Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noel Gallagher/archive2

Noel Gallagher[edit]

Recreated from incorrectly archived FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noel Gallagher

Ok, it's not as POV as before. It's comprehensive, well set out, it might even be well written. What does anyone think?--Crestville 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ Support Although it would be easy to bring this up to standard. It would be helpful to turn the bulk of the article into subsections, as it quite large and disorganized. Perhaps sorting it into spans of five years, or sections like "Definetely Maybe" "What's the Story" etc. adding both information about the music and about the man. Also facts like "What's the Story... went to #1" and the like need to be cited. As well as most of the information in the "Controversy" section. However the content is highly sound, and only needs a bit of polishing to be a FA. My criticisms have been adressed, good job, it's a more complete article now. Thethinredline 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the sugestions & I'll learn how to cite (of if anyone already knows & fancies saving me a job...)--Crestville 14:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done the best I can for the time being--Crestville 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, though I agree that it is fixable. I've evaluated it according to the Featured music Project guidelines (see Wikipedia:Featured Music Project/Noel Gallagher). Tuf-Kat 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensiveness: A section, or at least a paragraph or two somewhere, about musical and songwriting style, influences and legacy, some critical perceptions of his work (preferably both positive and negative)
- Pictures: Needs fair use rationales, and preferably a free pic
- Audio: Needs sound samples
- References: More inline cites would be nice, especially sales figures and chart rankings and stuff like "album did not live up to long-term expectations, and the public's goodwill towards Be Here Now was short-lived"; also, a print source that is not a biography would be a good addition
- Discography: should have a discography, preferably with a link to an Oasis discography with all the details
- Format/Style: Trivia and quotes sections need to go, turn "Controversy"into paragraphs, integrate and remove see also links
Tentative Object. Seems close, and we need more featured articles about musicians, but seems to have some small problems, such as incomprehensiveness. Maybe some sections could be added about musical style and content, as per the other objectors. Is very close, if these objections are addressed, I will gladly support. RyanGerbil10 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dp all that, but could you please be clearer about what needs altering? It's a bit vague. Cheers!--Crestville 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me --PopUpPirate 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Overall good, but some changes needed. I agree that the "Trivia" and "Controversy" section should either be mixed with the rest of the article, deleted outright, or -- in the case of "Controversy" -- be expended into paragraphs. Also, some quotes need references. From the lead, "If you'd written "Live Forever", you'd be walking to a different tune the next day too" is unsourced. I also did a quick review and found some spelling and punctuation errors, which I corrected, but the article should have another read through for the boring stuff (grammar, spelling, punctuation). And Comment; Two points that I feel should be expanded upon; "The rest of the band agreed, at which point Oasis undertook a year of intensive rehearsing." -- Why did the band so quickly hand over songwriting to Gallagher, considering he was the newest member of the group? "Noel felt the Americans did not understand the band" -- Why? Poor album sales? Poor critical reviews? Best of luck! --Ataricodfish 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, i'll look into it--Crestville 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Fair use images must have rationales, and most of them appear redundant, frankly -- I'd say we need two at the most (do we really need to see Noel in a "typical pose"?). Let's keep fair use pictures to a minimum. The article constantly refers to him as Noel, which sounds very unprofessional. As others have said, the controversy and trivia sections should be merged into the rest of the article (although I wouldn't mind it if the controversy section could be rewritten from list to prose). The article alternates between inline links (i.e. [1]) and normal footnotes, which is confusing for the reader and insufficient for a featured article (references should document the date the source was accessed, so if it changes in the future, people can use the Internet Archive to see what the page looked like when it was cited). Several paragraphs are unsourced, according to the lack of footnotes/inline links. Let's replace things like "foo - bar" with "foo — bar" (use — to produce —). Last but not least, m:Cite documents a new native style of footnoting which makes section editing and previewing a lot easier compared to the {{ref}} system. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The article constantly refers to him as Noel, which sounds very unprofessional." not as unprofessional as if you kept reffering to him & his brother (who is mentioned constantly through the article) as "Gallagher" so eveyone gets confused. also, why bother with all that mdash shit. A line's a line. Stop being petty, you chimp.--Crestville 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting personal attack on a reviewer who's trying to help improve the article. One more like that and I'll block you. And please stop moving this article to the top of the list. If you pull enough dumb stunts you can be banned from WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OK, that's enough. I've blocked the nominator for 24 hours for personal attacks on a reviewer. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - controversy section should be in prose, refs improperly formatted (year of publishing, city, ISBN?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]