Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courtney Love/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 Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2014 (diff).
Courtney Love
- Nominator(s): Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about singer-songwriter Courtney Love of the band Hole, and I believe it has reached Featured Article status; it is well rounded, heavily researched and documented, and I have worked tirelessly at prose and other issues for several years now, and feel that it has come full circle at this point. It appropriately discusses all facets of her career and projects, and has been carefully constructed/edited to evenly cover her duplicitous public career, image, and personal life. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment by Curly Turkey
- Yikes! Please see WP:LEADCITE—citations in the lead are discouraged except in special cases. The density of citations especially is a reader-unfriendly eyesore—I recommend reading WP:BUNDLE. Not against the "rules", but&nbso;... ugh! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed and taken care of. I moved all the appropriate citations out of the lead and into the body of the article alone. I wasn't sure if this was an issue as I don't recall it being brought up during the GA review. I left the citations in the lead however on her date of birth, since it's the main place it is mentioned and because the date has been contended before. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from John
I only got to "battles with drug addiction". If all of the article is written like this, it will fail on prose. I will finish reading it, but this early tabloidism fills me with horror and foreboding. --John (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just go through it first and then address everything at once rather than make a sassy remark? Scottdoesntknow (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to reviewers' remarks like this doesn't give reviewers confidence that you'll be open to their feedback. I, for one, don't see any sass in the comment. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to feedback, but it hasn't even been read yet. And "fills me with horror and foreboding" is dramatic. That's all I'm saying. No hard feelings. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to reviewers' remarks like this doesn't give reviewers confidence that you'll be open to their feedback. I, for one, don't see any sass in the comment. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just go through it first and then address everything at once rather than make a sassy remark? Scottdoesntknow (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- There still appear to be several statements with up to five citations, and others without any citation at all. The latter issue particularly needs to be addressed before this is considered for FAC. Taking that into account, along with the lack of commentary here for the past two weeks, I'm going to archive this nom. I'd suggest that after resolving the points noted above you take the article to Peer Review before renominating at FAC (which requires a minimum two-week wait in any case). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.