Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Corrs/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 17:35, 10 March 2008.

[edit] The Corrs

Check external links

Self-Nominator - I am nominated the article for FA status because through the peer review of User:Dihydrogen Monoxide, I've expanded the article significantly - covering many aspects to this topic. This article has grown significantly since is GA run and I feel it meets the WP:FAC criteria. σмgнgσмg(talk) 13:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose support for now. Please see Tony's guide to reducing redundancy [1], and the few example edits that I have made. Also, please check for consistency, for example, at the top of the article we read that their mother is a homemaker, at the bottom we read that (sadly) she has died. Also, the Corrs were not the Corrs when they were teenagers; they were the children.--GrahamColmTalk 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think the general quality of the prose needs improving.--GrahamColmTalk 11:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copy-edited the article and have followed the criterion aided by [guide]. Please take a look and see what still needs improving. σмgнgσмg(talk) 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to see more expansion about their "Musical style", especially since their style changed with different albums, and also their "Musical Influences". These are essential for any article about an artist, more for an FA. RaNdOm26 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the article based on your recommendations. I created a new section on their musical style and influences. σмgнgσмg(talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral per issues below/prose - as per my GA review. One thing I've noticed in a skim through the article is that the "sources" section should probably go above "footnotes", that seems to have precedent. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Addressed, thanks for your support! σмgнgσмg(talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The first sentence should include as general a genre as is possible; "pop group" or "folk rock group" will do here. indopug (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose... all done now. σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
THe Fair-use rationale for Image:Corrs-mbe.jpg is wrong (it goes on about their parents.) indopug (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, I copied the template from the previous picture. Sorry about that. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object Seems rather skimpy on text. The lead has 8 refs, the lead if a true summary of the body, will need few if any refs and the refs would be in the body. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean, can you please elaborate so I may improve on it? Cheers, σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Object. There are seven refs in the lead. A good lead won't have all that detail and instead will be a summary of the body, where the details and their refs should be. Also, the Awards section is only 1-2 sentences long. It should be more of a summary of the separate list.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: Sumoeagle has already !voted on this nom further up. Chwech 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Commment Seems not a lot of change. Still 5 refs in lead (borderline IMHO) and the awards section is not significantly changed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying, so I've relocated the last 2 sources to 2006–present section, because the sources weren't necessary. However, in regards to the awards section, as I've explained to Chwech, the information in the article mentions notable awards. The rest are either not notable or they aren't verifiable. That is why the award section is so short. σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is a reliable source as it seems to get its info from Wikipedia. Epbr123 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you felt that was the case, then I'll delete it. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to find an alternative source for her son's name? Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no need, because the source right after it, Source 75 also mentions her son's name. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. Epbr123 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • "Republic of Ireland" in the opening sentence seems unnecessary when the country is referred to as "Ireland" everywhere else.
Done
  • "honorary MBEs": per WP:ENGVAR, in an Ireland-related article, British/Irish English should be used.
Done
  • "Additionally, they were taught...": "additionally" invariably looks dodgy; might be worth rewording and using "also".
Done
  • "While Caroline and Andrea were still attending school, Jim and Sharon had begun playing...": "had begun" should be simply "began".
Done
  • "The band enjoyed success in Ireland until 1994, when the band became known internationally.": no need to repeat "the band"; it also looks like they were unsuccessful in Ireland after 1994, should be reworded.
Not sure about addressing this one, so I just deleted the sentence.
  • "The concert was aimed to raise funds to build...": doesn't read well, should be reworded.
Don't know how to change this sentence. Can anyone volunteer to help me?
See my Edit (GrahamColm on a public PC).--88.16.170.166 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The album went straight to #1 in the Irish Albums Chart, and has the third highest sales...": you could probably remove "and has the" altogether.
Done
  • "Nevertheless, the album was not as successful as their predecessor albums, where it only managed to reach silver status in the United Kingdom.": remove "where", connect using a semicolon; "only" is a weasel word.
Done
  • "...taking over for Caroline...": should be "filling in for Caroline".
Done
  • "It also includes two songs in Gaelic...": "Gaelic" is ambiguous; use "Irish" instead. The song titles should be "Bríd Óg Ní Mháille" and "Buachaill Ón Éirne"; perhaps poetic licence was used here, but to my knowledge, "Éirne" is not Ireland, it's the river Erne.
Done. By the way, the song says "Buachaill Ón Éirne".
  • "The latter song was released": "song" is redundant, there isn't anything else it could be.
Done.
  • "Borrowed Heaven had returned to the folk rock genre, but placed heavier emphasis on guitars. Home was regarded as a traditional Irish album, where the band covered many traditional Irish songs taken from their mother's songbook. The album had included songs that spanned the history of Irish music, from the 1,000-year-old "Return to Fingal" to the 1982 song "Old Town", written by the late Phil Lynott.": these sentences are almost exact copies of sentences earlier in the article. That looks odd to me.
Done.
  • "The Corrs was awarded an MBE for their philanthropic activities.": "was" should be "were", I think; "an MBE" should be "MBEs", judging by what's written further up.
Done.
  • "The Corrs consists of...": same thing here; is it singular or plural?
Done.
  • "The Corrs have collaborated with several artists, but have had Jason Duffy temporarily joining the band as drummer when Caroline was pregnant.": "have had" should be "had" (see my final comment), "joining" should be "join".
Done.
  • "...but their achievements have only been partially acknowledged by the music industry.": seems a bit POV for me.
Done.
  • "...have been nominated twice for the Meteor Music Awards, in 2005 and 2006.": just "Meteor Music Awards", no need for "the".
Done.
  • In the "Personnel" section (and elsewhere, actually), it switches to the perfect tense and back again, e.g. "had recruited" versus "approached".
Done.

Hope that helps. Good luck. Chwech 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a few more copyedit issues to go. σмgнgσмg(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to weak oppose having copyedited the article: I'm still concerned about the amount of repetition in the article, and whether it's comprehensive. Repeating what's in the lead is obviously not a problem, but the descriptions of the album styles in the main bio are repeated almost word-for-word in the "Musical style and influence" section. It also mentions Jean Corr's place of death and that she was waiting for a lung transplant twice. I echo Sumoeagle's comments below about the awards; there's a long list of awards in the main article, most of which could (and probably should) be mentioned. Chwech 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. So, I've reworked the lead, rather than outlining every album, I've summarised it and placing notable information in the lead. As with the awards section, there isn't much to say because they have only won a few major awards, and the others are either not really notable or they aren't verified by a reliable source. So, what do you suggest I do? σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed some other bits in the body of the article too, and I think it works better now. I can see what you mean about the awards section: to my eyes (I have no idea, mind) the World Music Awards look fairly major, but apart from that you're right about them not being particularly notable. Switched to support. Chwech 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but there is no use putting it in the article if there isn't a source to verify the information. σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Many non-reliable sources are used as sources here, and many publishers aren't identified. Did any of the editors supporting this candidacy review sources for reliability? Please locate reviewers familiar with Wiki's WP:V and WP:RS policy to review and assist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look at some of the sources and fixed them. Some were dead and some were, unfortunately, unreliable. Nevertheless, do you feel that there are still unreliable sources? σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
A very large portion of the article is cited to non-reliable sources. Just a few examples (there are more): http://www.famouswhy.com/submit_article/ http://www.everyhit.com/about.html http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608002865/The-Corrs.html http://www.bandbiographies.com/ That's only from the first few, without even checking all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed the source issue. Take a look please. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until properly copy-edited and the references are audited. The keen eye of an unfamiliar word-nerd is required to iron it out and remove the awkward patches and the fluff. Here are random examples from the top:

  • "The Corrs bidding a concert audience farewell in 2005." Change "bidding" to "bid" and you'll have a real sentence, not just a nominal group, and the dot will be consistent with MOS requirements. The change would make it grammatical, too. Pity that the year overhangs.
  • "The Corrs are on hiatus as Sharon, Jim, and Caroline are raising families, while Andrea is pursuing a solo career." —"On hiatus" is very odd. "As" could mean "while" or "because", so disambiguate to save the readers the trouble of going into reverse to do so. The statement on UK/Ireland/Australia and platinum status is inconsistent with the information further down. Add "the Irish ?folk musician" before "John Hughes"; readers shouldn't have to hit links to decipher the general meaning.
  • Do we really need "United Kingdonm" blue-splotched? And "Canadian"? Hello, it's the English-language WP. Same for the United States. Both could be abbreviated.
  • "The following year, The Corrs received a BRIT Award for Best International Band.[31] Subsequently, they performed live on MTV's Unplugged on 5 October 1999 in front of an audience at ..."—Remove "subsequently"? Remove "in front of an audience"?
  • The authority of some of the references looks rather dodgy. Music Remedy at Ref 65, for example: no author specified, starts with attitudinal epithets such as "sensational", and heck, there's an animation in the middle of the text that tells me that Bush's IQ is as high as 125 ... hard to believe, frankly, and no reference for it, so you wonder whether the rest of the text is more reliable. This is unacceptable. Tony (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed the issues raised. Could you please check the article yourself, because I think that there will be the degree of bias within me that believes it meets the featured artice criteria. σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested the article to be copy-edited. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The image in the infobox lacks a source and has been tagged as such.
    • The image Image:Celine-andrea-pavrotti.jpg has got two incompatible licenses.. which is it? If it is copyrighted, it needs a source and a fair use rationale. If it is Creative Commons, it needs a source.
    • The lead is too short - it does not summarize the article well.
    • Albums don't "reach" platinum, they are certified platinum.
    • I think you want "Sources" to go under "Footnotes".
    • A general copyedit is needed for minor issues such as stylistic comma use - however, overall I would not say the prose is compelling per FA criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, in regards to the image issues, I've addressed them as such. Some of the points raised clashes with other users. Sumoeagle (from above) wanted the lead to be concise and still contained a summary of the article, which I feel does that. You want me to expand it... what should I do?
Secondly, Dihydrogen Monoxide suggested that sources go before footnotes, and you want me to do the opposite, again, can I have a third opinion on this please? Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Pavarotti image still needs a fair use rationale. You have the license tag where the rationale should go. Sumoeagle's comments confuse me a bit. I agree that the lead should contain few or no footnotes, since any statements made in the lead should be repeated and cited later in the article. I think that's what they meant. I don't agree that the lead should have been shortened - but it doesn't look like they were suggested that. Regarding the Sources/Footnotes thing, please see WP:LAY. Sources should always go second unless there is a compelling reason to ignore the style guide. --Laser brain (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are still non-reliable sources like celebrity baby blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 10 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.