Lengthy article that, following a massive cleanup, is now very concise and has much improved writing. Very comprehensive and well cited.TheImpossibleMan 13:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Still has issues.The first few sentences of the lead are quite POV, and the tone of the article is at many times unencyclopedic and chatty in nature. Seems to have good content, however, it is close but needs a careful comb-over to remove POVa nd install a more formal tone. RyanGerbil10 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No references whatsoever, so it fails the basic requirements for FAC. Also agree with Ryan about the overall tone. I would suggest a rewrite and full references, and then a trip to Peer Review. Kafziel 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The lead itself is witness to several Weasel word phrases such as "they have generally become recognized" and "considered by many to be the first true music video". The member section is only a bullet list telling songs they wrote. There are many opinions in the article, such as "In hindsight, it's considered to be a strong first album." The fan fiction bit about "Journey of the Dead" should be deleted. As you admit on the Queen talk page [1], the page still needs a clean-up. I would suggest that instead of continuing through FAC, which is designed for articles which are already clean and referenced, that you refer to both Peer review and, specifically, to add the suggestions of the Featured Music Project.--Ataricodfish 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article is over-sectioned to death. All the year-by-year subheaders need to be consolidated such that the TOC is not bloated beyond usability. Try to name to sections such that the the reader can scan the TOC to pick out a distinct era, rather than relying on the reader to know the exact year of the Queen history they're searching for.—thames 16:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Peer Review. Please move this article to WP:PR so that suggestions and recommendations made during that process can be incorporated into the article. AreJay 19:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per reasons above; see my comments on peer review. AndyZ 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has opened a peer review for this article. As such, I believe that the FAC nomination can be closed.--Ataricodfish 21:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
