Wikipedia:Featured article review/Heavy metal umlaut/archive1

Heavy metal umlaut

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Messages left at User talk:Cow, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres. Sandy 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is poorly sourced: only one reference is listed, and only one inline citation or note is made. It was nominated when "I think this article is cute" meant that an article was able to get FA status, and WP's standards have greatly raised sense then. It is certianly not one of Wikipedia's "best works". In conclusion it is a "färcrÿ" from modern featured article status. -Aknorals 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are 16 inline citations and a footnote. General references listed include seven online sources, and the book used for the footnote. Nevertheless, it is heavily list-oriented; when I saw the article a few days ago I wondered if it might be more appropriate as a Featured List. Gimmetrow 13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, your including the single square bracket links... can those be changed to footnotes that state the day they were last refrenced (profesional-like and whatnot)? That would be better, consitering links may die, etc. -Aknorals 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Does FA require a particular style of inline citation? Gimmetrow 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Section 4 of the article is way too listy, which needs to be addressed. All this disjointed prose needs to be tied into real paragraphs, as right now it's a violation of criterion 2. a. LuciferMorgan 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Some obvious citations are missing, such as the 2002 Spin magazine article and the Neal Stephenson quote. I could understand reclassifying this as a list. Yet, having created two FLs myself, I doubt the entries are sufficiently documented to pass FLC. Given the vast number of websites about music, shouldn't this page link to stable sites that reproduce album cover images and diacritical marks in titles and lyrics?  When I verified Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc the popular music section was the easiest thing to source...erm, maybe that should be Jöan of Ärc. Durova 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd zap sections 4 and 5, and try and get citations for everything else. This is relatively serious article about a fun topic but as it stands it's not quite up scratch. I think the Featured List idea isn't a winner because it's the list part which brings the article down. Zap that and restore it to prose and it would be much better. --kingboyk 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns is lack of references (1c). Marskell 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Looooong listy sections. Only one inline citation. Poor references. Poor organization of the very few references, citations and external links. Definitely not featured quality.--Yannismarou 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - The problems I cited in the article's FAR (mainly 1. a., alongside 1. c.) haven't been addressed. LuciferMorgan 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - Just not up to today's FA expectations. Durova 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Based on the request below, please refer to my FAR comments: the text itself appears to be excellent but the article is considerably short on references.  Listiness isn't a problem for me, but it would be for most editors, and the shortage of references applies to the list portions as well as the main text.  Durova  05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove - sadly, but it's had it's 15 minutes of fames. Poor referencing, crappy list section, prose is less than brilliant in places. --kingboyk 17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. The lists should probably have been syphoned off into daughter articles/lists. Stubby paragraphs elsewhere. (Tony)

Comment: Could I remind reviewers that general negative comments such as "Not featured quality" don't carry much weight. Please let us into your substantive thinking, even if expressed in only a phrase or two. Tony 01:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)