Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive1

Elvis Presley

Very good article, should be featured. Arniep 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - ~~On a skim through, I noticed that the "Elvis Cult" section consists of one single MASSIVE and practically unreadable paragraph. Unacceptable.~~ Fieari 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since I'm the idiot that suggested this article should be nominated, I might as well try to get some work done. I'll start with this point. Just so everyone knows so not >=2 persons try to fix this point (yes, I am a newb...) PureRumble 11:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This point has now kindly been taken care of Onefortyone. Fieari, please remove your objection and state a new one (if you have any ;-) PureRumble 11:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's been met. On the other hand, the general quality of the prose in specific isn't featured quality yet throughout the article. While the one big mega-paragraph was split up, many of the remaining paragraphs are still a little too dense. It also could benefit from summary style, being a bit on the long side. The information seems to have no real organization, jumping from section to section with seemingly no concern for where to place those sections within the article. I'm also concerned that the phrase "Elvis Cult" may be POV, or at least, needs a source for calling it that. Fieari 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - 1) Multiple unsourced claims tagged in the article (look for {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} templates) need proper citations. 2) Embedded HTML links need to be converted into full citations as per WP:CITE. 3) The long trivia section needs its contents referenced and properly incorporated into the article prose. --Allen3 ^talk 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, the great majority of the [acknowledged] trivia needs to be deleted. A considerable amount of unacknowledged trivia needs to be deleted too. However, trivia about Presley has vociferous defenders among editors of this sorry article. -- Hoary 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ummm..it's got a big 'cleanup' tag in the middle...Cas Liber 20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was added because of Fiearis "objection".81.170.138.232 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above. Rlevse 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object This is the kind of article that lessens Wiki's credibility. I've been comparing it to other articles about entertainers such as John Lennon and this article doesn't just pale in the comparison, it runs and hides. Lochdale 22:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - However, well-sourced parts of the article are frequently deleted by User:Lochdale, simply because they are not in line with Lochdale's personal view. See his contribution history from the beginning. Onefortyone 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's one way of looking at it. Another interpretation is that parts of the article whose sources have been cherry-picked from various bios have been introduced in order to support one obsession (this and this are informative), and that Lochdale has been attempting to prune the article of them because they're worthless. -- Hoary 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lochdale's contribution history clearly shows that he is not improving the article. He has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance, although he is claiming to have read lots of books on Elvis. His primary aim seems to be to delete well-sourced paragraphs I have written on different topics. Onefortyone 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Not even close IMO. This is one of the most poorly written and biased articles I've ever seen. And the apparent focus on the details of his sex-life is distrubing to say the least. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very interesting that this newly created sockpuppet has contributed both to the Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau case and this page in order to support the view of User:Lochdale. .... added in these two edits by User:Onefortyone, who didn't sign
  - Please assume good faith. I am no sockpuppet, and a cheackuser will clearly prove this if your paranoia takes you that far. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So as a new user you exactly know what "checkuser" is? You must have much experience with Wikipedia procedures, that's for sure. ... contributed by User:Onefortyone
      - Oh for Heaven's sake. For all you knnow, 4JS could have been editing for years as an anonymous IP address. Even if he/she is a new user, knowledge of Wiki policies is to be lauded, not reviled. Please remember to Assume good faith, as doing anything else won't help the FAC process in any way at all. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Contains masses of trivia, both labeled as such and (laboriously cherry-picked/documented) presented within the main text. -- Hoary 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above and the fact it is 112kb - much too long. If the information is worth keeping it should be put in its own article and linked to. Trebor 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've deleted the useless Trivia section. A bit shorter now.UberCryxic 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]