Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Bush

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 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Kate Bush

This has recently become a Good Article and I can't see there being much more needed for it to become a Featured Article. It seems to pass all the criteria. Epbr123 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per:
- Image:Kateivy.jpg is tagged fair use but of a living subject, in contravention of policy.
- Unsourced commentary - "incredibly literate" and "technical ability is shown to full effect"

Addhoc 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image and unsourced commentary have now been removed from the article. Epbr123 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however there still appears to be a significant amount of unsourced commentary, for example "creative manifesto issued by Kate in response to criticisms" and "musical style was far more simple and direct". Addhoc 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two examples have now been removed. Epbr123 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - however there are few more areas that I would appreciate if you could review:
- "perhaps prophesised the internet addiction that would surface by the end of the following decade"
- "talking to their computers to the point of obsession"

Addhoc 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few stylistic comments:

<small> tags for the image captions are unnecessary, and makes it a little harder to read.
With the {{cite web}} references, you don't need the '|'; the reason there's 'publisher=' and 'author=' is to link data to certain parameters.

I'll provide a more thorough review later. CloudNine 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Those have now been corrected. Epbr123 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I think the article needs more work to reach FA status. Some comments:
- I'm not convinced that NNDB is a reliable source and it is heavily relied upon for biographical and album information. It says it is in "Beta" but not much else information is available. Who are its editors and what are their sources? As it stands, it is unacceptable.
- The photo in the infobox is too small. If you must use it, it needs to be a fixed size so preferences don't resize it and thus pixalate it.
- Stylistic but grammatically incorrect comma usage such as (please check for others):
  - "Her eclectic and meticulous musical style, and idiosyncratic and literary lyrics..."
  - "Because of her age, in the first two years of her contract, Bush did not begin working on an album, but instead continued her time at school."
- Some use of passive voice where the subject of the sentence is relevant but omitted. Examples:
  - "Bush's talents as a singer/songwriter were brought to the attention of David Gilmour of Pink Floyd."
  - "Following the album's release, she was required to undertake heavy promotional work..."
- This sounds like original research; I think you need a source: "In the past, stories of weight gain or mental instability have been disproven by Bush's periodic reappearances."
- A general edit for tone is needed by a neutral party - there are too many adorations like "strong-willed Bush" and "lush orchestral arrangements".
- General copyedit needed for grammar, as there are many incorrect and non-standards constructions.

--Mus Musculus (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have corrected the points you made above and would be grateful if you could re-evaluate the article. Thanks. Epbr123 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Epbr123, thank you for your prompt action. Most of my concerns have been addressed but I would still like to see a neutral third party edit the article for tone. I will not list more examples here; the entire article needs a once-over by an unfamiliar party. Possibly you can approach the League of Copyeditors. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article has now been proof-read by League of Copyeditors. Epbr123 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Excellent work, thank you for addressing my concerns. Change to support. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per Mus Musculus above, I definately do not believe NNDB is a reliable source either. Also, in the External Links section, Gaffaweb [1], katebushnews.com [2]; Dongrays.com [3] all look like fansites; and Ezboard.com [4] is a fan forum -- all no-nos per WP:EL Cricket02 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the Dongrays.com and Ezboard.com links but I think Gaffaweb and Katebushnews.com are too good to get rid of. They are by far the best and most reliable Kate Bush 'fansites'. They provide a lot more sourced info than any official sites. Where does it say on WP:EL that fansites aren't allowed? Epbr123 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, guess I may stand corrected at the moment. There used to be guidelines for fansites at WP:EL but I see they have been removed without consensus per the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Fansites) Cricket02 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The majority of the material referenced on Gaffaweb is from print publications and transcribed radio and television interviews that pre-date the web. Many of these publications are no longer around, or have never made their old articles available on their web sites. K8 fan 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WAY too many problematic sources; doesn't look like a reliable article, and certainly not for a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources are problematic? Epbr123 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As just a few samples (there are more), a whole lot of IMdB, and a fan site — http://gaffa.org/intro/intro.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As K8 fan said, Gaffaweb houses interviews and other publications not found anywhere else, so it is actually a useful repository of information. --Jitterro 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No information has been written based on fansites. Gaffa.org has been included in the footnotes merely so people can read the source newspaper and magazine articles online. I'll try to replace the IMdB refs. Epbr123 09:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT; we should never link to sites which violate copyright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The links to Gaffaweb have now been removed. Epbr123 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMdB has been removed as a source. Epbr123 09:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck; thanks for the speedy resolution! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just have one bit of nitpicking: it's grammatically incorrect to place commas and periods outside quotation marks. I can fix all these myself, of course, so it isn't that big a deal. I recall there being many instances of POV tone when I first read the article, but it seems they've been removed by now. Nice work. As for the image, it would certainly help if a larger and clearer photo could be located, but the current one is fine otherwise. Another thing; I've browsed Gaffaweb a few times, and some of it appears to be posts from a very old forum of sorts. I'm unsure of whether these can be counted as credible information. On the other hand, the website contains many useful interviews, so I think it ought to be kept. --Jitterro 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No info was based on the forum. It all came from the newspaper and magazine articles. Epbr123 09:11, 5 May 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.