Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The Kinks/archive1

AnOddName
Comments by an odd name --an odd name 07:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mad Hatter appears to be the primary contributor (by edit count)—does he know you nominated the article?
 * One dab link (should it be Mickey Finn (musician)?), and no dead external links.
 * Infobox image lacks alt text. Use   to add some.
 * Ref dates mix different formats (2009-11-11, November 17, 2009, 18 December 1969, ...). Use one for all of them.


 * Thanks for the suggestions! As I'm rather busy right now, I'll try to attend to them in the next few hours. As to Mad Hatter; he contributed to The Kinks quite a bit a few years back. However, he has only edited this article once or twice in the past year, I believe. - I.M.S. (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to AnOddName: I believe I addressed the issue of Retrieval dates... is there still a flaw present, and if so, could you point it out? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 41 is still ISO style. More importantly, it is a link to an apparently unauthorized YouTube video that should be removed.  Just cite the program (title, channel, episode number, ... using  or something similar) instead, and let others figure out where to find it. --an odd name 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, 1c, at least until the three YouTube links are removed, replaced, or justified: All three are (understandably) missing publishers. If I were assuming bad faith (as opposed to good) I'd think you were trying to sneak in bad sources. Please fix or justify. --an odd name 02:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the first a high-quality reliable?
 * The last two are copyvios; they lack publisher info in both the YouTube profile and the citation here.


 * I've removed one of the refs and added proper formatting to the others. If you still find fault in them, I'll remove them altogether. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet pleased.
 * The third one now cites "Miller, Andy (2003). p. 138", except there's no full description of whatever Miller is in the references.
 * I must have forgotten to add Miller's book to the refs. Adding... - I.M.S. (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I.M.S. (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no publisher, channel, etc. given for the second one. A Billboard article on Google Books gives its producer as Initial TV, but I can't tell from the YouTube video whether that's from Channel 4 or VH1 (both mentioned by Billboard as well).  I can only speculate Ch4 because VH1 likes to watermark and banner-ad their shit.  It may need a time parameter because of the show's length, and the YouTube vid would not be reliable for that either (anyone can cut, trim, and paste video).
 * Since this ref is so problematic, I think I'll go ahead and remove it and the P.T. quote altogether. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ref, quote removed. Thank you for helping me figure it out. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also [ put back Detune.tv] . However,  I can't find any place in which Davies has announced or confirmed outside of there that that's his channel or website, so I feel iffy about it. --an odd name 04:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some links on Dave Davies' official website and others to Detune.tv (again, I can just remove it if you are unsatisfied).
 * search page for "detune"
 * although this might not be reliable, it mentions Davie as the owner/founder of Detune.tv. Search page for "detune"
 * Again, not an RS, but it is Davies' Myspace page, and he obviously recognizes Detune.tv
 * -- I.M.S. (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since detune.tv mentions the YouTube page in a popup, and davedavies.com mentions detune, and Hinman mentions davedavies.com on page 342, the first one verifies it. (I love knowing the full chain of verifiability like that. &lt;3)  Thanks for your patience.  I indented your signature for clarity. --an odd name 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text and off-topic

 * Comments. I left a note on Mad Hatter's talk page. Alt text done; thanks. The alt text has another problem: it contains details that can't be verified simply by looking at the images, unless you're an expert on the subject. Problematic phrases include "6 Denmark Terrace, Fortis Green, Muswell Hill, North London, birthplace of the Davies brothers", "A promotional photo of The Kinks", "young members of the Kinks", "Ray Davies", "Mick Avory", "Pete Quaife", "Dave Davies" (twice); these need to be removed and/or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT. Also, please replace "five (5)" with just "five" as per WP:ALT, and remove the multiple instances of the phrase "In this black-and-white-photo" as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done - Issues addressed (hopefully). I've added alt text to the infobox and removed the faulty text from the other images. Also, all reference retrieval dates are now uniform, and I've fixed the problems AnOddName pointed out. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm honoured. It is one of my long-standing works. Thank you very much. Is there anything I could help with considering the feature article nomination or I can turn on my work on the article itself. Whatever. Thank you very much for noticing me. It's been a pleasure.
 * Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In no way am I in this for the credit, or for the "glory" of telling everyone I've had a FA, but I'd like to bring up some points. First, I would be perfectly happy to share credit for this FA with Mad Hatter. However, does Mad Hatter having the most edits on this page make him the sole recipient of the credit? I would urge you to compare the version of the page from the last time he edited it to mine. I have put a lot of hard work into this article - I traveled to London last summer specifically to research The Kinks (the photo of their birthplace was taken by me) - and I would like to receive at least some scholarly recognition for it. Does anyone know the procedure for this? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't make the primary-contributor comment as a matter of credit or honor, but to make sure everything is up and ready. As says FAC, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination."  This makes sure (among other things) that the article is actually ready—if Mad Hatter has more to add to the article, it probably doesn't meet 1b yet.  I really don't give half a damn about honors bestowed here; I just want featured articles to be cleaned up before some random editor sees them on the front page and says "this articl sucks add mor about there personal life and the citaton doesnt work". --an odd name 18:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've looked through the talk archives and have seen quite a few debates over the advantages of the unofficial "credit". - I.M.S. (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)