Wikipedia:Featured article review/Duran Duran/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 06:23, 16 May 2007.

Duran Duran[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk and Biography. LuciferMorgan 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Message left at Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

1. It fails criterion 1. c. in its lack of verifiability, and some book sources need specific page numbers.

Which book sources, specifically. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notorious: The Unauthorised Biography". LuciferMorgan 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of lack of verifiability do you see? All of those books and magazines are available out there in the real world; links have been provided to those which are online. I'll be happy to improve citations as you suggest, but this article was carefully researched before and during its initial FAC nomination; could you please explain your objection more fully? — Catherine\talk 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns "Notorious: The Unauthorised Biography", cited books these days use specific page numbers. Each fact or opinion the book is used to cite should each individually contain the specific page number. This would improve verifiability. So if on page 20 of the book it says "X did this" for example, then instead of naming the book you would also name the specific page that statement is on.
What would also improve verifiability is if statements as concerns musical styles on each album were cited - would you like examples of such instances? LuciferMorgan 16:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. The article is extremely POV and makes critiques on all aspects of the band's music, attitude and everything. All this opinionated stuff needs citations. LuciferMorgan 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples would help. On a quick read, I don't have any idea what you're talking about. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, what is "extremely POV" here? — Catherine\talk 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the bottom of this FAR for examples of POV. LuciferMorgan 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—one of my favorite musical groups. The article's references look ok, but they need to be completed; in particular, references 1 and 15 are just links. Furthermore, the prose needs an extensive audit:
    • "They are still often identified as an "Eighties band" despite continuous recording and chart success over their twenty-eight year history." removing "recording and chart" will help drive this sentence home more succinctly, but that's mostly a personal preference. A source might be helpful here, and you might be better off removing the sentence entirely.
    • "The band has sold well over 75 million records worldwide." perhaps you can simplify to "The band has sold more than 75 million records worldwide", or even omit "worldwide" entirely. You may even be able to integrate it into another sentence. This, like the one above, needs to be more terse; that's where the (sometimes misread) POV issues appear.
    • "Redundant alsos throughout, such as "...was also a member of the band".
    • "Although the group never disbanded, it went through several line-up changes over the years." "Over the years" is redundant. Since the band is still around, it should read ""Although the group has never disbanded, it has gone through several lineup changes."
    • "The reunion of the original five members in the early 2000s created a stir among music media and the band's fans." simplify and integrate into the next sentence to avoid those accusations of POV or requests for a one-timer source in the lead. Sources?
    • "In 2006 Duran Duran finished their new album and it had a great New Wave/Alternative sound and by all accounts the band were thrilled with it." This sentence has POV issues. To begin with, there is a comma missing between "2006" and "Duran Duran", as well as other issues throughout the sentence. Who said it "had a great New Wave/Alternative sound"? "Was thrilled with it" is informal.
    • "Sadly after presenting it to Epic, it was rejected for not being "American enough"." Again, missing a comma after the (very POV) transition, and excessive detail for the lead. Besides, is there a source on the quote? The rest of that paragraph needs serious work; it should be compressed to maybe two sentences and integrated into another paragraph.
    • These issues with the lead should be tackled before the remainder of the article. In short, please simplify, trim, and copy-edit the lead. After this, I recommend enlisting the help of two to three copy-editors to give the entire article a massage; it's been nearly three years since the minimal FA review. — Deckiller 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: WP:MSH problems and External link farms needs pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS. Also, WP:DASH problems throughout (distinguish hyphen from emdash). Footnotes aren't formatted; see examples at WP:CITE/ES. Sources should include a publisher, author and date when available, and all websources should include last access date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the specific advice, especially on the lead; I'll try to address this over the next day or so. The painful "2006" paragraph Deckiller discusses was just added in the last day, and has already been removed. External links are a continual problem on a band page; I do try to trim them frequently, but I'll have another go. More specific action points and copyediting help/advice are very welcome. — Catherine\talk 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns POV, I mean describing the music etc. You can use the words of critics, but not describe it yourself. Like this one which someone picked up above;
  • "Sadly after presenting it to Epic, it was rejected for not being "American enough" Why is the word "sadly" there? It's POV, unneeded and should be removed. LuciferMorgan 18:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That whole paragraph is already gone. — Catherine\talk 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band was relatively unusual in that all five members were pin-up pretty." A cite please? And who has expressed this opinion? A critic, or several? The opinion of fans is considered invalid due to bias, so if this is an opinion which solely the fans have it needs ridding of. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Live Aid and Arcadia, the ever-shy drummer Roger Taylor, exhausted, retired to the English countryside. His retirement was originally announced as a one year sabbatical, but it soon became clear that he would not be returning to the band. A definitive announcement was made in April 1986 to confirm his departure." Ever shy? According to whom? A "definitive" announcement - according to whom was this "definitive"? These are both POV. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ever-shy" will be easy to find a cite for; he was notorious for avoiding the spotlight. For "definitive", would "official" work better? There was finally a formal press release from the band after months of rumor and speculation. — Catherine\talk 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Official is fine, as the statement was "official" - nothing POV in that. LuciferMorgan 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Roger Taylor remarked that, "It wasn't a good atmosphere at all. We had split into the Power Station and Arcadia, and egos were rampant." All quotes need citing. LuciferMorgan 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To satisfy America's newly awakened thirst for all things Duran," This is another POV example. LuciferMorgan 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I will find quotes and cites, or take these things out. I am determined to improve this up to current featured quality, however, it looks like I won't really be able to devote time to it until the 15th or later -- I am working extreme hours right now. Please do not move this to the next step of FAR until I or others have had a chance to address the issues you've raised. Thank you! — Catherine\talk 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the power to move an article to FARC, so don't worry. However, the ones that do I know for a fact definitely extend time on articles which are being improved - this is a friendly place believe it or not :) LuciferMorgan 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An autograph-signing session in Times Square got so far out of control that mounted police had to be called in to control the mob. The hysteria of their teenage fans accompanied them everywhere they went, drawing frequent comparisons to Beatlemania."

The first sentence would benefit with a citation, though the second is definite POV. Any Beatles comparisons need a reliable citation whichever article it is, but especially when comparisons to Beatlemania are made. LuciferMorgan 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"With the Bond song holding at Number 1, and the band arguably suffering from overexposure, their Live Aid set became infamous for Le Bon inadvertently hitting a falsetto note in the chorus of "A View To A Kill" – an error gleefully noted in the press as "The Bum Note Heard Round The World", and which the singer himself would later describe as the most humiliating of his career."

Whose opinion is it that the band were suffering from overexposure? Where was the "The Bum Note Heard Round The World" title used exactly? Also, where did he describe as the most humiliating of his career? All these need citations. LuciferMorgan 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC—not all the examples in the lead have been fixed, and there are still citation tags. I have also not been able to point out additional examples outside the lead, and a full copy-edit hasn't been performed yet. There is also the length issue. Clearly, the article needs the extra time available with FARC. — Deckiller 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in getting back to this -- I've done a little more work today and will continue to this week. Thanks! — Catherine\talk 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—1a, 1c, and lingering 1d issues. Work had been done initially, but a lot more is required during the time available for FARC. — Deckiller 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above. My FAR nomination concerns remain mostly unaddressed. LuciferMorgan 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Duran_Duran/archive1&oldid=1078810505"