Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porcupine Tree/archive1

Porcupine Tree
Very thorough and comprehensive article about the band, very well written and by extension easy to read.Bookmastaflex 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - please read Lead section - one sentence does not a good introduction make . Found very little that actually told me what their music is like, bar the 'prog rock' label. And personally I find the music-journo chronological plod through their history rather difficult to read... --zippedmartin 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, as this has turned into a bit of a pile-on in my absence, let's try some constructive suggestions for making this more featured articley. First stop should be Featured articles which should show what's expected. Some ideas:
 * References. 15 years of band should mean there's a lot written about them - find it, use it, and cite it.
 * Value judgements, but only cited from reasonable sources. Music is good for this at least, the critics love dropping easy to quote catchphrases into their reviews, just takes a bit of poking through old mags, etc.
 * Place within musical spectrum, influences and legacy kinda thing. There's already some name checking in the history, but it's a bit hard to dig out.
 * Organisation. Currently almost all the prose is in the very long History section... it'd be nice if the history was shortened, and stuff about the music itself etc given its own bit. I prefer the presentation of The Beatles over The Temptations, but both are featured, so I guess 100% history is okay for bands.
 * Sound! Given the unlikelyhood that the record label would release any of the music under a free licence, the best that can be done is some fair use ogg samples, but better than nowt. See Media for info.
 * Hope that's somewhat helpful. --zippedmartin 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object - agree with zippedmartin, article does not conform to WP:LEAD. Also, there is only one reference ("Porcupine Tree Official Biography" - and that's from the band's website), it contains no inline citations and the prose needs some serious work. Mi kk er ... 19:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Response - thanks for the compliment (Bookmastaflex) and the critiques (zippedmartin & Mi kk er). I'll try to elaborate a decent if not compelling introduction, because this band deserves to be known by more people. --Psychedelic Contributor 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. The excessive use of peacock terms needs to be cleaned up.  The single embedded HTML link used as a reference needs to be expanded to conform to WP:CITE (the date the site was visited is a must for webpages), and there is no apparent form of inline citation used by the article.  The use of the band's website as a sole source, with the site's implicit pro-band bias, does not appear to fully conform with Reliable sources.  --Allen3 talk 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose For all above reason. Circeus 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - needs refs. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object: The image Image:Porcupine Tree promo.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted free use", but there's no evidence that this is the case. --Carnildo 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - Prose bogs the reader down and tense is odd. psch  e  mp  |  talk  03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)