Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Klepacki

Frank Klepacki[edit]

Self-nomination. I'm not sure why this was failed; there were only three comments (all addressed) and one support, so it just needed more time to be reviewed. Old nom. Relisting ought to get some more reviewers on board. I apologize if overwriting the old stuff isn't the way to handle resubmissions, but I can't find instructions for resubs on the FAC page. Here's the old description. "This article has gone from zero to hero. I've used all material available at Klepacki's website to create the biography and have contacted him. There are only a handful of fair-use images, and I've written and copyedited encyclopedic prose. Any objections will be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for reviewing." --Zeality 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Same reasons as before: the prose is now good, references are thorough, the article covers the subject well and images are properly licensed. It also seems to stay on subject without veering off. I have no objections. By the way, I've taken the liberty of archiving the previous discussion for Zeality since he was unsure of what to do. Ryu Kaze 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million. --Zeality 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Reading this article I can't help but be reminded of Cynna Kydd a couple of weeks ago. Nevertheless, in terms of prose, coverage, and citations, it definitely meets FA standards. Its subject also offers an entirely new dimension to the video game industry that I'd never really thought about before....TonyJoe 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. --Zeality 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - His music rocks, and so does this article. It should be made Featured at once! Bigdaddy1204 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made a userbox about Klepacki's absence from C&C3 over on that article's talk page. --Zeality 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Awesome article. Its just to bad he ain’t doin’ number 3; then again, that may be a good thing, since all EA can do is bottom feed (which is why we are all saying The EA Prayer). Rock on, dude!!!!! TomStar81 02:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And amen! --Zeality 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. The reference use often appears visually excessive, making editing a pain (unless I use my temp. reference abbreviation script). Nevertheless, it may just be necessary, though any streamlining that could be done, should be.Voice-of-All 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely due to my not being totally clear on the use of references. So far, I've been adding them to certain statements that really sound like they need to be sourced—such as commentary, important facts, etc. I'm not clear on what I can forego referencing in a paragraph that all uses one source anyhow. --Zeality 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference usage looks fine to me. Also, since some of the statements within a single paragraph are sourced by differenent references, you'd be required to be that generous in their use anyway. Ryu Kaze 11:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I can't find one criteria that this article doesn't meet. Yes, Klepacki isn't a well known subject, but that is not a requirement of FA status. As mentioned above the refs look a little disconcerting. But, given the subject is part of a small subculture(video game music), if this article didn't have those refs I'm sure many editors would make the argument that the article makes many claims that aren't verified. Mitaphane _talk 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Zeality 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]