Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madness (band)/archive1
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 14:14, 17 September 2007.
(self-nomination)Just got this article promoted to GA and am interested to see what needs to be done in order to reach FA status. I personally think it's almost there, but then again I'm the main editor of the article. Sam Orchard 22:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd suggest delisting this article from FAC and taking it to WP:Peer review instead if you are looking mainly for constructive feedback. WesleyDodds 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done with little response. But I actually think the article is ready for FA status, so unless the article is a long long way from FA status, I see no reason to delist. Sam Orchard 12:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I suggest you take Wesley's advice because:
- The lead is very poor. The first sentence is about when they formed, but the second immediately cuts to what their status is in the present. Besides that the lead is too small to give the reader even a brief idea of the band. The prose in the lead's 2nd para is also rather choppy.
- "Skinhead controversy" features god awful prose. I think you need to rewrite the entire section because it is quite incoherent.
- the Madness logo is there without a caption. The main picture should also have a caption.
- in some places the years are linked. Delink them unless the full date is mentioned like August 28 2007 so that it displays as per the reader's preferences.
- may be unrelated but the band's infobox is rather poor: the discography and associated articles tabs should be of a different colour from the main tab (Madness).
- Although the album reviews were generally less enthusiastic than those of One Step Beyond..., they were mostly positive. Robert Christgau gave the album a favorable B- grade, but Rolling Stone Magazine awarded the album just one out of five stars... Then how were the reviews mostly positive?
- overall the prose is very choppy and needs to be strengthened.
Tommy Stardust 18:47, 8 September 2007 (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.