Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hybrid Theory/archive2

Add links
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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Hybrid Theory

[edit]
Check external links
previous FAC

I'm re-nominating Hybrid Theory as an FAC, because it recently passed as a good article after some changes. The main difference from this nom to the old nom is that the article went through a thorough copy-editing, which is the reason it did not pass. (done by Malachirality). But I still could not find anything about the artwork. Sorry. Anyways now, since most of the common mistakes have been fixed, I think it has the potential to become a featured article. It's also currently undergoing a second peer review, so tell me what you think. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it did not become a single, another song from the album is "Points of Authority". - need to highlight why this song is mentioned. Maybe move last sentence next to this or expand a bit. Just hangs oddly otherwise.

A word or two describing Sputnikmusic would be helpful

Otherwise possibly the best Album article I have seen up at FAC (but I haven't looked at many) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All changes you addressed have been fixed. (SUDUSER)85 08:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Quite a bit needs to be done before this goes FA:
  • Lead
  • Background
  • Recording
  • Songs
  • Release
  • Reception
  • Sources
  • Remove ALL fansites... "songsfacts" is NOT notable/reputable source of information. Seeing how this article sources a lot of its information from fansites, i'm afraid it is not yet ready for FA.

Indopug (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suduser85, do not remove my objection by yourself. That is frowned upon, and isn't the way FAC works. Editors remove their own objections (which I have now done). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I've decided to take another cursory look at the article, and found other issues;
  • "Throughout the following years, the album continued to sell at a fast pace and was certified diamond by the RIAA in 2005 for selling 10 million copies in the U.S.[20]" - Whether the album sold at a fast pace or not is an opinion, and therefore a personal observation. For example, why wasn't it certified diamond in 2003 or 2004? Perhaps that would have been a fast pace, but being certified in 2005 means the album sold at a slow pace. For you to deem it to have sold at a fast pace, you must have compared it to the sales of others (therefore, making your own personal observations).
  • "Four singles from the album were released throughout 2001, three of which were chart successes on the U.S. Billboard Modern Rock Tracks charts.[22]" - "Chart successes"? According to whom? This is yet another personal observation - please stick to the facts, and not add your own personal observation. Whether they were chart successes depends on how an individual person measures success. How do you measure chart successes? How high the song peaks? How long it stays on the charts? For example, why didn't "One Step Closer" get to number on the Modern Rock Tracks charts? As it didn't, perhaps some could deem that as a failure. How you have measured chart success in this instance seems to be the fact that three entered the top ten of the Modern Rock Tracks charts, while one didn't. That is a fact, but that being a "chart success" is your own personal observation (POV).
  • "The album also charted in 11 other countries at fairly high positions and ranked among the “top ten” in the charts of the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland." "Fairly high"? Yet another personal observation, per the reason given for the alleged "chart successes".
  • "The band was signed by Warner Bros. Records in 2000, due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue, who joined the label after resigning from Zomba.[4][5][6]" - Whose opinion is it that Linkin Park's signing with Warner Bros. Records was "due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue"? Whose observation is this? A critic's? A member of the band's? Please attribute this opinion to whomever believes it, or else this is merely a personal theory. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rap sections of most of the songs were significantly altered from the original, while most choruses remained largely unchanged.[10]" - "Significantly"? Whether something has been altered "significantly" or not is an opinion. You may deem something to be altered significantly, whereas someone else may disagree. Your source is just a track listing for the demo, and in no way way verifies that sentence since there's no text at that URL. Furthermore, the source is the "Linkin Park Assocation", a fansite. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In my opinion, the "Linkin Park Assocation" does not fall under this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" - According to whom? Yet again, this is another observation and isn't factual. This time, it's the opinion of whomever wrote that biography for VH1.com. Either attribute this opinion to whomever felt it, or rid of it. At the moment, it's written as though it's a cast-iron fact. Simply put, it's not. It's an opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just examples of POV found within the article, and indicative of a wider problem. I will list more once these have been addressed. This time, let me withdraw my own objection (should I personally feel you've addressed my objections). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I'd like to say that I feel that this FAC is not really necessary. Why I say this is the problem is with all the sources - All the main sources are not reliable, but they are the only sources with the main information. The main thing is that no sources are actually from reliable mediums, and because of that, I think that this FAC should be closed. As for the other editors who took their time to review the article, I would just like to thank all of you. (SUDUSER)85 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you say the sources are bad? Billboard, MTV.com, NYTimes, VH1.com are fine, Rockonthenet is used reasonably. A few sites are not really familiar to me, but the only one that really jumps out is forfeitthegame.com. Hang in there. Two minor things: is "100, 000" intentional? and would you consider only using two columns for refs? Gimmetrow 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, http://www.lpassociation.com/music/disco M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an actionable oppose because the user has not said what sources are not reliable. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Suduser requested on my talk page that this FAC be withdrawn, but others have said the sources are reliable. Unless someone else is taking over this FAC, I will need to honor Suduser's request to withdraw it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • MOS breach: final punctuation after closing quotes where the quote starts within a WP sentence. Lots of fixing needed.
    • Edu justification for fair use is a bit feeble. "This sample shows the song's shifts between the verses, which are soft and melodic, and the chorus which is heavy and abrasive." Is that unusual for their style, or that of other bands in this style? What do those vague epithets mean, anyway? Tony (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hybrid_Theory/archive2&oldid=1138463580"