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 by User:SandyGeorgia 20:35, 23 July 2008 [1].

---

Lions (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zeagler (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria for being an FA article...why else? ;) Zeagler (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 7 (The Black Crowes At Long Last they Have an album..) is lacking a last access date.
  • Fixed.
• What makes http://www.nudeasthenews.com/ a reliable source?
  • They are interviews conducted by Jonathan Cohen, who co-created the site and was also a Billboard editor. —Zeagler (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support I think its quite good but needs a ce in places. I can tend to this, but it might be a few days. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means...although I did tweak your last edit. —Zeagler (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. I'm grand with rewording, not so great when it comes to spelling.... ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats "in a special to" - in a special to The Washington Post. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means the writer is not an employee of the periodical (and I think it's an unpaid submission?). See this example by Bill Wyman (not that Bill Wyman). —Zeagler (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Can you clarify that so. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Zeagler (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work since I read this last, its really come on in terms of prose, and meets all the other criteria easily (I'm fine with nudeasthenews.com on the basis that I broused it when Ealdgyth raised it above, and though its an site run by both freelance and amature writers, its quite impressive, all the writers are named and their credentials are listed). So, pleased to be able to switch to support. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: I don't think the Late Show screencap adds anything. The other two look fine. --NE2 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. —Zeagler (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—> Support. Has potential, but please get someone fresh to the text to go through it in fine detail, so we can be proud of it. Here are random examples of glitches at the top. Deckiller might be able to point you towards a collaborator, or you might find one by searching the edit histories of similar articles. Word-nerds are obvious from their edit summaries. Try to gather long-term collaborators.

• "The album's critical reception was mixed; numerous reviewers found similarities to Led Zeppelin, with some approving and others not." Approving of the album overall or of the similarity?
  • Similarity. Fixed.
• What's a "quality song"? Bit vague; can you express it in more concrete terms? Lack of originality? Lack of ...? Looking at the extraordinary diversity of star-ratings in the infobox, can you briefly summarise what drove these reviewers to such opposite conclusions?
  • Replaced "quality" with "memorable" and added sentence about lowest rated reviews.
• Space the ... ellipsis dots, unless they come between sentences.... in which case, like that.
  • Fixed
• "about his behavior"—whose?
  • Pipien's. Fixed.
• "to hire someone with limited touring experience after the Pipien episode"—is it the hiring policy or the experience that "after the P. episode" refers to?
  • I'm not appreciating the difference. Hopefully fixed anyway.
• "but the album title, as well."—no comma required; but why not remove the last two words?
  • Fixed.
• "Lions is a symbol that stands for the fierce feeling and freedom that music allows you," proclaimed Chris.—Is the comma part of the original quote? Odd to include it within the quote, rather than after, as MOS wants.
  • Fixed.
• "Frictive moments"—I'm looking up my dictionary. Is there a more common epithet?
  • "Heated discussions". Fixed.
• Said Rich, "We must have recorded 'Come On' about five times in different ways. [...] Then [Was] just took it away with him and came back with this different mix," which impressed the band, leading to—Invert the first two words, unless you're being poetic.... Ellipsis dots like this, and only put the square brackets in if you really want to; they can be a little intrusive. Again, is the comma part of the original text? Best not to chop it off on a punctuation mark, so why not do this: ", which. TONY (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

If you believe these fixes are sufficient, I invite you to continue listing concerns with prose. In the meantime, I'm waiting on a reply from Deckiller. Thanks for your help so far. —Zeagler (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil has experience with music articles; maybe s/he can help. — Deckiller 03:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images/media.

• Is the Promotion and release section image really necessary?
  • I believe so. It provides a lot of information about the mise-en-scène easily that would be impractical to convey with prose. The vastness of the field. The highly saturated colors. The fact that Andy Hess and Audley Freed appear despite not playing on the track. The extras scattered throughout the background. Even stupid fanboy stuff ('Chris doesn't have a beard!'). You get a good feel for the concept of the video.
    • OK, so we agree that it can be justified in appearing there. Now to do that in the article - can you put something along the lines of this rationale in the article (and source it if possible) in talking about the video? —Giggy 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will this new caption work, or should I expand the prose, too? —Zeagler (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "23 second sample from "Soul Singing" containing distinctly different chorus and verse; thus, Rich won the argument." - huh? The word "argument" is used nowhere else in the article. Audio sample captions should clearly have some educational value; this doesn't at the moment as I have no idea what the argument you're talking about is, or how it relates to the music I'm listening to.
  • The caption is related to the corresponding paragraph in the prose, but I added to it to make it more standalone.
    • Much better, thanks. —Giggy 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "25 second sample from "Young Man, Old Man" containing portions of the chorus and the "'Freddie's Dead' vamp" that is the verse." - Describe the music more. Just noting that it contains some of the chorus isn't enough for critical commentary/educational value.
  • Replaced the sample and wrote a better caption to fit. —Zeagler (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better, thanks. —Giggy 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Giggy 10:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —Giggy 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "memorable" rather than "quality" songs is going from the pot to the kettle: still what the grammarians call an "interpersonal epithet" (i.e., a personal judgement). Maybe it's acceptable to put it in quotes to show that you're (the critics were) using it in a manner of speaking.

• Image licensing status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See NE2's comments above those from Tony1 (kind of hidden)...and Giggy's comments. —Zeagler (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know which it is; some dates are linked, some are not. Which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, Image:The Black Crowes - Soul Singing - Promotional Video.jpg doesn't even have a license? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! We're on top of things, aren't we? ;) Fixed. —Zeagler (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please get it cleared by Elcobbola, and which way are you going on date linking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Elcobbola sent; date links removed. —Zeagler (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Non-free media look fine. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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