Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dancing the Dream/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 SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/Dancing the Dream/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Dancing the Dream/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a comprehensive article that meets the FA criteria. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sasata (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose clunky (eg. "The poems range from coping with discovering an oil-covered seagull feather, to seals who ponder whether or not they will be clubbed by hunters, and elephants who refuse to lie down and die in order to give up their tusks for the trinkets of man.")
- I've split and reworded this sentence.
- a section with 2 sentences?
- There is no other appropriate section for it in the article.
- the sparseness of the references section suggests that not a lot of other people think this is a notable work, or that not enough research has been done
- An article with less references has reached FA status (Hurricane Irene (2005)). Dancing the Dream meets WP:NB in that it is a bestseller and that it has been written by someone who is "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Jackson is arguably the most famous man of the last century. The article neglects no major facts relating to the book.
- I was trying to delicately hint that the research did not meet the 1b or 1c requirements. How many books have been written about MJ? Surely it must be more than the three used as sources for this article. Do you seriously claim that this article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"? Sasata (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do seriously believe that the article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. As noted by Realist2 in the answer to question 5 of this Signpost interview:
"The majority of English speaking media focus on Jackson's personal life over the finer details of his music and artistry. This, coupled with the fact that Jackson rarely allows interviews, makes it difficult to write substansive articles on his music. It can literally take weeks of researching. GA reviewers often find this difficult to appreciate, that such a mainstream artists music is only discussed in general terms."
- That is in regard to his music; what he became famous for in the first place. Analysis and indepth discussion of his books is even less. Pyrrhus16 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I wasn't aware that difficulty of research could be used as a justification to forgo the 1b and 1c criteria for FAC. Sorry, my oppose still stands, but it's only my opinion. I'll let others weigh in on the issue. Sasata (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to justify any alleged failure to meet a criterion. I was explaining why the article does meet the criteria of section 1 and why it lacks overwhelming coverage compared to other aspects of Jackson's life. You're welcome to your opinion, however. Pyrrhus16 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I wasn't aware that difficulty of research could be used as a justification to forgo the 1b and 1c criteria for FAC. Sorry, my oppose still stands, but it's only my opinion. I'll let others weigh in on the issue. Sasata (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is in regard to his music; what he became famous for in the first place. Analysis and indepth discussion of his books is even less. Pyrrhus16 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest withdrawing and try promoting to GA first
- I'd like to hear other opinions first. I wouldn't have brought the article here if I wasn't confident that it met the FA criteria. The article is short and I believe any possible further issues can be dealt with speedily because of that. Pyrrhus16 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No dab links or dead external links—good.
- Image looks correctly cited and rationaled; I see no policy issues there.
- Good alt text for the first image.
- Dates are consistent Month Day, Year throughout.
- For Sasata's second point, try merging the short section to "Reception" to make a "Publication and reception" compound for now. You can divide the two with a hidden comment if you're worried about where to add any new facts later. (The video game article The Guardian Legend has a similar combined "History" section.)
--an odd name 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sections are now combined. Thanks for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2c is okay. Citations are consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.