Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive2

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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].

Illinois (album)

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC), Jujutacular[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it met all of the requirements for GA status and was then further amended based on those recommendations and well as the suggestions at its first FA nomination and its peer-review; I have also asked for feedback from relevant WikiProjects. The article at present is stable and no changes that are suggested here should be a serious impediment to FA status. User:Jujutacular and to a lesser extent myself (User:Koavf) have been the primary contributors. I am willing to amend the article based on comments here and I have posted to Jujutacular's talk to inform him of this FA nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media review All images and samples are acceptable and have appropriate FU or other licences Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources looked OK at the last FAC, subject to a minor issue re retrieval dates. The same issue requires that for consistency, retrieval dates are added to 5, 17 and 29. Otherwise no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems lacking for a featured article.
- Explanation of any of the song titles - why are they all so long?
  - The song titles are long because that's what Stevens chose to title them. What's there to discuss? There is a mention of the fact that the titles are long in the reception section. Jujutacular ^talk 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, some of the titles themselves could use explanation. See below. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most importantly is discussion of each of the individual songs. You mention some of the themes in the songs, but you don't mention anything musically. After all, it is a music album. The first track has wild time signatures, the title track is in a very rare 5/4, another is in 11/4.
  - All of this is true, would adding the time signature information constitute original research unless I found sources? Jujutacular ^talk 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly you need to find sources for the time signatures. I'm just saying there needs to be some mention of every song, some sort of musical analysis, something, IDK. There's no mention what "tracks" are continuations of previous songs. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is one-sided by only mentioning the good reviews. Where are the bad reviews?
  - There are really no reviews that have an overall poor view of the album. The worst opinion I found was in Rolling Stone comment about one song - and is included in the article. Jujutacular ^talk 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article just seems bland for such an iconic album (and it really is, it's won so many awards). I really feel it's not comprehensive enough. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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