Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linkin Park/archive2

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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Linkin Park

previous FAC (00:52, 10 December 2007)

Check external links

I believe that this article fully merits FA status. The last time it was nominated, roughly a month back, there was no opposition, just not enough support. I have done some cleanup, added a few references, and the gallery, and I really think that it's up to scratch. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - just getting started...I won't be too good on comprehensiveness as though I don't mind humming along to an LP song or two (my partner likes it alot more so I end up being forced to listen to it..) I am not hugely well-versed on them...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recognized for their adaption of the nu metal genre into a radio-friendly style in Meteora and Hybrid Theory,[6][7] the band’s latest studio album, Minutes to Midnight branched away from their previous nu metal sound, venturing into a variety of other genres. - is phrased a little funnily. The first clause has the band as the subject, yet the 2nd clause switches to the album as the subject. How about "the band moved away from this and explored a variety of other genres with their latest studio album, Minutes to Midnight" or something similar in which the band is the subejct of the 2nd clause.

All fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The album topped the Billboard Charts and became the third best debut week of any album for the year - an album is a week?

Fixed it up. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Update - I am pretty happy with the prose though will be happier once above two examples are tweaked. I am not confident to comment on comprehensiveness but will support if someone better versed comments positively. The article appears a little short - - is there anything else which can be added about criticism/critique/influences etc. Maybe from members biographies? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• oppose: a half of the page is about the biography; the prose isn't very good; there aren't some fundamental sections. But maybe I'll change my vote--Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If you could point out some specific errors/omissions/problems...? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is like yesterday, I'm still oppose. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Weak support: the prose is good. Now I underdstand Anonymus Dissident, but the article can be improve. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's pretty hagiographic. Tempshill (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to ellaborate? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comments
• All Music Guide regarded it as, wrong. William Ruhlmann of All Music Guide - as with the other magazine quotes they are opinions and need to be attributed.
• The single was acclaimed by listeners, reaching the Billboard Hot 100 days after its debut, what position? acclaimed because it entered the BB 100?
• Last paragraph of Reemergence: Minutes to Midnight is poorly written with a new subject each sentence.
• chose popular producer Rick Rubin.
• was pushed off to 2007 - "pushed off"? how about "delayed"?
• Recording Industry Association Of America _> of lowercase o
• Ref 48 needs to be lowercase for the artists. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that's all fixed, except the first. Not sure I understand your comment... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One reviewer does not represent the entire magazine, you need to attribute the quotes to the person who said them. In this case it is William Ruhlmann for All Music Guide. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely agree. AMG have one review per album; that's the AMG review and can be shorthand referred to as AMG's opinion. Imho! Granted, when NME do an end of year writers poll that's clearly the magazine talking as opposed to a piece attributed to a named writer... I'm just not sure the distinction is terribly important. All reviews are by nature opinion anyway. --kingboyk (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, fixed it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All three dashes are used in the members section, just use the en dash. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This article is nowhere no FA status, given its blatant POV nature (serious 1d violation). A few examples;
• "Originally consisting of three close high school friends from Agoura High School, Linkin Park’s foundation was anchored by Mike Shinoda, Brad Delson, and Rob Bourdon.[12][13]" - "Close"? In whose opinion? Whether a group of friends are close or distant is a matter of opinion, and depends on one's perspective. Of the two sources you have used, neither use that word. This is mere speculation on the behalf of whomever wrote the article, so therefore should be removed. On another note, can a [www.linkin-park-lyrics.com fansite] which commits copyright violation (by publishing lyrics) actually be deemed reliable? I certainly question the reliability of a fan written biography.
• "Formerly of Arizona grunge band Grey Daze, Bennington was a standout among the applicants for his unique and vivid singing style.[13]" - "Unique and vivid"? In whose opinion? What are their credentials? What notable publications have they written for? In this case, you've used a fan written biography to cite the fact the Bennington's voice is "unique and vivid". This is an unreliable source, and therefore cannot be used. Furthermore, where does this biography even use the words "unique and vivid"? Exactly, it doesn't.
• "The spontaneous vocal chemistry between Shinoda and Bennington helped revive the band, inciting them to work on new material.[12]" - "Spontaneous"? According to whom? ".. helped revive the band"? According to whom? What's their credentials? Nowhere in that article does the writer use the word "spontaneous", or suggest the chemistry between Shinoda and Bennington revived the band. Why does the article not only present opinions as facts, but use sources which don't even support those opinions.
• "This renaissance culminated with name change from Hybrid Theory to Linkin Park, a play on words and homage to Santa Monica’s Lincoln Park.[12]" - Yet again, who claimed this was a "renaissance"? Certainly not the source you've used. Furthermore, it's a biased opinion.

These examples are reflective of a much wider problem, demonstrating that this article shouldn't have even been submitted to FAC. I'm also rather disappointed in the fact that not only have these POV opinions been attributed to whom believes it, the sources used do not even express such opinions. Due to its POV nature, this should not have even passed GA. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, though I think LM could have been a little more diplomatic he has some valid points AD, these echo the hagiography mentioned above and I should have picked them up on copyediting. Best thing would be to get some old Rolling Stone or NME magazines at the local library to get some in-depth critique. Alot of print stuff doesn't make it online and I see WP as a great opportunity to reference cool stuff that has never made it, rather than alot of fan-stuff which permeates the net. Cheer up, I recently had an FAC which crash-and-burned....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What LM says is very true. I cannot see how I didn't pick it up before. However, you will note that, because all of the examples are seen in the first section relating to the formation of the band, there could be a fix in sight. Later, I will read through the whole article and eliminate any POV that I come across. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have fixed everything LM has mentioned, but I will read through to see if there is anything more POVish. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I still feel my oppose is valid, and will expand further on this comment if needed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

You should really have a look at the notes and reference section. Note two for example was retrieved June 99 :).Baldrick90 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There are some pretty major issues. The citations should be in {{cite web}} format, and include the author and date. There should be no need for citations in the lead, it is either all is cited or nothing in the lead. All you need to list under the discography is the studio albums, and you don't need a videography, all of that should be on the discography page not the Linkin Park page. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This article reads like a fan website rather than an encyclopedia article. For instance, Linkin Park have received poor reviews from professional music critics (as is shown by the ratings in the album articles), but this is barely mentioned, their declining sales are quickly passed over and the account of their break with Warners ("at the same time, the band's relationship with Warner Bros. Records was deteriorating rapidly on account of several trust and financial issues") is hopelessly inadequete (what were these issues?). The last paragraph of the 'style' section also looks like original research as these claims aren't properly referenced. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.