Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tenacious D/archive2
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 18:51, 3 February 2007.
Self Nomination
I am renominating Tenacious for FA status for the following reasons:
- I accepted all the comments of from the last nominations, and implemented all the suggestions provided.
- This article has been through a peer review, with all considerations dealt with.
- As far as length is concerned, this can be accounted for by the fact that Tenacious D have been together since 1994 but only released 2 albums.
- I have consulted the Featured article criteria:
- The writing is concise, and compelling
- No major facts are neglected
- I have ensured that all assertions are backed up with verifiable sources; like in the case of describing Tenacious D as being pro cannabis legalisation
- I have achieved neutrality (I hope) by documenting the critical response to Tenacious D, in that, the consensus amongst critics looking at the first album Tenacious D and the second The Pick of Destiny was somewhat negative. I also made sure the fact that Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny did not do well at the box office was well documented.
- Tenacious D is stable, I as of yet have not been involved in any edit wars, and I have not witnessed any.
- The lead section is an informative, but not overly bulky, introduction.
I would like all respondents to this nomination, to distance themselves from their attitude towards Tenacious D, and focus on the article. If you do not think this is worthy for FA status, please explain why and I will try to make the relevant changes.
Tenacious D Fans (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. No the objections from the last FAC haven't been fixed. There are still stubby sections and paragraphs; there are still comparisons to other bands in the lead that aren't substantiated later on; there are still images without detailed fair use rationales. Trebor 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is quite choppy. Far too many stub-like sections, "lists" with only one item, very short subheadings that are unnecessary.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:48, 1 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.