Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Carpenters/archive3

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 22:20, 31 December 2007.

---

The Carpenters

previous FAC #1

previous FAC #2

Check external links

I made many, many edits to The Carpenters. I added tons more references, I did everything people told me to do. Thanks to everyone that constructively criticized it! I feel this new page is much, much better and has a slight shot at being featured. Please leave constructive criticisms if you oppose this! Thank you! Also, I don't appreciate phrases like, "Oppose per name". Instead of that, please explain what you think in your own words; not someone else's. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I added tons of references and formatted them correctly (thanks to User:MeegsC and User:Ling.Nut), I got rid of trivia, and I abridged the discography and singles, and I expanded and clarified many topics. I also expanded the lead section, too. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Contains a [citation needed] tag, and contains a few other problems as well. Could use a section detailing the band's musical and lyrical style. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, do you believe that it's closer to being featured article than before? Maybe that's not a fair question. You may or may not answer it. I shall add the musical and lyrical style. Thanks for the constructive criticism! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that (although I was not around for the article's first nomination) it does appear to have improved since that time. Also, I would format references to internet sources with the {{cite web}} template. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. I started a rudimentary section explaining their music (I need help with that; I'll get it peer reviewed), and I added the Cite web templates. I even threw in a few Cite video templates, too! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

• Generally the main sections from "childhood" to "post-carpenters" should be subsections of a section called "History" - see existing band FAs for reference.
• If they were "Carpenters", why is the article called "The Carpenters"?

The page was originally called "The Carpenters", then a few of the editors moved it to "Carpenters", but when it got changed back to "The Carpenters", we were unable to get it changed back to "Carpenters". Not to mention, there is already a page existing called Carpenters and it talks about their eponymous album. I think it's fine the way it is now. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you include the "haunting" pic in the death section?

You mean the one from 1982 with Karen in the yellow jacket (although it's grayscale)? I can move it if that's the one you mean. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done!

• Template:The Carpenters needs to be edited for MoS errors and also be reduced in size; its huge right now. Use other band templates for comparision.

I'll work on this tomorrow. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done! You can see it at Template:The Carpenters. It's much, much shorter, and I used Template:The Beatles as a reference. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• The musical style and legacy sections are painfully under-referenced and POV. For the entire article, try to include at least one reference per paragraph.

In the process of doing this. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• This article is about a band called "Carpenters", remove personal information about each of them; that is meant for their individual pages.
• Remove that table in the middle.

But that is a piece of evidence to support the statement. I don't think it can be removed. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

More later. Indopug (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The references need to be correctly formatted, preferably using the Cite web and Cite news templates. Some of the references are extremely vague, for example ref 50. Are you citing the whole of IMDb? Because I think you need to link to specific pages, or even find a better source, because IMDb isn't the most reliable of sources. Others like ref 65 are vague as well: which issue of the newsletter do you mean? Or was there actually only one?

Y Done!

"Television Specials" should be "Television specials", "Albums and Singles" should be "Albums and singles" and "Grammy Awards and Nominations" should be "Grammy Awards and nominations".

Y Done!

Also, Image:Carpenters LOGO.png, Image:A Place To Hideaway 0005.png, Image:Timerichardsolo.jpg, Image:Karencarpenter82.jpg and Image:Carpatchrist77.jpg lack fair use rationales. Gran² 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's very detailed. Thanks for the criticism. Let me say something first. The newsletter is clarified in the full references section. It says something like "Wallace, Evelyn" etc. The newsletter was #63 I think. April of 1973. I'll add a fair use rationale template for the images. Thanks! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I did references one and two. Do they look good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue to work on this tommorrow. Thanks for your great ideas! Good night! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article is also currently listed at peer review. Can someone please archive that review? Thanks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Y I have archived it. Thank you! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose and close The article is now on GAC. Close the FAC, wait for the GAC to finish, then if the article passes GA, you can take it back to FAC, but you may want to PR it first. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That sounds like a better idea. Might as well take baby steps, right? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things: it's not on GAN, and I don't know how to close this. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, take baby steps. I see a "The Carpenters is a good article nominee" tag on the talk page but it was not listed at GAC. I nominated the article for GA. You can ask Raul654 or SandyGeorgia to close the FAC for you. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuyler91093, if you want to withdraw the FAC, just so say so here, or leave a message on my talk page, and I will archive it. Please take note of WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like it to be archived, please. Thank you so much! By the way, I am Cuyler91093. This is my official alternate account for music-related purposes. – Karen Carpenter (talk • contribs • count) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The request has to come from the original nominator. Are you aware of Wiki's policies about using someone else's name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to use your main account (Cyuler91093) to post "I want to close this FAC". --Kaypoh (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I wish to close this until next time. Can someone go to my own talk page and tell me how WP:GAN works? I think WP:FAC is much more convenient and easier to understand. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.