Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Marley/archive1

It is Bob Marley, need I say more? Well written article.--Ezeu 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support as nominator. --Ezeu 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It's very interesting and readable, though I think it needs a bit of tidying for FA status. For example, there are a few citation needed templates; not many inline references; and the ones that exist don't include full citations. The intro is too short, in my view. I also notice a few periods/full stops after the footnote, rather than before. I also don't like the large quotation marks, but that's just a personal dislike. Most importantly, I'm not sure it tells us enough about him. Is there any critical material that should be added, for example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this image has no tag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Images of faces should look toward the text, because the reader's eye follows the face. So this image should be on the other side of the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a little to the intro, but it needs another paragraph, perhaps about his political influence. Also, I think the intro needs to make his iconic status clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Object – Yeah, it's Bob Marley, and it SHOULD be featured, but I don't think it can be in its current state. There are a few "citation needed" notes around that should be fulfilled. In addition, ~~I would change all of the "song names" into song name, using italics instead, and also~~ get rid of the red links; looks better. Lastly, some of the quotes look out of place. Is it just me, or does this article have some sort of style problem? It just looks strange, but I can't put my finger on it. The problem might be that there are so many short paragraphs; could they be put together? ♠ SG →Talk 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Song names" in quotes are policy per WP:SONG#Naming_conventions. --Maitch 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my bad! Everything else still stands, though. ♠ SG →Talk 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Object yes, you need to say more, like it's FA status. The fact it's on Marley does not alone make it FA. I agree with SG, it needs work, esp on the layout and those quotes in big blue marks--the blue marks are more dominating than the quote itself and any eyesore. Concur with SG's other comments too.Rlevse 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Object Lacking in information, I mostly object because this article could be hugely better with much more detail that has been published and isnt reflected in the article, SqueakBox 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Object The layout is very off-putting. Please reconsider the quote formatting currently in the article. Entire sections with no references. Two images are listed at WP:PUI. Image:Wailers group high res(resized).jpg needs to be scaled down and needs a proper fair use rationale. Jkelly 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Object ! Come on. It's Bob Marley — a legend. The article is nowhere near compelling and comprehensive, and fails miserably to give a consummate overview of his career. Note to editor: The article should resemble "The Beatles" when it is ready. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Object - Overfocused on singer's music career, underfocused on his non-music life. Also incomplete and poorly cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)