Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wilco
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 promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.
The better part of Uncle Tupelo formed Wilco after its breakup. They slowly made their way up to one of the most popular album rock bands around. This article is a GA, well-cited (over 100 cites) and I believe it is of featured quality. Self-nomination. Teemu08 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm not all in favor of having a whole cluster of FA's based on the Kot book, but this article is well balanced and draws from a variety of sources. I saw some minor issues (and fixed the most obvious oversight), but other than that the main picture is of poor quality and doesn't show the full band I don't see a reason to withhold FA status. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Some sentences which are awkwrad and./or confusing:
- "The songs reflected the relationship between a musical artist and a listener, intended as a rebellion against the belief that Tweedy could only play alternative country music"
- "Unlike A.M., the band had no vocation for radio airplay while recording their second album, Being There"
- Adding more as I stumble upon them. WesleyDodds 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded those two sentences. Teemu08 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (alt music project member). A well balanced, comprehensive overview. There are minor prose fixes needed ("agreed to back up", "In 1999, Warner Brothers was still trying", and there are alternate uses of "the band" and "the group"). I like the sly double meaning in the first three words of the nom above. Ceoil 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely wrote that with two meanings in mind ;) Teemu08 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well-written, well-cited, and well-made overall. My only major problem with the article is that the fair use claim of the Yankee Hotel Foxtrot album cover seems dubious because the album artwork is not discussed within the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Non-free content, cover art is acceptable if it represents a body of work that is critically discussed. The last paragraph or so of the Foxtrot section covers this. Teemu08 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this refers to cases when the album artwork itself rather than just the album is commented on, which it isn't in this case. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" ← In this case the "item" is Yankee Hotel Foxtrot the album, not the cover art. ~ trialsanderrors 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Alternative music WikiProject member) Seems that the artwork placement is A-OK. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:47, 15 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.