Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duran Duran/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Duran Duran

I just stumbled on this — it seemed so good (and surprisingly chockful of references) that I was surprised it's not a featured article yet. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Tuf-Kat 17:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but it needs more consistent year linking - I see four years listed in the lead with links, and then several linked later in the article. Other than that, looks good. Spangineer 00:00, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, that's four years listed in the lead without links. Spangineer 00:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. How can you have an article about a group without a single picture of them other than one blurry photograph of one member? I realize that copyright obstacles may make this difficult, but it still is a glaring hole... —Steven G. Johnson 00:50, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've been trying for six months to get a picture with appropriate permissions -- it's turning out to be very difficult! (Pictures of this band are apparently still worth money to the photographers.) I have one promising lead to write to yet. Can press kit/press release photos be used, and if so, how should they be tagged? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • IANAL, but a fair use claim on some photo sounds reasonable in this case. Ambi 03:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • All right, several fair use press kit photos and a magazine cover included; I'll keep hunting for fully GFDL pictures though. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support when it gets a picture of the whole band, preferably from about 1984. This is worthy as an example to others taking a lead on popular music-related articles as to the standard to aim at. Dbiv 00:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yep, that's a good'un. Dbiv 20:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. A very substantial rewrite has annulled all my previous objections, the structure is truly fantastic now, the 90s section is nicely NPOV, there is no sentence in brackets which shouldn't be and my other minor quibbles are gone. Well done. My only remaining request is some information on bands which Duran Duran have listed as influences and a link to what I'm guessing is a new page containing bands influenced by the band. And the fair use on some of the pictures might need to be looked at by people who know more about this stuff than I do. Overall, very nice work. Object. I'm beginning to see how articles that have glaring examples of bad writing in them (like Celtic tiger) get featured. This has glaring examples of bad writing. There's a sentence with the phrase "needless to say" twice in it, a large number of sentences enclosed in brackets which should be either taken out or made into proper sentences, a few misplaced phrases (such as the one referencing NME, and their "very controversial"... early release of a video) and some POV writing (in the Nineties section only, the rest is refreshingly good). And can we source the "famous" quote about So Red the Rose? Also I think the structure could use a re-working, the heading dividers under Nineties and Eighties are good, but not inclusive of all the text under the heading. Putting year dates, even if they are approximate, on the events under the headings in the heading itself would be a very good idea. Otherwise things like mentioning that someone got married just seem like non-sequiters. It's mostly good, but it really needs a polish. Given the number of supports this has got, maybe I'm just being too picky, but I though featured articles were meant to be brilliant prose. Psychobabble 08:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sadly, brilliant prose seems to have been disposed of. I often wish we had retained that name. Filiocht 10:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've been working to build this towards FA candidacy, but knew it wasn't quite ready for prime-time yet; still trying to weave together several different contributors' works (including lots of trivia about marriages and pop rivals). I've tried to address your concerns, but I'm not sure what to do about the NME Top 100 albums phrase -- it's not chronological, but it seems worth noting, and it's much more about the Rio album than about the year. Do you suggest deleting it, or moving it down to the 2000s section, or what? And what is the objection to "very controversial"? It was definitely a tempest in a teapot, but there were articles about it in the LA Times, Rolling Stone, and more. If it's just the "very", consider it gone. I'd be really happy for someone else to come give the article a good copyedit; after a while one becomes blind to one's own mistakes, and I don't care whether the brilliant prose is mine or yours! [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've polished the whole thing up a bit -- can you please re-read and let me know if your concerns have been addressed?
  • Should the lengthy list of "musicians influenced" be pared down, prosified, or moved to another page? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I think they should be moved unless it's possible to really turn them into prose. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Moved to talk page; will work in a paragraph on some of the more important bands mentioned here. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 06:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 03:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)