Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daft Punk/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 10:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Daft Punk

 * Nominator(s): Mechonis (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Daft Punk is a highly influential musical duo with widespread popularity. Although they've released but three albums, and are on their fourth, their music is noted by many as the best electronica ever released. Although I don't frequently edit the Daft Punk page and am not some sort of 'Daft Punk historian,' one can tell by their latest single's reception just how important Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo are to the global atmosphere of music. And since their forthcoming album is approaching quickly, what better time to nominate Daft Punk? Furthermore, the article has already been made a good article: its layout is precise, and it seems to mirror or be on par with the quality of other featured articles. Mechonis (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * quickfail
 * Setting up this FAC is the editor's first and only edits here.
 * Several uncited sentences in the article.
 * Missing a "Musical style" section. One gets little idea of what the duo sound like from this article.
 * Live performances: just several dull paragraphs listing one show after the other. Should be recast as a table-based list article.
 * Appearances in media and tributes: delete complete or reduce significantly per WP:TRIVIA. Most popular bands (and their music) make several media appearances; there's no need to list them all in a section.122.172.168.44 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Yeah, I too believe that this nomination should be closed. Kinda dissapointed seeing editors nominate articles they never edited on. GamerPro64  15:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Procedural concerns aside, there are very substantial issues with the references that I don't believe another editor could address quickly. Entire sections of text are uncited and a large percent of the current references are either bare urls, dead links, of dubious reliability or are not properly formatted. An experienced editor needs to take a thorough look at the article and put some work into it before it gets renominated. — Ed! (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.