Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bohemian Rhapsody/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bohemian Rhapsody

Great song and fits all of the criteria. It is also a "good article"

  • Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AceKingQueenJack (talk • contribs) .
  • Object; referencing is poor. Whole sections lack citations. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the first fact in "Trivia" (which I just removed) was incorrect. In 2005, "(Is This the Way To) Amarillo" was knocked off #1 by "Lonely," a word that was in the previous song's lyrics. How many other unreferenced facts here are wrong? Andrew Levine 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most famous songs in history, and a good article to boot. Kingfisherswift 09:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Being famous and a good article isn't enough. It needs to better than that, FA quality and this isn't. Trivia section needs incorporated into body, too few refs, See also goes above refs, the footnotes and refs could be in the same Reference section with the two refs at the bottom, see other FA articles on songs for more. Rlevse 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ojbect per Rlevse. Also prose needs to be upgraded. Please see WP:WIAFA Rama's arrow 00:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find it hard to believe that there are no book or journal references to this song. Please try to find some to diversify the reference section and to expand the article further. — BrianSmithson 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - referencing issues brought up by Spangineer --ZeWrestler Talk 16:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Poor referencing and research. Stubby and listy sections. The article could be further developed.--Yannismarou 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as there are not near enough references with whole sections going unreferenced. Citations should also be written in the same style. The last reference in the Notes section, which should be called reference section, is not written in the same manner as the perceeding references. This article needs more in-line citations and make sure all citations follow the same layout and style. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Two references from Sound on Sound, one from the BBC, and some miscellaneous crap off the web. Geez. People, this is one of the most written about songs in history. If the net doesn't have enough info on it go to a library! --kingboyk 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Referencing is quite poor (they are all web sources, it'd be nice to seem some offline sources as well) and possibly a fair use sample of a part of the song as described at Wikipedia:Music samples to go with something from the song structure section. Alexj2002 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)