Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AC/DC/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AC/DC

This is a very well-written article about a very famous band. It has been peer-reviewed by the assessment department of WikiProject Australia and has been given the highest rating currently possible. I'm all for this article becoming featured and I'm sure many of you will agree. Atlantis Hawk 09:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, A well-written article indeed. Numerous credible and tidy sources make it look professional and credible as well. The only concern I would have is the numerous tertiary titles that are present in Bon Scott era and secondary titles in Recent events. Besides that, I find it FA worthy. Good job! -- Reaper X 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, however reaper makes a good point :) Otherwise, a fantastic article! Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This is close, but I see two issues: 1) there are still unreferenced paragraphs 2) virtually all references are websites, there are many newspapers, webzines and even Answers.com (which itself oftend draws content from Wikipedia). We should be using more reliable sources - there are many books which the editors of this article should consult.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Piotr, there's no reason it can't be better sourced and with better sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Full agreement with above comments regarding refs. There's some original research sneeking out in a few sections. Also...the External links section is stretching WP:EL a little. There is no need for any fansite links with an ODP link included in the section. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I"m not too sure about there being original research, it's one of those things that you can't really prove. Atlantis Hawk 07:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. I think it's very close, definitely GA level. However, I concur with the statements above. The references could be a tad more reliable. I don't see any reason, however, this can't become FA once these minor issues are addressed. Anthony Hit me up... 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Good job, but I don't find this to be FA quality. For starters, the intro fail to give a coherent overview of the band's career. Ask yourself this question: If I wanted to know what the band has done but I didn't feel like reading the entire article, would the intro provide me with sufficient info? To me it doesn't. It focusses too much on trivialities: sales figures and the genres to which the members oppose. I find that some articles that give a very good overview of it's subject's careers are Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue. I also echo the above reviewers: please, please do not use the Urban dictionary as a source for a potential featured article. Any paper/print sources? And there could also be more comprehensive treatment of music (again, see the above three articles, as well as Phil Collins et al). Also, could we get some audio samples worked into this somewhere, as well as a description of how theses samples represent's the band's sound? Orane (talk • cont.) 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is well written. There could be some improvements here and there, but pretty minor. Otherwise, this is FA quality to the max. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?•meow! 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, primarily due to the use of unreliable sourcing. This topic has plenty of more respectable sources available, and I think they need to be used here. Tuf-Kat 07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a good artical, make no mistake, but AC/DC are one of founding stones of rock music as it is today. We shouldn't waste its one day as FA until its a great artical. It needs sources, and the information in the artical itself needs more meat. For instance, the Brian Johnson era section is far to small. Ferdiaob
  • Support. It's a good article, it was very well organized and written, but reaper again does make a good point. --- Metal 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)