Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hate That I Love You/archive1

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 GrahamColm 15:52, 15 September 2012 [1].

Hate That I Love You[edit]

Featured article candidates/Hate That I Love You/archive1

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I worked really hard on it for a period of time. First I promoted it to GA status and really wasted plenty energy on it. Many users helped me during its maintenance and editing including Wikipedian Penguin. I would like everyone who opposes on the review to leave the points and opinions here or eventually on my talk page so I can resolve them. Thank You — Tomica (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments - There's an awful lot of sourcing to online retailers (namely iTunes) and primary sources like liner notes. If a reputable secondary source doesn't discuss an item, then it probably isn't noteworthy. Also, I see a mistake that's been cropping up in recent song articles and that's listing when the song was issued to radio as a release date--it isn't, as radio is a promotional venue, not a form of commercial release. The prose is stiff in spots, but nothing a once-over by an experienced copy editor couldn't fix. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I share WesleyDodds' concern of the heavy overuse of iTunes sources. Also, there's an inconsistency with the use of {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. For example, FN26 uses {{cite news}}, but FN57, a similar source (in terms of the publisher), uses {{cite web}}. Be consistent with the use of one or the other. Another problem is the handful of dead links used in the article. I'll be willing to reconsider my oppose, if these issues are addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.