Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S.H.E/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 04:22, 5 May 2007.

[edit] S.H.E

The peer review request received zero attention, so I decided to bring this review request up to WP:FAC for wider publicity. User:Pandacomics contributed very much to this article, and would like feedbacks on what this article lacks to get FA status. Thanks! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First look at this article, I think it's impressively well-referenced (113) and covers nearly all the information on this girl group. The article size is 73 KB, but the readable content is only around 38 KB so it's quite acceptable. The only thing I can say right now is that some sections of this article seems to be a little bit chunky and may require copyediting from editors unaware of this topic. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this from WP:FAR to FAC; it's not a featured article. Per the instructions at peer review, you shouldn't list articles at both places (FAC and PR). Please close and archive the peer review, and switch the talk page template to oldpeerreview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment If people are requesting the article to undergo copyediting, a request was in fact submitted eight days ago. - Pandacomics 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment If the Major Concerts section looks weird to you, or you find it awkward to have to scroll to the right, I'm using a 1280x1024 screen, so I just adjusted the dimensions to how it looks on my monitor. Sorry if this happens to be troublesome. - Pandacomics 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Per reasons stated above. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The headings in Criticism section are kind of confusing. Could the section be expanded? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Criticism is generally hard to come by, because Chinese media tends to praise rather than find faults. However, I did find a crticism of Encore, but since it's a collegiate publication, there is very little notability or reliability for the information tidbit. Would it be better just to change "Straight from the cookie cutter" back to "lack of originality" ? Or was there something else you were trying to get at? - Pandacomics 00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just change to the former. And I did not quite understand how the second section referred to its heading "rule-bending". AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rule-bending just refers to the instance where another organization criticized them for circumventing a rule. Usually people have to pay copyright fees, but even though S.H.E doles out a lot of covers, somehow they're special enough to get a discout. Which is why the guy was pretty pissed. - Pandacomics 03:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Samples are missing fair use rationales. M3tal H3ad 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationales are now added. - Pandacomics 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The infobox image is copyrighted and it says it's under a GNU Free Documentation License which is breach of copyright laws. M3tal H3ad 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you click the link, the infobox image is from an imagestation account. The author took the picture from a concert. - Pandacomics 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is GNU implied? M3tal H3ad 06:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll send you the email once I figure out 1) how you want it, 2) how to get it to you. - Pandacomics 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This sort of stuff shouldn't be sent to other users. Forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so that someone with OTRS access can confirm the permissions. ShadowHalo 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, hadn't known. Sorry. I'll try scrounging through my email then. - Pandacomics 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Per ShadowHalo's request, the ticket for the profile image is now being processed. Yes, it's a free image. - Pandacomics 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. This is in serious need of a copyedit. Just looking at the first line is enough: "S.H.E is a Taiwanese girl group that specializes in pop music, and consists of Selina Ren, Hebe Tian, and Ella Chen". "Specialises in?" You mean they do heavy metal on the side, or are you saying they're a pop group? Consists of? "Having recorded nine studio albums - a number that includes two compilation albums - and two live albums, S.H.E has sold over 4,500,000 records since the beginning of their career in 2001." Also yuk. (Incidentally, compilations don't count as studio albums; that's 7 studio/2 comp/2 live). You're making 3 points there (number of albums, sales, when they started) in one nasty jumbled up sentence. There's also formatting issues, such as citations not appearing after punctuation. Please get the article thoroughly copyedited and then come back; I daresay you have the material and references but the prose is well below par. --kingboyk 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to your "specializes" comment, what would be more tedious - "a girl group specializing in pop music" or a "Taiwanese girl pop group". Also, they do dabble into other genres on the side, as indicated in the Musical Style section. But since they don't do rap or r&b on a regular basis, then we can say they specialize in pop. Would "made up of" be prefereable to "consists of" ? Furthermore, the citations thing. I put a citation inside the sentence because that one source dealt with Coca-Cola, whereas the other one dealt with World of Warcraft, so it didn't seem reasonable to bunch the two sources at the end (unless of course it says so explicitly in WP:MOS). I mean, look at Doolittle (album): citation 25 is inside the sentence, oh noes! The editor probably wanted to cite the review directly as opposed to leaving it at the end of the sentence. Either way, I did submit it to copyedit. Ages ago. Too bad it's been almost two weeks and no one has even bothered so much as to touch it. (Yet.) - Pandacomics 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter how long ago you submitted it for a copyedit, the important fact remains that it needs one. Why would you submit it to FAC when it's not ready? No copyedit, no support from me it's as simple as that :) The prose quite simply is not brilliant. --kingboyk 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you had read the reason why this was nominated, you would see why I, or rather Aquar10us, had submitted. The peer review request received zero feedback. WikiProject peer review received zero feedback. Copyedit, as of today, has received zero feedback. There was no way I was going to know how to improve the article unless I put it in FAC. Before your prose concerns, the only thing that people found was not putting fair use in images (M3tal H3ad) and what Aquar10us said above. Sadly, your feedback has been the only thing I've heard for this article other than what M3tal H3ad (once again) said over two months ago. And I say "sadly" because it's beyond me why no one even bothered looking at the article in the first place except at FAC. But yes, thanks for your copyedit suggestion in either case. - Pandacomics 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, requests for editing help at Wikipedia are often ignored. You just have to live with it. --Ideogram 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So how many months before I can submit another candidacy, 3? - Pandacomics 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I once re-nominated after only three weeks. But that article never got any reviewers, so I gave up. --Ideogram 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, and the lack of support you've received along the way is quite outrageous. I've been there too (I have an article listed at Peer Review which hasn't had a single comment and it's been listed since Aug 06!). You will appreciate of course, 1) your unfortunate experience cannot result in a lowering of FA standards, 2) the objection is only my opinion and I might be wrong (although I don't think I am :)).

I really wouldn't get feeling downbeat just yet. This article can reach FA, and with some help from folks more knowledgeable than I it may well do it this time. FACs can turn around, help can pop up, my objections may even be overruled. It's not over til the fat lady (or the FA director) sings. --kingboyk 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Probably need to remove blog links from External Links per WP:EL Cricket02 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Except they're official, and would probably stay there unless you can prove otherwise. See previous attempt to delete the blog link. I can provide you with the company newsletter showing that the news updates blogs are official as well. As for the unofficial S.H.E daybook, if you had simply looked at their "about" page, you'd see the blog's purpose: "Our main purpose we wish to acheive is to pass S.H.E's blog messages to all non-chinese speaking fans. On occasions when time allows, S.H.E related news would be translated. Please be assured that all messages translated by us are 100% original messages posted by S.H.E. S.H.E Daybook will never provide faux messages or information.- Pandacomics 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose; not ready for FAC. Three weeks at FAC; still has basic WP:MOS issues like WP:MSH, WP:DASH. This is the English wiki; please don't clutter the footnotes with the English-language icon. External links is full of blogs. Footnotes are not correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). There is incorrect use of bolding. Lots of work needed. I suggest an extended peer review before re-approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 4 May 2007 (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.