Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Limp Bizkit/archive1

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 by Ucucha 01:53, 13 January 2012 [1].

Limp Bizkit

[edit]

Limp Bizkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): WTF (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because one of the GA reviewers suggested nominating it before it was passed. WTF (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose based on lazy sourcing. We need author, websites and publishers, and they need to be formatted properly (eg ref 26 lacks the author in the citation, but when I click on the link, the author's name is the first thing I see; ditto ref 14; for ref 20, ew.com is lacking as a proper source. We need "work=Entertainment Weekly. publisher= Time". And page references are waaayyy to broad. Instead of linking 20 different ref tags to one citation that has a page range of 30 pages (i.e. Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. St. Martin's. pp. 1–20. ISBN 031226349X and ^a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. St. Martin's. pp. 21–51. ISBN 031226349X.) why don't we be more specific about which page has which particular info? A quote in the audio sample info-box lacks citation. Also, do you mind expanding the intro just a bit? It reads well, but it's too short. All in all, there are glaring stylistic and MOS issues that need to be dealt with, and I suggest withdrawing the nomination and resubmitting when you are ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does. The complaint was that it showed page numbers, but no chapters, so it looked to Journalist that it was separating pages for no reason (1-20, 21-51). But the reason it was set up that way is because there's no chapter titles. So I clarified why the citations were set up that way by adding "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc. to each chapter separation to make it clearer why the pages were separated in such a way.--WTF (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalist and Orane are one and the same, btw. And to cut to the chase and to be as specific as possible, I'm saying this: pagination is vital to book sources. Whether or not the book has chapters is irrelevant. Is it possible for you to format the individual citations so that I can source a particular point to the singular page it was taken from? That's the convention, as far as I'm aware. Orane (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Durst's problems with his girlfriend inspired him to write the song "Sour".[2]" Are you telling me that in order to find out if this quote is properly attributed, I'd have to peruse 30 pages from the book? No thank you. My oppose vote remains. Orane (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is how we format book sources. Inline citations use page numbers. And then the more general sources appear in the Reference section, without page numbers. And the article's writer(s) did not think it unreasonable to use this format. Orane (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a waste of time for me to completely reformat the article based on an idea that you, personally, think works, but is not an actual guideline. If you think it'll look better to have countless unneeded extra citations for the same sources, you can reformat it yourself. As it stands, your request for me to go over a book that I currently don't have physical access to to reformat it in a way that is both tedious and time consuming.--WTF (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the article isn't featured article quality. It's as simple as that. You have to put in the required work to get the reward. I'm not forcing you to source it properly. I'm just saying that that is what you need to do in order to have it featured. Do whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. Orane (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sourced properly. You're asking me to change the formatting, which has nothing to do with policy. Again, you don't like the formatting, it's not a guideline. If you don't like the formatting, change it yourself.--WTF (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wisdomtenacityfocus, while I don't necessarily agree with all of Journalist's points, consistent and appropriate formatting is required by the FA criteria, and this article does not currently meet that standard. On a quick look I see differences in date formatting (ex FN 3 vs 4), incorrect DOIs (FN 27) and other problems. In regards to page ranges, it is helpful to use shorter ranges to assist in verifiability, particularly when citing direct quotes (which appear only on 1-2 pages in a source). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also have to agree with Orane. Page numbers are the way to go. WP:CITEHOW states that inline citations are used "in order to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found." With this in mind, wouldn't it be easier for a reader to pinpoint the exact place in a text where certain material comes from if they were provided with a specific page number? We should as contributors endeavor to help the reader, not hinder them. Page ranges/chapter numbers are therefore less helpful than exact page numbers, and I would suggest that this article would benefit from switching from the former to the latter. I know it must be a bear to consider obtaining the book and then re-sourcing everything so that it's clearer and more encyclopedic, but the article would certainly be improved by doing so, and would better fulfill the FA-criteria. If nothing else, keep this in mind while sourcing future articles. María (yllosubmarine) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this article has multiple issues, which together suggest it is not appropriate for FA status at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Fred_Durst_at_the_2008_Tribeca_Film_Festival.JPG lacks any indication of licensing
  • WP:MOS issues - unnecessarily bracketed ellipses, overlinking, etc
  • Article is in need of some copy-editing to address issues of grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "Arvizu persuaded Ross Robinson to listen to the demo, who finally listened to the tape after it was appraised by Robinson's girlfriend" and "because of the teenagers death" are both grammatically incorrect
  • "the phrase "Chocolate Starfish" referred to Durst himself, as he had frequently been called an asshole" - you're going to need to explain that one
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting, some of which are outlined by Journalist above
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of Fred Durst was uploaded by the photographer and is on Wikimedia Commons.--WTF (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources issues

  • Two styles of retrieval date (see ref. 10)
  • Use of both "Retrieved" and "retrieved"
  • "BBC News" wrongly italicised
  • Inconsistencies in page range formats, e'g "79–95" but "30–2"

All these need fixing. Don't be discouraged, though; you can get there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nikkimaria, Maria, Orane, and Brianboulton, all of whom have raised excellent concerns. I suggest Harvard referencing for printed sources or else, you'll be giving the spotchecker a difficult time. The prose isn't particularly spectacular either: Second sentence of the lead needs to be read aloud and reworded: there are two "and"s that are so close to each other. Grammatical error in "After a impressive performance when they opened for Korn at the Dragonfly in Hollywood". And who is to judge how impressive this performance was? Articles must adhere to WP:NPOV. Also, is what Interscope has proposed to pay Bizkit in US dollars? Currency needs to be clarified. This reads bad aloud: "Further criticisms of the band appeared in Rolling Stone and The New York Times; New York Times writer Ann Powers wrote...". Finally, MOS issues in the headings; we don't write 1994–1995, but 1994–95, etc. Sorry, but refs need cleanup and serious copy editing needs to be done for clarity, grammar and neutrality. This is not FA quality yet, but maybe it can be. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Limp_Bizkit/archive1&oldid=1140156449"