Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Marley/archive1

Bob Marley
It is Bob Marley, need I say more? Well written article.--Ezeu 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. --Ezeu 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's very interesting and readable, though I think it needs a bit of tidying for FA status. For example, there are a few citation needed templates; not many inline references; and the ones that exist don't include full citations. The intro is too short, in my view. I also notice a few periods/full stops after the footnote, rather than before. I also don't like the large quotation marks, but that's just a personal dislike. Most importantly, I'm not sure it tells us enough about him. Is there any critical material that should be added, for example? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, this image has no tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Images of faces should look toward the text, because the reader's eye follows the face. So this image should be on the other side of the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a little to the intro, but it needs another paragraph, perhaps about his political influence. Also, I think the intro needs to make his iconic status clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object – Yeah, it's Bob Marley, and it SHOULD be featured, but I don't think it can be in its current state. There are a few "citation needed" notes around that should be fulfilled. In addition, I would change all of the "song names" into song name, using italics instead, and also get rid of the red links; looks better. Lastly, some of the quotes look out of place. Is it just me, or does this article have some sort of style problem? It just looks strange, but I can't put my finger on it. The problem might be that there are so many short paragraphs; could they be put together? ♠ SG →Talk 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Song names" in quotes are policy per WP:SONG. --Maitch 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad! Everything else still stands, though. ♠ SG →Talk 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object yes, you need to say more, like it's FA status. The fact it's on Marley does not alone make it FA. I agree with SG, it needs work, esp on the layout and those quotes in big blue marks--the blue marks are more dominating than the quote itself and any eyesore. Concur with SG's other comments too.Rlevse 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Lacking in information, I mostly object because this article could be hugely better with much more detail that has been published and isnt reflected in the article, SqueakBox 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Object The layout is very off-putting. Please reconsider the quote formatting currently in the article.  Entire sections with no references.  Two images are listed at WP:PUI.  Image:Wailers group high res(resized).jpg needs to be scaled down and needs a proper fair use rationale.  Jkelly 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object ! Come on. It's Bob Marley &mdash; a legend. The article is nowhere near compelling and comprehensive, and fails miserably to give a consummate overview of his career. Note to editor: The article should resemble "The Beatles" when it is ready. Oran e  ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Object - Overfocused on singer's music career, underfocused on his non-music life. Also incomplete and poorly cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)