Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tenacious D/archive3


 * 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 03:23, 12 April 2007.

Tenacious D

 * Previous FAC 1, Previous FAC 2

The old nom had many objections which had been struck out or otherwise revised (except Sandy's, which I would like to see addressed). I'm restarting this nom so that people give it a fresh look. Raul654 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support --Shines8 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I objected a week ago on the basis of incomplete referrences, that hasn't changed at all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed the IMDb cite, and changed it to a news article. ✅ Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not done, (dislike those silly checks). There are still incomplete, blue link references, with no publishers, last access date (author and pub date where available).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed another link to the Tenacious D news page. ✅ Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 and 61 are incomplete - # ^ Tenacious D : D Fun Pak -> does not have a publisher (artist direct) and use today for a retrieval date like the other refs. M3tal H3ad 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The writing needs an audit throughout; here are random examples.
 * Oppose—1a, 1b and 3.
 * The musical/lyrical features of the fair-use audio excerpts are not specifically referred to in the surrounding text. Thus, they appear to be more decorative than scholarly/educational, as required by WP and the common law. See WP:FU.
 * That brings us to the second issue: there's not much intellectual content or musical depth in the treatment of their style, which raises the issue of comprehensiveness (1b). For better examples, see articles such as The Orb and Doolittle, both current nominations here.
 * You could remove "In addition," from the lead.
 * En dashes in year ranges are typically not spaced. Ensure that the range is not italicised after an album name in a title.
 * "due to Black being cast in Peter Jackson's big budget remake"—Awkward and, indeed, ungrammatical. "Because"?
 * Unsure that "reprising" is correctly used.
 * Sloppy wording: "Dave Grohl was once again called to be the drummer, and further lent vocals to "Beelzeboss (The Final Showdown)" as well as acting in the film, reprising the role that he played in the Tribute video as the Demon." "Called ON"? Can "further" be removed? Perhaps split the sentence into two, which will allow you to get rid of the "as well as".

Oh, and yes, plastering those green ticks all over the place might make nominators feel good, but it doesn't impress reviewers one bit. We just pough on regardless, looking for cogent responses and evidence of wider efforts to improve the article on the basis of our comments. Tony


 * Sorry for the ticks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The prose is a little too adoring in places to be considered neutral. The article should be edited for tone by someone who is not a fan of the band.  Some examples are uses of the phrases "Gass' (sic) skill in playing the acoustic guitar", "absurd and humorous sketches", etc.
 * Reading the article, it seems like many anecdotes and quotes are called out to illustrate that the band is "funny" but they are not necessarily encyclopedic. Examples are "Black says this is because foreign concerts are "a little funky" because "the subtleties (sic) do get lost in translation." and "There's also something funny about the macho-ness of rock. Like the bands that are the fucking hardest rocking are like, 'We'll fucking kick your ass, dude. . . with our rock.'"
 * There are actually a lot of typos and grammatic oddities in the article - there are two just in the quotes I used above. The article needs to be copyedited. --Mus Musculus 03:46, 9 April 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.