Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BTS/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2022 [1].
BTS[edit]
- Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the music group BTS. Article was promoted several months ago for GAN and appears to be stable for the past months. GAN was conominated with User:BTSpurplegalaxy who is one of the top editors of the page and conominator here for FAC. Article currently receives a daily page count of nearly 20K hits per day which varies somewhat based on their performing schedule. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're only the author of 1.7 percent of this article's content (combined with BTSpurplegalaxy that would be a bit over 10 percent), how can you know whether there are failed verification issues, for example? (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Following the GAN review which I submitted last year, the article gives a comprehensive view of this contemporary music group with nearly 350 citations. There are also a large number of sibling articles which have been written for the group which were developed independently and some of which were split from the article during GAN. The combined list of citations and references from the BTS article and all of its sibling articles appears to go over a thousand citations, and can be added back into the article as needed and consulted when updating the BTS article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't affect potential failed verification issues. If you didn't write most of the content yourself, how do you know the refs support the content? Did you check them? (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It might be useful to you to glance at the fairly thorough GAN where a point was made to examine each and every reference. Since I have edited in all of the sections of the article and been asked to change out multiple refs which were inadequate, then I believe that the refs were verified at GAN. If any of the refs you find at GAN need replacement, then they can be changed over to an appropriate one from the several hundred formatted refs which were deleted during the GAN for article size issues which were addressed at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't affect potential failed verification issues. If you didn't write most of the content yourself, how do you know the refs support the content? Did you check them? (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Following the GAN review which I submitted last year, the article gives a comprehensive view of this contemporary music group with nearly 350 citations. There are also a large number of sibling articles which have been written for the group which were developed independently and some of which were split from the article during GAN. The combined list of citations and references from the BTS article and all of its sibling articles appears to go over a thousand citations, and can be added back into the article as needed and consulted when updating the BTS article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Im not really sure about the source reliability, but it seems to be missing citing scholarly sources to be well-researched, and does'nt cover some aspects such as fandom that are discussed in scholarly sources. There are lots of Google Scholar results such as: Kim, Youna (2021). The Soft Power of the Korean Wave: Parasite, BTS and Drama. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-43752-2., Kim, Ju Oak (2021). "BTS as method: a counter-hegemonic culture in the network society". Media, Culture & Society. 43 (6): 1061–1077. doi:10.1177/0163443720986029., Ju, Hyunshik (2020). "Premediating a Narrative of Growth: BTS, Digital Media, and Fan Culture". Popular Entertainment Studies. 10 (1–2): 19., etc. On this basis I'm going to oppose. (t · c) buidhe 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would those be better suited for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS? Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, prominent aspects such as fandom should at least be summarized in the main article, ideally using the best quality sources available. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- That article being cited for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS is being maintained by several separate editors and is fairly comprehensive. It covers so many aspects of their interaction with fans and audiences that are still of interest as a special topic. If there are special topics which you would like brought back to the main article then this could be done, though at the time of the GAN it was seen to be better to split them off into a new special topic article dealing with various aspects of their cultural impact. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, prominent aspects such as fandom should at least be summarized in the main article, ideally using the best quality sources available. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would those be better suited for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS? Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG[edit]
Similar to Buidhe, I have concerns about the article's comprehensiveness.
- A book published by Triumph Books in 2018 details BTS' rise to fame. At more than 110 pages, surely there's at least some information worth using. For example, there are a lot of useful information available how the band was formed.
- There are some questionable sources used. For example, what makes myx.abs-cbn.com a high-quality reliable source? Given the popularity of the band, there shouldn't really be a dearth of high-quality sources that we would need to resort to such sources.
- I would like to see a section covering the band's general public reception. Like other previous successful boy bands, they are seen as teen idols and especially popular among teenage girls. Other aspects of their image (how does the media perceive them? What does the media think of their appearance, personality..?) need to be discussed in one such section. See Lady Gaga#Public image as an example.
- There are a lot of good scholarly sources available. The ones suggested above are good starting points. I found one on JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library which is free for us Wikipedians if you meet certain requirements.
Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose (based on 1b and 1c criteria) and suggest withdrawal as this kind of work is best undertaken away from the pressure of FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The GAN assessment page is likely the best place to start in answering your questions which I think were all addressed there. When GAN took place there were over 600-700 citations in the article which was much too large and excessive for Wikipedia articles. Many of these were deleted in order to make the article more tenable to Wikipedia page size requirements and suggestions for article length. For example, the page split for the article on Cultural impact and legacy of BTS, seems to cover the various issues you raise for the Lady Gaga article regarding the band's general public reception. That material could be brought back into the main article to expand this coverage, as it was previously in its long format prior to GAN, although GAN assessed this criterion and found that nearly 350 citations with high quality sources in the current article were sufficient for peer review at the time of GAN. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the concern for the sub-article, but I'm afraid it's not as easy as simply moving a chunk of content there and sticking a {{main}} article at the top of the section. The most important aspects still need to be summarized with best-available sources. While the legacy section in the parent article seems to be covering some important aspects, there are still other things that need to be discussed. And none of the scholarly sources above suggested are used in either of the articles. Aside from the book I suggested at the beginning of my comments, there are many others by renowned publishers. Have you looked through them? The news sources can't possibly be all better than these books and peer-reviewed journals. Given the vast variety of such sources, you would probably need to be selective, choosing the ones that were possibly critically acclaimed or assessing them yourself by reading through them and judging them by their writing. This is a lot of work and can't possibly be done all the while this FAC is open. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: Action on this nomination may be opportune (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was waiting to see if you were going to oppose and/or recommend withdrawal. I am taking your ping as your doing both. Sorry ErnestKrause but it is clear that this article has a fair way to go to get to FAC standards, rather more than is going to be sorted out during a FAC. So I am archiving this nomination. I recommend that you take the comments made fully on board, and I look forward to seeing this article back here in the future. The usual two-week pause before a further FAC nomination will apply.
- @FAC coordinators: Action on this nomination may be opportune (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the concern for the sub-article, but I'm afraid it's not as easy as simply moving a chunk of content there and sticking a {{main}} article at the top of the section. The most important aspects still need to be summarized with best-available sources. While the legacy section in the parent article seems to be covering some important aspects, there are still other things that need to be discussed. And none of the scholarly sources above suggested are used in either of the articles. Aside from the book I suggested at the beginning of my comments, there are many others by renowned publishers. Have you looked through them? The news sources can't possibly be all better than these books and peer-reviewed journals. Given the vast variety of such sources, you would probably need to be selective, choosing the ones that were possibly critically acclaimed or assessing them yourself by reading through them and judging them by their writing. This is a lot of work and can't possibly be done all the while this FAC is open. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- The GAN assessment page is likely the best place to start in answering your questions which I think were all addressed there. When GAN took place there were over 600-700 citations in the article which was much too large and excessive for Wikipedia articles. Many of these were deleted in order to make the article more tenable to Wikipedia page size requirements and suggestions for article length. For example, the page split for the article on Cultural impact and legacy of BTS, seems to cover the various issues you raise for the Lady Gaga article regarding the band's general public reception. That material could be brought back into the main article to expand this coverage, as it was previously in its long format prior to GAN, although GAN assessed this criterion and found that nearly 350 citations with high quality sources in the current article were sufficient for peer review at the time of GAN. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.