Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nirvana (band)
An important band, in a really good, unbiased article, that got a cleanup after the peer review [1]. The only thing that could ruin this nomination are not many references. igordebraga ≠ 01:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Object. Problems are still unresolved. I asked whether or not Celtic Frost's mention is legit, but that has never been answered, referenced, or removed. Also, a lot of "facts" are not cited by references. Like I said in the peer review, there are a lot of biographies out there that could be cited that aren't. There's also a few weasel terms in there here and there. -- LGagnon 02:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)- Since you're a regular contributor to this article, I'm disappointed that you chose to wait until the article got to this point to address your concerns. I (among others) have been making every effort possible to bring this article into acceptable status before now. Given that I can't read your mind, I would love to know the details as to which facts need to be referenced and what constitutes a "weasel term". Also, for the record, most of the available Nirvana biographies on the market are considered by the greater fanbase to be cash-in's on Nirvana's popularity and not worth the paper they're printed on as far as "facts" go. A sizeable portion of the fanbase believes Azerrad's book to be the only Nirvana biography worth considering. (Having read several others, I include myself in that category.) Additionally, if you can't find a reference for the Celtic Frost mention, feel free to remove it. I have no idea who added it, and I wouldn't balk at its removal. Feel free to respond to this in the Talk section rather than here if it would be more constructive. -- ChrisB 05:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms gives a good explaination of what weasel terms are; the 2nd paragraph of the In Utero section shows one example of it in its 1st sentence as well. As for whether or not I mentioned my grievences before, check the talk page of the article and the peer review. I have clearly mentioned both Celtic Frost and the references situation. I am withdrawing my objection now though, since the article is more up to standard (and I assume the weasel term problem will be solved soon). -- LGagnon 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Understood. I believe I've caught the worst offenders (and may have removed some non-offenders in the process). Signal if you spot any others, or if any other points are out of line. -- ChrisB 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms gives a good explaination of what weasel terms are; the 2nd paragraph of the In Utero section shows one example of it in its 1st sentence as well. As for whether or not I mentioned my grievences before, check the talk page of the article and the peer review. I have clearly mentioned both Celtic Frost and the references situation. I am withdrawing my objection now though, since the article is more up to standard (and I assume the weasel term problem will be solved soon). -- LGagnon 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Since you're a regular contributor to this article, I'm disappointed that you chose to wait until the article got to this point to address your concerns. I (among others) have been making every effort possible to bring this article into acceptable status before now. Given that I can't read your mind, I would love to know the details as to which facts need to be referenced and what constitutes a "weasel term". Also, for the record, most of the available Nirvana biographies on the market are considered by the greater fanbase to be cash-in's on Nirvana's popularity and not worth the paper they're printed on as far as "facts" go. A sizeable portion of the fanbase believes Azerrad's book to be the only Nirvana biography worth considering. (Having read several others, I include myself in that category.) Additionally, if you can't find a reference for the Celtic Frost mention, feel free to remove it. I have no idea who added it, and I wouldn't balk at its removal. Feel free to respond to this in the Talk section rather than here if it would be more constructive. -- ChrisB 05:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
ObjectThe image Image:Nirvana inutero.png is of higher resolution than needed for the article. Fair use images should be as small as possible: for an album cover, my recommendation is no larger than 480 pixels in any dimension.The sound clip Image:ComeAsYouAre.ogg is 37 seconds long. This is longer than the recommended 30-second limit for fair-use clips.The images need to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. See the image description pages for the images on Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example of this.
- comment I don't know about the other objections but I think it is unfair that you are objecting just because the source image is larger than fair use reccomendation even though the image is scaled down in the article, remember that this isn't the image that's up for featured canidacy it's the article, and downloading, resizing and re-uploading it wouldn't solve anything other than to use up space. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Downloading, resizing, re-uploading, and getting the older, larger version deleted will increase the odds that we're in compliance with United States copyright law. --Carnildo 05:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo, I think you are being unreasonable with respect to the album cover. I quote from section 107 of the United States Copyright Act:
- the fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment...is not an infringement of copyright.
- Clearly this image complies with that responsibility. Furthermore, the album cover in question, In Utero is specifically mentioned in the article as being a source of controversy and as such it is helpful to have an enlarged view of it. The act goes on to state that fair use should be considered in context of the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Presenting an album cover at resolutions insufficient for printing a poster has virtually no effect on the potential market for the album because practically everyone buys albums for their music not just their covers. Please reconsider this part of your nomination. Cedars 09:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- The idea is to make the image sufficiently low-resolution as to be utterly useless as a cover for a pirated CD: at 5 inches across, a 480-pixel image will look acceptable at a screen resolution of 96dpi. It will be completely useless for printing, as that is usually done at resolutions of 300dpi or higher. But that's a minor point. The fair-use justifications for the images and sound clips are absolutely essential. --Carnildo 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies if this is not the correct way to solve this issue. If a 480x480 picture is acceptable for use, I certainly have no objection and think it's the correct move. (I made the change, but can revert if the move is not acceptable.) The controversial artwork in question with regard to In Utero is actually the back cover, which is not included. -- ChrisB 20:55 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I believe all the points Carnildo raised have now been addressed. If not, please elaborate on which ones have not. Cedars 09:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- The idea is to make the image sufficiently low-resolution as to be utterly useless as a cover for a pirated CD: at 5 inches across, a 480-pixel image will look acceptable at a screen resolution of 96dpi. It will be completely useless for printing, as that is usually done at resolutions of 300dpi or higher. But that's a minor point. The fair-use justifications for the images and sound clips are absolutely essential. --Carnildo 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo, I think you are being unreasonable with respect to the album cover. I quote from section 107 of the United States Copyright Act:
- Downloading, resizing, re-uploading, and getting the older, larger version deleted will increase the odds that we're in compliance with United States copyright law. --Carnildo 05:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - This is an excellent article about a noteworthy subject. Cedars 09:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
objectsupportin specific support of Carnildo, valid and actionable objections should be acted upon prior to moving to a featured article,. Images are an integral part of the quality of articles and are even mentioned in the featured article criteria. If this was accepted even after someone raised a copyright objection that could be used (unfairly - Cedars doesn't "represent" the project) to show that Wikipedia "willfully" engaged in copying.objections appear to be addressed, article is reasonably comprehensive, informative and quite well referenced; to me it seems it is better than the average FA. An expansion of the introduction to talk briefly about their key albums would make this a worthy FA. Mozzerati 20:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Object - Lead section is too short for an article this size.--mav 16:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)- Support. Very good article. Seems that previous objections have been fixed.--Alabamaboy 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --C S 09:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Nice article. Very interesting and well formatted. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)