Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KMFDM/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:23, 12 February 2011 [1].

KMFDM

[edit]

KMFDM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Torchiest talkedits 06:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working hard on it for more than a year now. I already brought it from B-class to GA status in April 2010, and I think I've made enough additions to it since then to take it to the next level. —Torchiest talkedits 06:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - bare URLs and dead links in references, multiple formatting inconsistencies, some information lacking necessary references (example: "one popular account having Raymond Watts originating the initialism to avoid the difficulties he had in pronouncing the German" - whose account?). Sorry, but it's not ready yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I hadn't realized someone had added a bare url, or that some links had been tagged as dead. I fixed all the issues you mentioned. Thanks for the comments! —Torchiest talkedits 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Can you clarify what you mean by the formatting inconsistencies? Are you talking about the references themselves, or the article layout in general? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • References - I generally look there first, and stop if I see obvious problems. In this case, we see doubled periods, inconsistencies in names/publishers (for example, KMFDM.net or just KMFDM?), missing information (like the Gammon ref - I can't actually tell what kind of publication that is from what you've provided), incomplete dates (when in February 2010 was ref 73 retrieved?)...Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, thanks. I found a few more dead links (that tool is quite handy!) and fixed the rest of them. I'll look at the formatting a little later today. —Torchiest talkedits 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the KMFDM work/publisher/title etc. reference inconsistencies and added the missing url for the Justin Gammon reference. As for the double periods, I found one that was a problem, but the rest are cases where their is an abbreviated Inc. at the end of, for example, the publisher's name. The templates add a second period. Is that incorrect? —Torchiest talkedits 23:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Torchiest, but there are still quite a few problems with referencing. Some important statements remain unreferenced, and there are still multiple inconsistencies/problems in referencing format (for example, current ref 59 is just "KMFDM Records"). I'm not familiar enough with sourcing standards for this type of article to comment extensively on the reliability of the current sources, but I would also question the number of self-published or anonymously-published sources used in the article, and there are a couple of sites where I might ask you to justify their use per WP:RS. Going beyond sourcing concerns, I also see image issues (the fair-use rationale for File:What_do_you_know_deutschland.jpg, for example, is at least partially inaccurate, and File:Kmfdm_jules_starlite.jpg seems to be lacking evidence of author permission), and some prose and MoS issues (sandwiching of text between images, lead is too long, some very short paragraphs and very long sentences, etc). I'd welcome the opinions of other reviewers, but for me I still oppose the article's promotion at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional comments. I found a link to the original Billboard article about Jim Nash. As for the reliability of Vampire Freaks, I'd thought it was okay, but I'll get some input over at WP:RSN. I'll work on fixing the image issues later today. Thanks again for looking things over. —Torchiest talkedits 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all the VF references, and corrected the WDYK,D? image FUR. I also trimmed and merged a lot of paragraphs. However, I'm not sure I understand the problem with the starlite image. It says it is released into the public domain; what is missing? —Torchiest talkedits 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not clear whether the user who uploaded the image and the person listed as the author are one and the same. If they're not (which seems to be implied by the wording of the description), then we need evidence that the author has released the image into the public domain or has granted permission for the photo to be used. Given that the only source listed is "English Wikipedia", that evidence is not currently present. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot - see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Nikkimaria hasn't revisited, I had a look and still see numerous problems-- citation formatting, uncited text, WP:MOSDATE#Precise language just on a quick scan. A peer review might help better prepare this article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/KMFDM/archive1&oldid=1138464965"