Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eva Cassidy/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Eva Cassidy

Self-nominator. Passed GA on March 5th. Had a peer review that ran two weeks. Addressed the one review. Onesixfivedottwoone (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: criterion three concerns:
  • Image:Eva_the_the_piano.jpg has no copyright tag (see WP:NFCC#10B).
  • Image:Top of the pops 2 eva cassidy.jpg – How does a blurry headshot with a Top of the Pops border significantly contribute to our understanding of Eva (see WP:NFCC#8)?
  • Image:Eva Cassidy - Method Actor.jpg has no rationale (see WP:RAT). Image caption should not have a period, as it is not a complete sentence (see WP:MOS). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It shows the reader what the article is talking about when it speaks about the low quality black and white video being played on a music television program. Would that rationale fit WP:NFCC#8? I fixed the other two issue(hopefully). --165.21.154.92 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The image isn't even in black and white. Why do we need to see an image to understand that there was a music video (do we think that little of the reader's intelligence)? How is our understanding significantly enhanced? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A black and white video got played on a pop music tv program. Despite the low video quality, it was very popular and contributed significantly to her commercial success. You don't think a picture illustrating the quality of the video we are talking about adds to the reader's understanding?--165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the reader's understanding isn't the test. The test is significantly adding to the reader's understanding. The prose in your reply here is itself adequate to demonstrate that the video had an impact on her success. Seeing the video does, I would argue, nothing to assist our comprehension of this fact – at the very least nothing significant; it's usage here is decorative, which is not acceptable per WP:NFCC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Eva Cassidy - Method Actor.jpg has not been fixed. Fair Use images need a detailed rationale for each article in which they appear. The rationale for the Eva Cassidy article is not adequate - see WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is already a separate rationale below the first one. Apart from the purpose of use, all the other fields would have been the same. I filled in another rationale template just in case.--165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• • http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Cassidy031904.pdf deadlinks for me.

From the goole search here, you can access the "view as html" link. Not sure why the direct link is not working.

• • http://evacassidy.org/eva/harr96.htm is to an online backup of the Washington Post article that isn't hosted by the Post. It would be nice to have a link to the article as hosted by the Post or make it clear that the online link is to a non-Post site.

I can't find a Post link except for pay to view sites. Do I just add a "Hosted on evacassidy.org" after the retrieved date? Is there a recommended style for that?

I think there is a style, I just don't know it exactly. Hopefully an MOS-maven will step in here.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Same for http://www.evacassidy.org/eva/citypaper.htm
  • http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128772&page=1 doesn't really say that the broadcast was "well-received", just that they got a lot of email about it. Yes, it probably wasn't emails hating the story, but it doesn't say that in the article cited.

In the article, it says that they are rebroadcasting the story on her, indicating that the emails are positive. Would that constitute OR? I don't mind removing it though as the album sales on Amazon and the repeat broadcast due to demand is already indicative of the reaction.

I lean towards considering it OR, personally. They don't specifically say that the emails were positive, just that they got a lot. Like you, I am pretty sure they were positive, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • What makes http://www.broadwayworld.com/ a reliable source?

I don't know anything about the site, but google news links to it. I think it is a reliable enough source for what we are citing. Google news also turns up this article from another site I know nothing about but backs up the first link.

All other links check out okay with the little link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. There is good information about her albums, but not about her life.
  • The second paragraph in the early years section seems a little off. First it talks about High School, then goes back to age 11. This should probably be reorganized.
  • Please make sure that in the citations, newspaper names are italicized. I fixed some of these for you, but there are more.
  • Are these reliable sources?
    • Washingtonian.com
    • broadwayworld.com
    • steve-smith.tv

Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.