Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ain't No Other Man/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 by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ain't No Other Man

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets FA criteria. Plus, several users and I have done WP:COPYEDIT for it. I also added more information to the article, so I hope it will get the gold star this time. Thanks HĐ (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Laser brain's (talk) comments from the last time this was nominated (closed July 14) still apply: the prose is not close to being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".

e.g., 1st para: "with Roane and Aguilera serviced as co-producers" (very unusual verb choice); "Following the release of Stripped [...] in her next record" (unclear if Stripped was the album before ANOM); "The song was inspired by Aguilera's marriage with Jordan Bratman in 2005" (is "the song" the same as "her next record"? Did the marriage begin and end in 2005?); "It was serviced as the lead single from the project" (odd verb again; which project?).

e.g., last para: are these really cover versions if they were just on TV?; "of the eight season British" ('eight-season' or 'eighth season of the'?); "chose the song to perform at the show" (the song performed?); "making three coaches [...] turn their chairs" (what did that indicate?).

I've addressed all. I'm still fixing it. Please wait for me until it's done. — HĐ (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many of these: copy editing (to a higher standard) and/or peer review are recommended. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has many issues which should be fixed before it attains a feature level. Try a peer review editing. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: it would be very helpful if those suggesting a peer review would undertake to carry out the review. WP:PR is desperately short of active reviewers at present. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.