Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R.E.M. (band)/archive1

R.E.M. (band)
I'm nomming this for a featured article because I've been an R.E.M. fan nearly my whole life and I find it to be very well-written. LoomisSimmons 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Don't let fan worship blind you to the technical merits of an article compared to FA criteria. Not nearly enough imagery or references.  Probably wouldn't quite pass GA-class muster yet. --Kitch 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jackass, much? "Fan worship"? "Blind"? I think it's a fantastic article. If you don't, fine. But keep the snide comments to yourself. Maybe if it was about 70 more KB of bloated dreck, it would meet FA quality? Geez, I hope not. LoomisSimmons 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Watch your mouth, son. Profanity and sarcasm do not a good rebuttal make.  I did not intend to be rude, but checking the featured article criteria is the first step in the nomination process. --Kitch 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you Mr. Wikipedia? Is Jimbo Jones your dad? Are you even an admin? I mean, I could ignore you altogether, but now I'm curious as to who you think you are that you can give me orders. I may be taking to Wiki royalty and not even know it! LoomisSimmons 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not giving you orders. I'm reading the top of the Featured article candidates page, which is agreed-to Wikipedia policy.  Now please stop with the immaturity. --Kitch 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You still here? Wow, you must really hate R.E.M.! I mean, you've given your vote; what more could you possibly have to say? I mean, if you keep kicking your feet and crying, does your vote count twice or something? LoomisSimmons 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I love R.E.M. Loving a subject has nothing to do with whether or not it's worthy of an FA nod or vote.  I love the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and I opposed its FA nod on technical merit.  This is no different.  Now I'd suggest keeping quiet about it.  You're only making a fool of yourself with your own "kicking your feet and crying". --Kitch 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I give you credit - you refuse to shut give up. You must have an admin nomination around here somewhere. "See, Daddy! I can be a complete asshole just like you! Pick me, pick me! I'm ever so rude!" Geez, I never thought I'd root for the presence of furries, but whatever would distract you right about now would be a plus. LoomisSimmons 19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Cool it guys! Being rude to each other won't help matters at all. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Kitch. Some P. Erson 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is FAR too premature.  A solid bit of the Warner-era material still holds the music review / editorial type writing that affected the entire article until a few months ago.  And it seems like we skipped a step - this article should have been put up for peer review first. -- ChrisB 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that, but you're right. That makes a lot more sense. If you link me to the instructions for that, I'll take this nom down and start with peer review. LoomisSimmons 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Peer reviews can be requested at Peer review. Instructions on listing an article for review can also be found there.


 * Oppose. It needs more inline citations. Also, the information in the trivia section should either be integrated elsewhere or removed entirely - trivia sections aren't generally recommended. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Loomis withdrew the nomination and requested a peer review instead. Teemu08 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)