Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Open Here/archive1

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2019 [1].

Open Here

Nominator(s): — Hunter Ka hn 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 album but the English rock band Field Music. It recently reached GA status and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria as well. — Hunter Ka hn 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

I have to say that I'm leaning toward oppose at the moment, given the issues on prose and a few other things.

General points

As this is an English band, the date format should be 8 July 2019, not July 8, 2019.
- I've changed all dates in the article to British English. — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some US spellings in there too, which need to be changed.
- I've changed every instance I've found, and I don't believe I've missed any... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few quotes also need to be sorted to keep in line with WP:LQ.
- I think I've fixed the ones that needed fixing, but if I missed any let me know... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks in places like citation overkill; have a look at WP:CITEBUNDLE and combine one prune the long strings of refs.
- I've bundled every instance that previously included four citations or more. In a few cases I simply removed a few redundant and unnecessary citations, but in most cases I addressed this by adding a new Notes section. I had started simply bundling them by creating a new citation that listed the multiple sources in each case, but I decided to go this route (with the Notes section) instead because it allowed me to provide the exact context from which I am citing these sources, rather than just listing the sources off. This required a bit more work on my part, but I think is ultimately the most useful for the article and helpful for the reader... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"utilize"/~s/~d: nowt wrong with "use"/~s/~d
- I believe I fixed this above when I removed the U.S. spellings... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IB & lead

Genre field includes "indie rock" and "art rock": no supporting citation in the body
- I've added citations for each of the genres listed in the infobox. The first citation (Pitchfork) covers the first three genres; I didn't use the citation three times but rather put it at the end of the third one, but I can list it after each of the three individual genres if you prefer... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"occasionally heavy topics": So they are heavy only sometimes? And is a heavy topic one on lead or iron?
- I replaced the word "heavy" with "serious or cynical"; I kept in "occasionally" because I believe that is still accurate, but let me know if you think that's a problem... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Photo caption: "A photo of Peter Brewis": we really don't need "A photo of"
- Removed that phrase... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and a follow-up to their 2016 album Commontime.[1][3][4][5]" Do we need four citations for those nine words?
- It's just one citation now... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In a press release, David Brewis": as this is the background, I would have expected the names of the two bandmembers to have been provided first.
- Modified this so the two band member names are provided first... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same press release: "[3][6][7][8]" one press release needs one citation, not four
- This is just one citation now. There are other instances in the article where I use several citations where I could have used just one. Generally speaking, I didn't see the harm in this, because I feel using multiple citations simply reinforces the accuracy of the cited facts. But if there are other examples where you think I should reduce the citation numbers, I am more than willing to remove them as needed... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"prepackaged" should be "pre-packaged"
- Fixed. — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back tomorrow to have a proper look – these are just the bits that caught my eye on a quick flick over the top part of the article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughts so far. I'm ready and willing to respond to anything more you have... — Hunter Ka hn 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size
- Removed. — Hunter Ka hn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text
- Done. I found describing the album cover a bit challenging, so if that alt text needs further work, let me know. — Hunter Ka hn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FURs for all three non-free clips need to be completed. Additionally, given the length of the original Count_It_Up_by_Field_Music.ogg exceeds the 10% max of WP:SAMPLE, as does Open_Here_by_Field_Music.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded shortened versions of Count It Up and Open Here. (Had to hit refresh on my screen before the new versions replaced the old ones on the article.) I believe they now adhere to the length requirements in WP:SAMPLE. Thanks! — Hunter Ka hn 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
Links to sources all appear to be working, per the external links checker tool
Formats:

Be consistent in the italicisation of online magazine sources – e.g. The Quietus (ref 19), Stereogum (42 & 43) and maybe others are italicised, while musicOMH (14, 30) is not.
- I have gone through and italicized all the appropriate sources so I believe there is consistency now. — Hunter Ka hn 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent about stating language for foreign sources (see 16, 17, 48 etc)
- I have added languages to the non-English sources you pointed out. — Hunter Ka hn 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and reliability: The chosen sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for your sources review! — Hunter Ka hn 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

I've added this to the Urgents list, but after being open for several weeks without any support for promotion, it may have to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to give this some feedback within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present even with a possible pending review. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.