Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gillian Welch/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 23:40, 3 April 2010.

Gillian Welch

 * Nominator(s): Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I present an article on singer-songwriter Gillian Welch as a FAC. After an extensive revamp, improvement during GA nom and promotion, and a PR, I feel it is ready. Thank you in advance. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No links to disambiguation pages or dead external links; alt text good. Ucucha 23:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The lead image File:Gil-welch-fls.jpg is unlikely to be in the public domain, since the uploader doesn't seem to be the photographer. No proof of release given . -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears from his uploads that "Filberthockey" is indeed "Forrest L. Smith, III" (he at least claims it). He makes it clear in other file descriptions, which all exclusively credit him. I would suggest contacting Filberthockey via email or talk page to find out if he is indeed Mr. Smith. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this photo of a waterfall, uploaded by him and credited to Forrest Smith. It looks like everything checks out, unless we have a strange case of impersonation on our hands. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment On the note on her name: Maybe it would be good to include an example of another word that is pronounced with a hard G? -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Per 1a. The writing just isn't quite there yet. The paragraphs are all too often a string of straightforward simple declarative sentences, creating a too-repetitive feel. The sections are all to often similar in structure: a short, simple-declarative opening then a cluster of quotes that are all preceded by a general observation... It all got a bit repetitive, again. And that one-sentence section at the end was a puzzler. I'm not knocking the article too hard; it's better than many I've seen. But not there yet. And finally I must make myself vulnerable by saying something vague and unactionable: I kept getting the feeling that "something was missing" from the content, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. So I'm not including this last bit as part of my Oppose, but I think I have to mention it even though it isn't really actionable. I'll think about this more.&bull; Ling.Nut 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Agreed, the prose isn't quite there yet. In the lede alone:
 * The third sentence of the first paragraph does not parse. One of various possible ways to make it work is this: "Their sparse and dark musical style, which combines elements of Appalachian music, bluegrass, and Americana, is described by The New Yorker as 'at once innovative and obliquely reminiscent of past rural forms'".
 * Revival, which is in apposition to "1996 debut", requires a comma after as well as before.
 * By the end of the second paragraph, it is clear that the article fails to consistently apply or reject the serial comma.
 * The first sentence of the third paragraph uses a nonidiomatic preposition. The possible choices are on and of; the current for is incorrect.
 * "Bestselling platinum album" is effectively redundant. Just bestselling or platinum will do.
 * "Throughout her career" is entirely unnecessary.
 * In the same sentence, "several" is not idiomatic, given the context. Try "many". Or simply cut the adjective and replace "including" with "such as".
 * "In addition" is entirely unnecessary.
 * "Notable" is unnecessary and thus smacks of peacockery.


 * A glance at the rest of the article reveals similar problems throughout. It does look strong on substance and sourcing. Please retain a good copyeditor to work on it and then bring it back.—DCGeist (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.