Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy/archive2


 * 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 User:Moni3 15:00, 16 October 2008.

Tea & Sympathy

 * Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)
 * previous FAC — June 2008

Bringing this back a few months after the last FAC. I've done a fair bit of work on it since then I think it now meets criteria. Giggy (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: withdrawn by nominator. Maralia (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * http://www.amo.org.au/release.asp?id=7506 deadlinks
 * What makes http://www.musicomh.com/ a reliable source?
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For musicOMH, see here and the last FAC. Deadlink fixed via Internet Archive. Giggy (talk)
 * YOu want me to remember stuff from MAY??? (gasp) I've slept since then. As long as you're using it just for the reviews, then it's fine. (Sleep, it's good, but yet so bad for remembering things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Image comments
 * Image:Tea and sympathy.jpg- license, source, and detailed fair use rationale present.
 * Image:Bernard Fanning-Wish You Well-20s.ogg- appears to aid critical commentary/text in the body of the article; however it has no fair use rationale; I suggest using a nonfree template. Otherwise the images check out.
 * re. Image:Bernard Fanning-Wish You Well-20s.ogg, the image page's "summary" section includes commentary on how it meets NFCC (albeit without a template). Giggy (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that, but per NFCC the fair use rationale needs its own specific section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Giggy (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong link, sorry: Non-free_content - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made a specific fair use rationale section on the image description page. Giggy (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Maybe I can't read too well, but I didn't see where it asked for that on the new link, either. Meh.
 * It's there, or at WP:FURG, or somewhere, trust me :P I added the section header, so the images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is essintally the same article put forward in June, but with new bells and with the same weakneses. Its cut and paste and little effort made to throw the factoids into a coherent story. Described as a "breakup album" by The Oakland Tribune,[1] much of the record was written after the death of one of Fanning's brothers, and after the end of Fanning's twelve-year relationship. The album veers from Powderfinger's politically and socially influenced rock. There is a connection there between these two statements, but you have not established it. There are many other examples. Ceoil  sláinte 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworded and (hopefully) added the connection in the example above and have fixed some other instances in the article. I'm continuing to look at it and try and improve the flow, but of course, any examples would be great. Giggy (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not my job. You nominated. Ceoil  sláinte 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you opposed the article. Although you may be right, I don't think it's very good etiquette to oppose and article and refuse to offer examples on how to improve it.  Wikipedia is based on collaboration to improve articles, and I would have thought that it should be a common goal to get as many articles as possible to featured article status (that is, improve the quality collaboratively so that it meets the standards). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support As I mentioned in the previous FAC, I believe it meets the standards for FA. Apart from the concerns raised by Ceoil (which I find hard to support, given that I find the article coherent and easy to understand), I don't think there is anything major that is wrong with the article.  JonCatalán(Talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.