Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song)/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 GrahamColm 19:06, 6 December 2012 [1].

Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song)

Featured article candidates/Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song)/archive1

Nominator(s): — My December ^(talk) 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after spending most of time revamping the article, I personally think it is now qualified to be a featured article. — My December ^(talk) 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments

the word song is overused; twelve times in the lead alone.

already revamped. have a look. done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can that Reba cover version be a separate article?—indopug (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why should we separate the article? It talks about the same song. — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

File:Kelly_Clarkson_-_Because_Of_You.ogg: how long is the recording from which this was taken?

21 seconds out of 3:44 done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kellyclarksonbecauseofyouvideo.png does not discuss purpose of use

done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Because-Of-You-Reba-With-Kelly-Clarkson.jpg: not sure this design is original enough to warrant copyright protection

I took the design from itunes. done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reba_McEntire_%26_Kelly_Clarkson_-_Because_Of_You.ogg: how long is the recording from which this was taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 seconds out of 3:45 done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overall look~~ Oppose

I'm looking into this article with more detail and kind of re-evaluating my opinion. I do appreciate the amount of work you've put into it, but it's still not up to FAC standards.

thank you very much. — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "wasn't well-written enough for inclusion" -> re-wording needed

done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "explores emotional pain from a damaging relationship, with critics deeming it is a fiery ode to Clarkson's father" -> as an example, this isn't very well-written

revamped. done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- and as it launches into the chorus, a roaring guitar is evident -> is evident? This is very poor

reworded. done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Critically, "Because of You" garnered positive reviews by music critics, who praised Clarkson's vocals. -> That's all you could sum it up to? Praised her vocals...

revamped. done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Another big issue are the references. many are not formatted properly and many list/don't list publishers. Point is, we need consistency. Ref 1 has no publisher, yet 2, 3 and 4 don't? 5 and 6 shouldn't be cite news, they are not news articles. Same goes for number 7. Inconsistencies run throughout the article in both prose, content and references.

noted. will be revamped. done — My December ^(talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article still needs more work. I find it kind of low on content (in some sections), and as Indopug indicated, the prose need a good run-through. Additionally, the references need to be all checked (several are incorrectly linked, italicized etc.)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates - It has been over three weeks already and the nominator has made no attempt to correct errors or concerns. Since he has lost interest in it, we shouldn't waste our time trying to review it. I suggest you guys close this nomination.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Despite the above, I have done a sources review which might become useful in the future. I suspect the nominator may have been disheartened by the time it took to get any significant comments. This is a new name to me at FAC; if this is his first FAC submission, maybe try and find out what's kept him away? Anyhow:

Ref 8: Show author's name in the standard surname-comma-forename(s) format. The information in the "title" field is not the title of the source. done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1: For consistency, you should give the Guardian publisher as well as the paper's name - you've generally done this with the other newspaper sources (but see 152, and check for others) done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9: Year of publication? done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 39: Indicate in German done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 40: Other achart citations show date rather than year done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 53: I think you are entitled to abbreviate titles! done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 68: More information needed. What recording are these liner notes for? done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 96: Retrieval date missing done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 97: What is the date "February 27, 2012"? done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 98: Retrieval date missing done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 100: Check publisher done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 105: "The requested page could not be found"

source removed. done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 106: Language? done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 116: Stray "=" sign? done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 117: - and again done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 125: You have provided a publisher for "Blogcritics", but not in the earlier citations to this source.

re-sourced. done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 129: check publisher details done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 139: There seems to be a format inconsistency concerning "Billboard" citations, in that some are dated and others not. Is there a reason for this?

noted done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 144: I can't relate the linked source to the citation details

Source removed. done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 156: check format (bracket oddities) done — My December ^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - I sorry this FAC has not received many reviews and I hope the nominator is not to discouraged by our FA process. Graham Colm (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.