Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Smashing Pumpkins

A great article that absoulutely meets the criteria for a featured article.0111 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question? Did you see the instructions at the top of the page? "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." Sandy 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Answer It wasn't technically at the same time 0111 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That means "concurrently" in this case. In any event, it's just a suggestion, not a rule. If you feel comfortable handling multiple FACs, give it a shot. Ryu Kaze 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support a great article but may need some more refrences/sources.
Object - I'd like to see a section dedicated to information regarding the band's impact and influence on the grunge scene, as well as criticisms to even things out. The lead also makes several claims which require citations - especially when mentioning what emotions are evoked from a particular song, or sales figures. Wisdom89 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Object, for now. As a primary editor of this article, I know there's some things that still need to be addressed, primarily the musical impact/influence and citations of sales figures, as Wisdom89 points out. I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Although, given Wisdom89's other points, I also want to point out that there's an entire paragraph dedicated to criticism already in the Mainstream success section. WesleyDodds 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Object and suggest delisting since the primary editor doesn't support. Without meaning to be unkind, 0111 is perhaps a little overenthusiastic in his nominations... --kingboyk 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Support a great article0111 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Instead of belately stamping your nomination/support on the article in question, perhaps you should be actively improving the article and addressing those concerns listed above. Wisdom89 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Answer to Commentwhy don't you do it.I personally think it's featured article material.
I'm not sure that you understand: by nominating the article, you take responsibility for it, and are expected to address concerns if you want it to become FA. You're supposed to be pro-active about it. A bunch of us are actually chipping away at this article, but we know it is far from where it needs to be. - Phorque 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think the way the headings are layed out, the way its all divided up, could use some improvement. I think, for instance, that the "mainstream success" part should be broken up, at least with smaller subheadings (its too huge a mass of text as it is which kind of makes it uninviting), and the "post breakup" part should perhaps be given its own section (and have some of the loose sentences bound together in more continuous prose). --Clngre 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support Reads pretty well, but needs a better photo of the band for the inofbox and needs a seperate "Sound Samples" section. Otherwise, we're looking at FA material here! Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑ 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Just to let you know, it's actually more acceptable to have the samples in boxes alongside text. When the samples are put next to relevant text for the purposes of illustrating or enhancing that section, that's fair use. If you just dump 10 samples at the bottom of the article, it doesn't serve much purpose. That being said, I think we need to make sure that all the samples have an adequate description justifying their presence. - Phorque 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. This page has improved since I last visited and is definitely Featured Article material. Good work.

  • Support This has page gone through a lot of improvement and I would support its candidacy -- UKPhoenix79 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The image of D'Arcy in the "Post-breakup" section is dubious, I tried asking the uploader to prove they owned the rights to release it into the public domain, but no response. And as I once stated before, that entire section has less to do with the band and more to do with the individuals, it could be boiled down to a short paragraph or removed entirely and put into the individuals' articles. - Phorque 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I like what WesleyDodds did with section, but I still feel the other objections are valid, and I myself plan to continue improving this article. - Phorque 12:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)