Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Jacket Required/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 19:31, 6 June 2009.

No Jacket Required

 * Nominator(s): Carpet Crawler  message me  03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, everyone! This is my first ever FAN, so my apologies if I misunderstand anything. I am nominating this article, because I feel that after giving it a huge expansion (This is what the article looked like before I got ahold of it,) over the course of many many months, having received two peer reviews, numerous copyedits, as well as a ton of help from a lot of friends along the way, that this article is ready to be promoted as a featured article. The article has come a long way from what it used to look like, and I look forward to doing my best at addressing any concerns anyone may have over this article. Thank you, and I look forward to any comments! :) Carpet Crawler  message me  03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, looks good and meets the criteria. Just a few comments:
 * Using WP:REFTOOLS, I can see that more than one reference is named 'NOR'.
 * Done, I didn't add those refs, so I assume the original editor accidentally copy and pasted incorrectly. Either way, they're fixed now! Carpet Crawler  message me  19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 65's retrieval date differs in format from the rest.
 * Done. Fixed that and properly formatted in. Carpet Crawler  message me  19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The links checker tool states that the external link of the BPI ref (reference 47) is dead.
 * Otherwise, everything else looks good. Disambiguation links are up to speed, according to the dab finder tool.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't believe this currently meets the 1a bar. Examples at random, all from lead:
 * The second sentence: "The album was named after an incident at The Pump Room in Chicago, where Collins was denied admittance to the establishment because of his attire." Weak use of the passive and problematic ambiguity of "after". Why not the simpler, tighter: "The name of the album refers to..."?
 * How exactly is something "based on improvisation"?
 * "Other songs, like "Long Long Way to Go", had a political message." Use of "other" suggests the two are mutually exclusive.
 * Cite your quotations.
 * "Rolling Stone reviewer David Fricke said that the album, "Like his '81 and '82 outings, Face Value and Hello ... I Must Be Going!, No Jacket Required is not an album that waits to be liked"." <-- ungrammatical
 * "went to number one in various parts of the world" Bland, elementary prose.
 * "The record has been certified diamond " Link? "being certified for 6x platinum." Is it certified or certified for?
 * "Many of the songs, including "Take Me Home", and "Long Long Way To Go," also appeared in various episodes of Miami Vice," Also?
 * "Collins embarked on The No Jacket Required World Tour concert in 1985 which was also successful." Another puzzling also. Which v. that (or comma). Why not just "embarked on a successful"?
 * "During the tour, Collins also recorded a song with" Good thing Tony hasn't reviewed this yet...
 * In general, the article suffers from simplistic prose. For example, take a look at how the article strives desperately to achieve narrative flow in the Production section (first sentences of each para):
 * "Some of the songs from the album were works that were originally improvised by Collins"
 * "Another song that Collins created mostly through improvisation was"
 * "Another song based partly off improvisation is "One More Night""
 * "Other songs were written with a more personal message."
 * "Doesn't Anybody Stay Together Anymore?" is another song in which Collins was making a personal message. "
 * "Take Me Home" is another song in which the meaning was originally very vague." (and who knows what "originally very vague" means)
 * This needs quite a bit of work before it meets FA criteria. Might want to withdraw this one. Budding Journalist 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with the above, apart from the suggestion to withdraw. The article requires a thorough copy-edit, and I have made some suggestions. This contribution certainly lacks flow, and this is not helped by trivial sentences such as " The Phil Collins Big Band played this on tour", carelessly inserted into the article, and odd expressions like "collaborator of Live Aid". This is a pity, there is much interesting content here—but more work required.Graham Colm Talk 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd withdraw, but I'd rather hear if anyone else has any comments. Honestly, about this needing a copyedit, I had quite a few people copyedit this article, and another user completely guided me through various stages... so I don't know what to say, really. Also, I apologize for the sloppy prose. I am not a good prose writer, which is why I had some many copyedits done in the first place, but oh well. I'd rather see what anyone else has to say before I withdraw this. Carpet Crawler message me  20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So would I. When it comes to copyediting, it is often not quantity but quality that counts. Yes, let's see what others have to say. This is not the end of the world, but an opportunity to improve the article. And, most importantly, please no apology required. We are friends and collaborators working as volunteers on an important project. This article may or may not be promoted on this occasion, but given the content, and providing that the sources are reliable, it will eventually. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * http://www.bpi.co.uk/index.asp deadlinks
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.dailyvault.com/toc.php5?review=5269
 * http://www.everyhit.co.uk/
 * http://www.discogs.com/ (Note "A Community-built database...)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.