Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:18, 17 April 2006

We Belong Together

The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this process.

Raul654 had delisted the original third nomination on the grounds that it had been too soon to renominate it. If my addition is accurate, I believe I have waited a further two weeks and would like to point out that this is the final FAC I participate in concerning this article. Hopefully, it will succeed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support because: the chart trajectory image should be a scatterplot, to be accurate. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't own Microsoft Excel and had to ask another to create the graph. Does this scatterplot feature come with the same program? Or perhaps another? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Microsoft Excel, Quattro Pro, etc. can do it. I'm not sure though. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, I do not possess access to any of these programs. Your input is appreciated, of course, and I thank you for your support, however weak or strong it may be. :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object -- too many nominations too fast, also fancruft. -- Gnetwerker 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many nominations too fast is not an objectionable ground, and may be ignored. However, what do you believe contains fancruft? I will try and remove all of the content that you believe is classified as this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per the grounds I used on the previous three nominations, the graph is distracting and inaccurate. The song was never in posistion 3.6, or 4.7, but the graph shows it was. Also, it's too soon. That is actionable. Wait a month. Problem solved. Non-objectionable opposes are along the lines of 'I think Carey sucks and we shouldn't have this featured.' -M^ask 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain where it presents positions 3.6 or 4.7? I don't see such a rank. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think what the person is saying is that the chart, having continuous lines and broad scales, appears to show the song ranking at non-integral positions. I agree with AKMask that the chart is of poor quality. However, since the chart (I hope) was based on the integral values in the tables provided below the chart, the article reader should look at the chart as showing the trends, and look at the data tables to see specific values. joturn e r 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object The actionable items (especially the ones listed by User:Tsavage) from the last nomination have not been addressed. Simply renominating an article without improving it hoping it'll slip by is just too hollow. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor, poor hollow then. What are your objections? We are supposed to have a very good article here, and this article is certainly more than good. It will never be perfect, which is a shame, but then, not one article will ever be perfect. Do you have any specific objections to point out? I need to see them here so I can address them according to what you dislike and do like. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, people don't have to use up their wiki time repeating the same objections ad nauseam if the reason they give is that certain specified objections weren't addressed in the first place. If you're interested in getting a worthy FA, rather than one that is bullied and forced through the process, what you should do in the face of such an objection as Malber's here is not to demand yet another exhaustive and exhausting list of specifics; it's to go look up the last discussion and find the unaddressed objections and criticisms in it. That's your job, as nominator; it's not Malber's. Tip: when you do, look especially for the signature Tsavage, since Malber mentions that specifically. You see how it's done? Please stop demanding that the objectors do your job. What makes you think they should take the time to read through and make a précis of previous nominations, to save you reading them? Please be more reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    - You need to stop bothering me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is an incredibly rude response. The user is correcting some appalling behavior here from you. Articles are not assumed to be featured quality untill shown otherwise, they are assumed to be less then that and it is up to you to prove that it is worthy. That means finding all the old opposes and seeing if you've fixed the concerns raised. Your behavior shows a massive misunderstanding on the way the FA process works, and the way our community at large works. -M^ask 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it is not a rude response. While on this website, I am completing encyclopedia articles, not brushing up on my perfectionism. You cannot tell me that I have brought the article here when it is not ready because that is incredibly POV; if I nominated it, then of course I am going to assume that it is ready. I have personally brought all of the old objections and brought them here to complete. I know precisely how the FAC process works, and I believe that some users are expecting too much out of an article about a song. I know what I am doing. In addition, Bishonen... I can't even comment. I'll just keep quiet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where are the nomination archives? I see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive 1, but shouldn't there be others? At least two more? joturner 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two previous FACs, both of which are both in one archive. The third one was removed altogether because it was delisted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectionable content that must be addressed:

Cut down the fancruft, as per the fancruft guidelines.
Tsavage believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
~~Tsavage believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.~~

I believe this has been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
~~Tsavage believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.~~

This has been addressed significantly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tsavage believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.~~

Completed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tsavage believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.~~

Trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.

Object For the same reason I objected last time. I just don't think the writing in the article is featured article status. I also think this is way too soon since the last candidacy was delisted. You should wait at least a month or two. HeyNow10029 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson.
  Could you please point out a line or two that you do not consider "brilliant" prose? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you suggesting, Eternal? HeyNow10029 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson. HeyNow10029 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ***What are you suggesting, Eternal? [[User:HeyNow10029|HeyNow10029]] 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 ****I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. &mdash;[[User:Eternal Equinox|Eternal Equinox]] | [[User talk:Eternal Equinox|talk]] 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
+*****That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? '''It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at [[Talk:Kelly Clarkson]].''' [[User:HeyNow10029|HeyNow10029]] 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Comment by nominator''': Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. [[Bulbasaur|Other]] [[Celine Dion|articles]] came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. &mdash;[[User:Eternal Equinox|Eternal Equinox]] | [[User talk:Eternal Equinox|talk]] 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)