Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stairway to Heaven/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stairway to Heaven

This is a partical self-nom. I believe that a lot of work has been done recently on this article and that it is now desirves to be a featured acticle. Dan M 02:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Not enough on the history of the song; if something is "not entirely clear", how can this article be comprehensive? Anyway, putting that aside, the Lyrics section is too short - merge it with Music to form a Structure section or something like that. About a third of the article is a trivia list, which is wholly unencyclopedic. The references are not formatted properly either - see Wikipedia:Cite sources/Example style. Johnleemk | Talk 05:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. Badly in need of a copyedit. For example, I found this sentence: "We can this style of music present in many songs recorded after Stairway to Heaven's release." It's got two major problems: there's no verb, and it's written in the first person.
    2. The trivia section needs to go. Either incorporate the contents into the main body of the article, or get delete them.
    3. References are not in an appropriate style
    4. The image Image:Page.jpg shows a pretty odd-looking guitar. Does it have anything to do with the song? If it does, this needs to be mentioned in the text, and the image description page needs a fair-use rationale. If not, the image needs to be removed.
  • It's the double-necked guitar that Jimmy Page played Stairway to heaven on when he played the song live in concert. It's synonymus with the song. I'm No Parking and I approved this message
    1. I'm sure there are other problems.
    --Carnildo 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. If roughly half the fairly short article is characterized as "trivia," it's not ready. And, although the article cites none, I find it difficult to believe that the song has never been mentioned in reviews or substantive critical commentary. Monicasdude 15:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with the above objection completely. Also, the image looks a bit awkward. I'm sure there is a better one out there, because this one just doesn't bring the article together as a whole for me. —Hollow Wilerding 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Object. I usually don't go into great detail looking at FACs, but this one I know some things about. And it's just not ready for prime time. It's too thin, the prose doesn't flow smoothly (at some points it reads like lists of facts crammed together into a paragrpah) and really, what you have is something you could be proud of if you sat down and did it all in one session. But it's not a featured article. Not even close.
It's the beginning of one. Take our suggestions, clean it up, expand it and go to peer review. Then come back here.
You wanna see how to do this right? I suggest you look at Layla. Daniel Case 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)