Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Return of Dr. Octagon/archive1

Add links
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 not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [1].

The Return of Dr. Octagon[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

This is part of a series of articles, including Kool Keith, Dr. Octagon and Dr. Octagonecologyst. A lot of hard work has been put into this one, and I think that it should require minimal edits for it to be passed as a FA. When this article was nominated as a GA, the reviewer commented on how well-sourced the article is. Text has been written carefully and undergone some copyediting. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The image in the "Lyrical themes and storyline" section is distorted and badly out of focus. Further, the image has no connection to the caption on the image in the article. Useless image to the context of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — The image shows Kool Keith rapping in concert. It illustrates text describing his lyrics/raps. Thus, it is not useless. Secondly, it is the best image of Keith that's available under a free license. Actually, it's the only image of Keith on Flickr that's under a free license. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • That it's the best image available doesn't mean a better one can't be obtained. The image sucks. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's bad enough to oppose the article's opposition. Readers can see what's going on in the image. It's clear enough to even be used in an album's liner notes, I think. It's only slightly blurred. You act as if it's completely abstract, when most viewers can see a man on stage holding a microphone. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • It is an extremely poor image. My stance remains the same. This is far from Wikipedia's best work. If you doubt it, attempt to raise the image to featured picture status. It will be raked over the coals. I will not consider this article our finest work with that image in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is the illustration of Dr. Octagon fine? The fair use rationale was written by another user for the Dr. Octagonecologyst article, and I slightly rewrote it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
              • No, it's not fine. Using an image for illustrative purposes alone is insufficient rationale under fair use policy and guideline. If there were discussion in the article regarding the unique appearance of the character as being significant to the story line, then perhaps. Not in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
                  • Removed my oppose. With the image removed, my objections are removed. I have no comment on the rest of the content of the candidate article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Dweller

Oppose based on finding multiple problems in just the first small chunk of the article. I can only assume that there's lots of other problems thereafter. Suggest thorough copyedit by uninvolved editor, or, preferably, PR.

    • Comment — The article underwent a strong copyedit during its GA nomination. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Good. But either they were not uninvolved/unfamiliar with the material, or a lot has changed since then, because I found lots of problems. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • better known/best known should both be hyphenated. And the one in the body should be referenced.
  • Where was it released in 2006?
    • Nationally. Does it really have to say this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Erm, nationally for me isn't necessarily the same as nationally for you. Which nation? USA? That's not my nation. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's an "emcee"?
    • "Emcee" is the phrase usually used to describe a solo rapper. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Maybe so, but people unfamiliar with rap music may not be aware of that and need help with some kind of link. This is why it's important that the copyedit is by an uninvolved editor. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • These changes weren't made by a copyeditor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • "The album revives the character of Dr. Octagon, who was killed off by another Thornton character, Dr. Dooom, on his 1999 release First Come, First Served." I have no idea what this means, it's not explained by the wikilinks and is of dubious value for the Lead, where in any case, you don't have the flexibility to explain things much.
    • Rewritten. It means that the character died on a previous Thornton albums, and that the murderer was Dr. Dooom, another character created by Thornton. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • First mention of Fanatik J not wikilinked.
    • There's no article on Fanatik J. It was deleted because this is the only notable album he's been involved with. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • What's a "One-Watt Sun team"?
    • One-Watt Sun is the combined credited name for the three producers who worked on the album. Rewrote for clarification (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I don't think you mean "outtake" in the way I understand it, so presume it's music industry jargon. Needs some kind of link.
  • "generally mixed reviews" - "generally" is a redundancy
  • It didn't chart anywhere?
  • "production that many felt fit neither Thornton's style of rhyming nor the Dr. Octagon character" clumsy English
  • Automator not properly introduced.
  • If Automator replaced Fanatik as the producer, as I think the article's saying, why does the infobox credit the mysterious "One-Watt Sun"? --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what it says. Dan the Automator produced Dr. Octagonecologyst. The Return of Dr. Octagon was produced by three producers crediting themselves as "One-Watt Sun". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref format comments -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS (copy-and-pasted).
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/dr-octagon-the-return-of-dr-octagon/ |title=Review of ''The Return of Dr. Octagon'' |accessdate=2009-01-27 |last=Frauenhofer |first=Michael |date=June 29, 2006 |publisher=[[PopMatters]]}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead''TRUCO 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Dweller - new copyedit noted. I'll take another look, probably on Monday. Nominator, feel free to nudge me if I forget. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments by Dweller
  • Partial reuse of wikilinking following Lead. E.g. Thornton/Kool Keith not wikilinked, but Dr. Octagonecologyst is.
  • "The album was produced by Dan "The Automator" Nakamura." Which album? Presumably you mean Dr. Octagonecologyst but that's far from clear. And if so, the relevance of that information in this article is equally unclear.
    • It introduces Nakamura, who is mentioned more than a few times in the article, and offers his criticism of The Return of Dr. Octagon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Please ensure ellipses conform to WP:ELLIPSIS.
  • "Fanatik J engaged in a legal battle with CMH over contractual terms that did not give him artistic control over remixes, stating that he wanted to prevent the album's release." Confused and confusing. The "artistic control" clause appears to refer to FanatikJ's opinion, but by the end of the sentence, we appear to be reading the record company's opinion, without any direction from the text that this is the case.
  • "Thornton stated that with Dr. Octagonecologyst, Thornton gave Nakamura his first successful album as a producer" Should be "had given".
  • Per WP:REDLINK, link One-Watt Sun on its first occurrence and then, depending on how you responded above, first mention in body (or not, as the case may be)
    • Being that One-Watt Sun is not notable enough to have its own article, it doesn't need to be linked. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I still can't see in which countries the record was released.
  • "Although Thornton's vocals were largely constructed without his involvement" how can vocals be done without the vocalist's involvement?

More to come --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm uneasy about the reliability of rapreviews.com. Can you provide some information demonstrating their reputation for fact-checking and editorial process? Are there any reliable publications referring to them as being authoritative? --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Return_of_Dr._Octagon/archive1&oldid=1138473447"