Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [1].
Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this article quite a lot and hopefully with your help I can raise it to an FA, or at least improve it. Went back and fixed the dead links before I nominated it, but other than that this article is a FAC virgin. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wait, you already placed a nomination for James E. Boyd (scientist). You can't have more than one nomination. GamerPro64 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have another person conominate this, then. One minute. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nomination: I have not made many direct contributions to this article, but through my more direct work on several related articles (specifically Georgia Tech traditions, History of Georgia Tech and Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket Marching Band), I passed along a lot of sources and resources to the Georgia Tech Wikiproject for the improvement of this article and others. I am happy to see the fruits of this and am equally as happy to co-nominate this article, as I feel that it is a complete, well-sourced and well-written article. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - issues with the FAC instructions aside, I don't feel this article yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of concerns:
- Don't use contractions in article text except when quoting
- Done. I believe that I have fixed the two instances of that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS edits needed - WP:OVERLINK, WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, etc
- I tried to take care of this a little. I have trouble with auditing for overlinking, though.LaMenta3 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't include links in See also that are already linked in article text
- Done. Removed the band article from See also. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vague tag needs to be addressed
- Done. Reworked the flow of that section a bit. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
- Done. I believe I have fixed the one instance of this. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed IMDB ref. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Over-reliance on Georgia Tech-based sources, particularly student publications. I realize given the topic some must be used, but third-party sources are preferred
- By my count, over a third of the sources are not related to Georgia Tech at all, and that is not counting the two books written about the school cited in the article, which are considered the authoritative references for the history of the school. Additionally, many of the student publications references are supplementary to other third-party sources. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In contravention of WP:LEAD, the lead contains material that does not appear in the article body.
- Moved soundie mention to article body. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- My main concern is a structural one. It feels like half of the article is either lyrics or quotes. This is a huge percentage for a piece of featured work; off the top of my head, I can't think of an FA with a higher percentage of quoted material. Is there any possibility for more non-quoted material? It just feels like there's not enough here for an FA.
- I'm not opposed to reducing the amount of quoted material, if that helps. Most of it occurs in the "previous versions" section anyway, which is IMO less important than the other sections. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"composed by Charles Ives 1895...". Missing "in"?
- Fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blueprint should be italicized as a printed publication. The same goes for Sports Illustrated later.
- Lead says 'Son of a Gambolier' was what the song was based on, but the body says it was one of two songs that have been credited. The lead shouldn't state as a fact that 'Son' was the composition base; it should say that it is generally considered that, since that's what the body says.
- Creation at Georgia Tech: In 1908, was the yearbook's name Blueprint or Blue Print? The body and accompanying photo caption differ on this.
Rise to fame: After "The group prepared three songs", there's a hyphen that should be a dash of some time (either unspaced em dash or spaced en dash, depending on preference).
- Fixed (—) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typo in "and wouldn not let them sing 'dames.'"
- Well, that's embarrassing. Fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reference 24, the pp. should be p. since it's a single-page reference.
- Fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me repeat a point made above: primary sources composing over half of all sources is a huge percentage for an article at FAC. It makes me uncomfortable seeing all of these university-related sources, and I'm sure that I'm not the only reviewer who feels that way. Any chance for more secondary sources? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.