Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kurt Cobain/archive1

Kurt Cobain

I nominated this article back in June, and it failed. The nom was replaced on FAC by User:Windwaker but this nom was not updated. I'm not voting at this time, but I think it appears close enough to fix the nomination rather than remove it. Tuf-Kat 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Besides objections above, the section "Kurt's Gear" is not cited and needs wikifying to boot. This article is entirely fixable within the FAC period and I hope to soon support it. Andrew Levine 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew commented before this page was updated before the new nom, so he is referring to the objections that were above at the time. Tuf-Kat

Object. The 'Kurt's Gear' section is listy, it needs to be turned into prose, wikified and detailed. There are also image copyright/source issues, please fix this as well. The fair use images need fair use rationales. Image:Kurtinamsterdam-91-11-25screaminghard5.jpg does not have any source or license. — Wackymacs 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object Not really our best effort yet is it? Perhaps with a lot more work - come on, this guy is everywhere over the net. We need something that puts his own website to shame for a front page article.--HasBeen 09:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - With respect to the lead section, nearly half of the article text deals with addiction/suicide/death but this is not summarized here. Since the lead section is a summary, the two references to footnotes probably should go in the main text somewhere. With respect to the references, it would be cleaner to have a Notes section with only footnotes (all of the forward links go here, each has a back link), and then cite the complete sources in the References section. JonHarder 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Many of the key features for why this failed before have been resolved. --Windwaker 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Jeez, he's not that important. (Ibaranoff24 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Huh? You are objecting because you don't like Kurt or I am missing something here? Renata3 04:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This objection is not valid - You cannot object on the basis of wether the subject of the article is 'important' or not. — Wackymacs 08:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, writing is not too flash, image licences are still a problem.--nixie 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]