Wikipedia:Featured article review/New Radicals/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:05, 9 June 2009 [1].
New Radicals[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- WP Rock music, Artrush, and Fritz Saalfeld notified
Article was promoted in February 2006 when standards were far lower. Use of fair use images to depict a band automatically disqualifies it and it's far less comprehensive than other articles on similar subjects. Exxolon (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont see a problem re comprehensiveness; the band had a short life span. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the non-free images definitely need to go. It is possible to get a free image of Gregg Alexander, with or without his trademark hat. Jay32183 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check out the image talk pages here and here, as those concerns came up, and were addressed there, earlier. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one I still say must go, your rationale is not acceptable. A free image can be created that adequately presents the same information. I was not talking about the group shot, but the shot from the music video. All it shows is Gregg Alexander and a free picture can be obtained. He's alive and not in hiding. He doesn't need a scheduled event, people can run into him on the street. His representation can be contacted. File:New Radicals Gregg Alexander.jpg and File:New Radicals Someday Well Know video.jpg can be replaced by free images. Or they can be removed; with the group shot we don't need a second or third image of just Alexander. Jay32183 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check out the image talk pages here and here, as those concerns came up, and were addressed there, earlier. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The copyright issue can probably be considered resolved since all but one of the copyrighted files has been deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncited claims appear to include: "considered a relatively constant member" (reference given is not a neutral third-party); "well received by music critics...compared its funk and soul-influenced upbeat to the early work of Prince and Mick Jagger"; "received much media attention"; "mass media's excitement"; "fans immediately recognized". DrKiernan (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.