the band as well as the release of the record. Let me know if you see anything else. Much appreciated. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I noticed a few duplicate links which should be checked, but the commendable patience of the nominator in getting reviews for this article has finally been rewarded, and I'm not going to hold up promotion over that. These can be sorted out after this FAC has closed. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.