Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luxurious/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 07:15, 4 September 2007.

Luxurious
I am nominating this article for the following reasons:-
 * I Like the way the article is written and the information is very much sufficient. It in not over loaded with information.
 * At one point of time, i doubted the length of the aticle, but when i saw that Hey Baby, which is exactly of the same length, is at FAC, then i felt, why not this article.
 * This article is already GA and also A Class, and also had Peer Review.
 * This article is part of a Featured topic. So beinf FA or this article became a priority.

Therfore, i kindly request and repect your comments. Thank You!. Luxurious.gaurav

✅Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has several issues:
 * Reference 6 does not appear to be a reliable source since it borrows from this very article without attribution (note the "(see 2005 in music)" comment that doesn't link anywhere).
 * Why is there a sentence about critical reception in the Music and lyrics section?
 * Why can't it be used. The critical reception is used in order to prove (and in one way cite as well) the idea of the song being called hip hop. This sentence could not be used in critical reception part as it is not a reception.Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is little information about the music itself. For example, what chord progression does the song use?
 * Is it a huge necessity? I was not able to find it, so it is not there. If we have the information, i is well and good. But it is not possible for all.Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph is primarily interpretation sourced to the lyrics themselves, which is a form of original research.
 * Lyrics have been expalained in many song articles. I got a similar feeling with Hey Ya!. 17Drew 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the sentence that begins "The lyrics were well received." It doesn't present any new information about the lyrics, so it should go in a different section.  Having information in an article about a song discussing the song itself is quite important.  There is information about this stuff; I recommend looking for the sheet music, which is out there somewhere since it's cited in reference 7.  Yes, articles should have interpretation, but only when sourced to secondary sources, as Hey Ya! does.  Also note that "appropriate length" varies from one article to another (Hurricane Irene (2005) vs. Ketuanan Melayu).  One would expect more information to be available for this song since it was released more recently, but I could be wrong since it didn't perform as well.  17Drew 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose lead and article seem rather short. The refs are inconsistent in format, for example, the web refs should all have publishers and retrieval dates.Rlevse 12:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

✅. I have already mentioned about the length of the article. I saw other articles of the same length getting nominated. Luxurious.gaurav

MOS and possible copyright issue. ✅ ✅
 * Unspaced en dash in the infoblot should be spaced (MOS).
 * Please remove final period from captions that aren't complete sentences (MOS).
 * IMV, the numbers 10 and over would be more readable if numerals (MOS recommends, although doesn't insist). Sits oddly with "Hot 100", "Top 40".
 * Is the YouTube external link an infringement of copyright? Tony 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The YouTube video was posted by universalmusicgroup. 17Drew 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.