Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dream Theater/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dream Theater

Self-nomation. Spent over a week in peer review and only received one set of comments, all of which have been addressed. IMO one of the more complete and informative band-related articles on the 'pedia, but that's for YOU to decide! (I don't know if this affects anyone's voting, but all related articles [albums, members, etc] have also been completed.) plattopus^{is this thing on?} 14:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - Nice - but the TOC is a bit overwhelming. Consider combining smaller sections (esp for lists - the ; character can also be used in lists). History seems a bit long - consider summarizing it and creating a separate 'history of ..' article. --mav 16:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • History has been abridged and moved to History of Dream Theater. Not sure what you mean about the TOC, though. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. All you did was copy the text and create a new article. The history section that was left is not an abridged summary, it is a complete fork. --mav 21:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I moved the previous history section to its own article, then cut-down any unnecessary content to create a shorter history section for the Dream Theater article. People wanting to view an in-depth history can click on the main article. Or have I missed the point completely? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I see what happened. In one of the subsequent edits I must have been using an out-dated window, so the full version was restored. Fixed. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Much better. Support. --mav 21:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree with the above objection about the TOC, although I agree about the length of the history. Good to see some people still believe in subheadings. It would be good to add a reference section, too. The Notes section already contains many references, but it's practical to have all references summarized in a separate section. Phils 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See above for History; external links contains every website I referenced, and as far as I know there are no books on Dream Theater, so would renaming external links to "external links and references" be suitable? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Follow the policy on Wikipedia:Cite sources. Object until thats completed, support after.  ALKIVAR™ 05:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I have cited specific sources (see Footnotes), do you mean I should compile a list of external references? If so, the external links is just that. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • If thats what they are, label them as such. External Links is for sites that represent the content but are not used as references.  ALKIVAR™ 06:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I've added a references section. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 12:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this article and making minor edits for a couple of months now, and it's amazing to see how far it has come in that time. I've been a fan of Dream Theater for over 10 years, and even I was able to learn new things from this article. Well-written and very comprehensive - well done! --Durga2112 20:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are footnotes, references and external links. I don't see how that doesn't cover it. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Considering the frequency that weblinks go dead, there should be citations to print sources that will still be available in the future. PedanticallySpeaking 17:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Like I mentioned above, I am unaware of any books about Dream Theater, so there aren't any to reference. Although you have alerted me to the fact that I should have referenced my DTIFC magazines. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• All you can do is note the date you viewed the references. See Helium#References for an example. This is both standard and acceptable. If and/when these links go dead, then just find new links that confirm the info in this article. No big deal. :) --mav 02:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I see what you mean now. I've given general retrieval dates from when I wrote the article, but can't give specific dates (see below). plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• WP:Cite sources says "Since you're referring to a general website, and not any particular content on it, you do not need to give a retrieval date". I will add retrieval dates for the magazines. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 05:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa! You're quoting the WP:Cite sources comment on the example reference "Slashdot is a popular web site at http://slashdot.org/ ". For that, it would be plain silly to give a retrieval date, and for your "External links" it's hardly necessary, either; but your reference websites are another matter. If you haven't used "any particular content" on these sites for the article, I'm sorry to say that would make them kind of lousy references. I would really recommend you to provide retrieval dates for those. And the magazine articles need to be linked, or those retrieval dates aren't much use. (I know the examples at WP:Cite sources are a little confusing, but note the common-sense recommendation: "for online articles, make the article title a link to the URL.")--Bishonen | talk 00:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, but they aren't online articles. I can't link to a URL that doesn't exist. I've just followed what it says on Cite Sources, so if something is wrong then it's a policy problem. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• What? I'm mystified, sorry. I was talking about the magazines in the References section. You have added retrieval dates for them. They're not online? Uh, then what do you mean by "retrieval"? As for following what it says on Cite Sources, no, it actually isn't a policy problem. Maybe it's my explanatory skills that are the problem, or maybe I have annoyed you, but could you please just read my post above again while strenuously assuming good faith? I am trying to help, however unskilfully. You've used a fragment from Cite Sources for a context it doesn't apply to. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You seem to be turning this into an argument... all I'm doing is taking peoples' suggestions and enacting them in the hopes of getting the Dream Theater article up to scratch. So I should remove retrieval dates for non-online references? Done. I should add retrieval dates for the websites? I'd love to, but I didn't look up specific pages when writing the article... those sites (especially the FAQ) are repositories of information about the band, which I have read thouroughly. I originally had them as external links, because that's what they are, but I was told to put them in the references. I'm just doing what people are telling me to do, and unfortunately for me, I'm getting conflicting suggestions. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:44, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) I'm sorry you've felt buffeted by conflicting advice. I do understand that these things can be confusing, to the point where you'd start putting sources that weren't used as references into a references section, or adding retrieval dates to sources that were never retrieved. I have to say that nobody "told you" to do these things, though. (Example: saying "If that's what they are, label them as [references]" (Alkivar) is not synonymous with saying "Label them as references!") All the advice people have written you on the subject is good, you know, excepting the statement that you must have printed sources (which Mav immediately picked up on and contradicted). We're all trying to help. I will not strike out my own tips, but I do withdraw them as an objection, since their importance for sure doesn't warrant any more arguing. The particular issues I raised aren't so central that they ought to stand in the way of an article becoming featured. --Bishonen | talk 09:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I will take your comments as a non-vote (personally I believe they should be striked out because you have withdrawn them, but obviously it's up to you), but PedanticallySpeaking you have left your objection in place and I assume you are not aware of the changes I have made to the references. Do you still take issue with the formatting of the references? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn my comments, only (and with some hesitation) my objection. I'm beginning to wonder if that thing is on.--Bishonen | talk 20:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to take your comments seriously when you're so obviously looking to turn this into a petty argument. I have been open to all suggestions from reviewers (including you) and have been doing my best to accomodate what people suggest I do with the article, but all you're doing is "defending" what you presumably perceive to be your ignored opinion. I originally confused two sections of WP:Cite Sources, and instead of constructively suggesting how to fix my mistakes, you started insulting my intelligence and assuming I was ignorant of peoples' suggestions. I have stated numerous times that I am only attempting to fix what people believe is wrong with the article, there is no need to insinuate that I am mentally inferior to you or anyone else (and I assure you, it most certainly is on). I said that I consider your comments to be a non-vote (which you in fact agree with) and said that in my opinion they should be struck out (and, you'll notice, I mentioned that it's obviously not up to me to make that decision). Maybe you should start taking your own advice and assume a little good faith of your own? (Specifically the following warning of what might occur if you fail to assume good faith: "You might make a personal attack. Once you've made a personal attack on someone, they are likely to stop assuming good faith in you.") plattopus^{is this thing on?} 20:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely did not mean to insinuate any derogatory opinion of your intelligence! Sheesh. I absolutely don't have a derogatory opinion of it. I'm very sorry you feel insulted. Your sig is a little elliptical, so I ought not to have jestingly quoted it, but made sure of being understood instead. "Is your readiness to listen switched on?" was what I meant.--Bishonen | talk 21:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment (Fully outdented, new train of conversation.) OK, instead of bickering, I think we should get back to the original point of this vote and try to make the Dream Theater article as good as it can be. I admit that I confused when one is or is not to use retrieval dates in references, and as a result of the helpful suggestions of others the online references are now dated and the offline ones are not. I understand that you believe I should give direct links to exactly the pages I have used as references, but to do that I would practically need to link every single page under the sites I listed. I think links to the DTFAQ and Tourography main pages are sufficient, because those sites are direct portals (front pages, if you will) to hundreds of individual pages of information, most of which have been used as references in the article. The pages I have used from the official Dream Theater website are all directly linked as notes, so should I remove that reference or leave it as a general website link? -- plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Great article, NPOV, references, all top drawer, strong support --PopUpPirate 16:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best band-related articles in Wikipedia. --Jannex 09:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Damn close to the best and most interesting Dream Theater read on the internet. - user:defunkt 00:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)