Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Charming Man


 * 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 promoted 00:05, 24 March 2008.

This Charming Man

 * previous FAC
 * Former featured article – has been on main page

Co-nom with WesleyDodds on a song containing the immortal line "Why pamper life's complexity when the leather runs smooth on the passenger seat". Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment support - add the section external links. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * External links are not a requirement for any articles or for featured articles, and per WP:EL, should be minimized. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Short 'External links' section added. Ceoil (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments The 'Fan Reaction' section doesn't really talk about the reaction of fans. Only what one dude said people felt about it. I'm also a little displeased with it being it's own section, especially considering the topic isn't discussed to a great length. The second paragraph in the section doesn't even stay on topic. Please remove it. NSR 77  T C  00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rid the article of that dudes openion. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments References - they need publisher and author information (where possible) for all the websites and books. I have particular concerns with
 * footnote 2 being used for the UK chart position (unless I'm missing something, the blurb on the site doesn't say it reached number 25)
 * Replaced. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * footnote 3 looks to be a fan site, at least I can't see who published it.
 * Gone. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * footnote 18, which Rogan article is it referring to? The one above it in footnote 17 or the one in the sources?
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * footnote 19 is dead.
 * Gone. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Publisher on footnote 21? Looks like a fan site to me.
 * Replaced. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not look at MOS/prose/etc. issues, just sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment on the pictures. The covers should be good for fair use, but I believe (someone else correct me if I'm wrong) that if you're claiming fair use on the still from the video, you need to use it for more than decoration, the critical reception of the video needs to be discussed in the article and the still should show something significant. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. Thanks for the close look, the article is much improved now. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I took out the image. It did not add a whole lot, the article is not weaker now. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I share concerns about Image:Thischarmingmanvideo.jpg:
 * The existing prose of "the band playing the song in a room with a floor covered by flowers" is perfectly adequate to describe the video. The Fair Use image does not appear to contribute significantly above the contribution made by the prose (required by WP:NFCC#8).
 * The image is not low resolution (required by NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the video still here is fine. Stills can be pretty significant in demonstrating to the reader what the video looks like, without forcing them to watch it. I really dislike that rationale. In reality, I'd say that only 10% of all the pictures on Wikipedia are vital to their respective article. The way that rationale phrases it makes it seem like the picture needs to be an integral aspect of the article, which is not true in almost all cases. NSR 77  T C  05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A FU image actually must be integral; that verbiage is based upon NFCC#8. FU is, by its very nature, a violation of the rights of the copyright holder; if we’re to do this, we need a very good reason to do so.  How is our understanding significantly enhanced by the grainy image of the band standing in the corner on a flower-covered floor?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to United States Copyright laws, copyrighted images are permitted to be used freely for educational purposes. I.e., Wikipedia. NSR 77  T C  17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of specificity of "educational purposes" is, in and of itself, a mischaracterization. That notwithstanding, per WP:FU, Wiki policy sets forth "strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law".  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place to be having a Fair Use debate (no offense). Personally, I don't like this particular image. It's grainy and overall poorly placed. Remove it. NSR 77  T C  00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on both counts. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a picture of that Top of the Pops performance might be better, if someone can find a shot. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a RS to back up the claims, so the section is gone. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "It met with a chilly reception from fans of a band.[26]" - This is a mere opinion, and should be attributed to its author. Currently, it's written as though the statement is factual (when it's actually just a critic's perspective). LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I cut the statement. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose After finally taking a long hard look at the article, I'm still disappointed with it. I really think it has some serious POV issues. First of all, the TOTP performance, while being revolutionary and notable, is in no way "famous". The Smiths are and have always been an indie band. Their fame reaches only the boundaries of independent music and, since they never entered the mainstream, the word "famous" is a bit strong. The paragraph starting with "During a famous appearance on Top of the Pops..." is shockingly POV and littered with non-neutral statements. The UNCUT quote is a sentence too long. "The Top of the Pops performance would be cited by many Smiths fans as being a key event in their musical upbringing." That is not only a blatant POV statement, but it isn't backed up by a single source. The way the article is written I can't help but feel like The Smith's changed the world with this song; unfortunately, they did not. Praise needs to be toned down several notches. There isn't even a quote from a review that expresses negativity. Furthermore, I don't think the quote where Marr explains the song's composition is at all necessary, considering there are already several paragraphs of prose that cover it. Finally, the UNCUT quote that was added to the lead is irrelevant to the sentence subject matter and overkill. NSR 77  T C  02:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cut your specific examples, will update when remaining instances are excised. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok all done. Except: I did not find any negative reviews, and I'm not sure there were very many/any. I've left the Marr quote as it covers aspects of the songs technical composition not else where covered on the page. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe it is typical to have a "References" section (containing what is now in the "Sources" section) before the "Notes" section. Is there a reason this article doesn't do it like that? Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tuf-Kat. Its a matter of preferance (I think!). Switched and retitled now....Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support indopug (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My many, many thanks for such a careful and detailed review. The article is much improved. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "The second is from a 7 November 1983 recording at the Riverside television programme . . ." I want to rephrase this. Is "Riverside" the name of the show? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know. I only restored this yesterday, but don't have the source and cant verify. I'm keen to chop it again. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support No worries. Good work! It's a nice article otherwise. NSR 77  T C  16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NSR77 you have a bolded Oppose and a bolded Support; are you trying to test my intelligence? I may fail ... can you please unbold one?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry! I forgot to strike it out. NSR 77  T C  22:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.