Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other

edit
See: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other/archive1

2nd nomination. I believe the article now possesses all atrributes required by criteria 1 (it now being (e) stable). It also now possesses those of criteria 2 (now having a lead section (a) and headings (b)). Weasel words have been removed, and sales figures have been added, as wells as release date and specific chart. Hyacinth 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom.--Rmky87 14:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm finding a lot of little problems. In the lead alone, there's a missing comma ("...musician Ned Sublette[,] whose music..."), there's an out-of-place phrase in parenthesis ("(a reference to western wear and leather subculture)") which is thrown onto the end of a sentence instead of being converted into proper prose, another oddly parenthetical phrase referring to Willie Nelson releasing the song on iTunes, and as far as the albums on which the song has been released... well, some of them have the record label that released the albums (either all should or none should, not some), and the catalog numbers of the albums are not needed whatsoever- this is an encyclopedia, not a buyer's guide. Also, if the folk duo Rick & Andy don't have a WP article, they shouldn't be mentioned- every song ever has been covered a thousand times by a thousand non-notable artists, so unless their version is in some way important are unique (and I doubt it is, since it's never mentioned in the article again), it shouldn't be included. I would also like to see a much wider variety of sources- only nine different references is a bit low, though all nine of the references are from high-quality sources. The link to the Boondocks comic strip also brings up today's strip, and not any of those which reference the song. There's also more on Nelson's version than on the original song- if his was the third or fourth notable version released, why is the majority of the article about this particular recording? I understand that Sublette wrote it with Nelson in mind, but where's the info on his own release of the song? Did it sell any copies, or get any reaction from the country music scene, or make any sort of impact? The mentions of other gay-themed songs at the end of the article is wholly unnecessary; this gives background on the other songs, but absolutely no comparison (or other relation) to "Cowboys Are Frequently...", so why do we need the background on the other songs? Hell, the last sentence of the article notes that the comparison taking place is a tenuous one- and there isn't even a comparison taking place. I know this is a very long "object", and perhaps it would've been better to use bulletpoints instead of one huge paragraph, so for that I apologize. However, while this deserves its Good Article status, it has to be said that if this becomes featured, we're really lowering the bar on Featured Articles. -- Kicking222 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site appears to only keep the strips for three or four months. I'm not sure how to find a new link to the image, if possible. What sorts of sources are lacking? How many and what kind of sources are needed? Comma has been added to intro, Rick and Andy removed, as well as parentheses, From the end of the reception section I removed Dolly Parton's song and made a comparison between the success of this song and negative reaction to Brooks' song. Hyacinth 05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as sources, there's only one source directly related to the homosexual community, and there are none related to the country music community. The sources present are great (with the possible exception of All Music Guide- I'm not sure a one-sentence review is a particularly good reference point), but I'd like to see more specific sources. What does CMT have to say? How about Out Magazine? (I'm just throwing out random sources, here; it's not as if CMT specifically must be referenced.) As far as other issues, the lead looks much better, though the sentence starting with "For example" is technically a fragment. The comparison (!) to Garth Brooks is much better than it was before, especially without the Dolly Parton info. However, I've noticed some more minor problems, mostly with comma usage, and mostly coming from the fact that every quote needs a comma directly before it (i.e., in the "Composition" section: "He explains[,] 'Gay life in 1981...'" and "Ann Northrop of Gay USA describes as[,] 'the language...'"). In fact, the latter sentence (the one including Northrop's quote) is a little unclear. Also, sticking with the comma problem, song lyrics broken up by a slash don't need one; the slash to indicate a new lyric inherently places a pause in a phrase. In the "Nelson's version" section, the sentence "The song's coming out was encouraged by the coming out of his friend" is awkward. Though Nelson says that it's the right time for the song to "come out", this pun does not need to be repeated; "The song's release..." works far better. The sentence in "Reception" beginning with "Sublette, as expected..." is a run-on and does not make much sense. Finally (for now), there aren't any pictures besides the cover of Nelson's single; this is not really a criticism, as I'm not sure what other pictures could be in the article (an article about a song doesn't lead to many photo ops), but take a look at Featured Articles Real Love (Beatles song), Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me), and Cool (song) for some examples. In fact, just check out all of the song FAs at WP:FA#Music- I only saw one that had no pictures aside from a single album cover, and only a few that just had multiple album covers. But don't really worry about the picture content, as that's not actually a problem at all, but rather a nitpick by someone who always scrutinizes FACs. "Cowboys..." truly is an excellent article, and you've done great work on it. Most of its problems are easily fixable. -- Kicking222 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cowboys_Are_Frequently,_Secretly_Fond_of_Each_Other/archive2&oldid=1141923666"