Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Video Killed the Radio Star/archive1
- 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 16:24, 12 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Crea (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the FA criteria Crea (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This may make an excellent FA at some point, but as it stands it fails on sourcing. Bare urls in the references, sections lacking sourcing and unreliable sources. Suggest withdrawing and seeking a Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree that a peer review would help. Also, please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdraw Some non-free content and grammar issues, along with those above.
- For next time (because it really should be withdrawn or failed this time), make sure that primary article editors know you have nominated the article.
- Why is that specific sample of the song used? It should be used near prose where elements of that part are interpreted, praised, or criticized by third-party sources—non-free media like that can't easily be justified in the infobox.
- What justifies the additional album cover (for the PUSA version)?
- "on the 7 September 1979"—spot the problem word. This major error is in the highly visible lead, so the rest of the text is really not worth my check.
Expand the article, then seek other editors to review and copyedit it. There are full view sources on Google Books, uncited in the article, that may help expand it and actually make it comprehensive (as required by the criteria). For now, though, withdraw and expand it free of the hurries and worries of FAC. --an odd name 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, definitely withdraw Not ready by any stretch of the imagination. I'd like to remind people that this is not GAN and has much stricter, thorough criteria which should be read properly. That's not to say that it couldn't be an FA in the future after some TLC and a PR. RB88 (T) 01:16, 12 January 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.