Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kid A/archive1

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) [1].

Kid A

Notified: WikiProjects Albums and Alternative music

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in nine clean up categories: Articles needing additional references (January 2015), Pages with citations having bare URLs, Pages with citations lacking titles, Articles lacking reliable references (January 2015), Articles with unsourced statements (January 2015), Articles that may contain original research (October 2014), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (October 2014, January 2015), Articles with failed verification (January 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Having worked on the article for a couple of days now, I've realised that its problems run very deep.

Even apart from the stuff that's been tagged (as mentioned above), a lot of stuff is sourced to blogs, fansites, university term-papers, and obscure, niche publications. Given that this album has received Sgt Pepper-level adulation from all manner of mainstream sources, this is unacceptable.
The article is also incomplete; the Legacy section needs to be expanded to incorporate said adulation.
The Recording and Music sections suffer from a lot of overlap and repetition.
The Reception section doesn't really represent the breadth of opinions that accompanied the album's release.
The prose is often choppy; a clear narrative doesn't shine through, making reading tiresome.

Keeping this at FA standard will require more of a rewrite-from-the-ground-up effort than merely finding some missing sources. OK Computer should be a good model.—indopug (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Popcornduff did an excellent job rewriting the Release section and seems to have more work lined up. I myself want to concentrate on The Communist Manifesto till 14 April (when the WP:Core Contest ends), but will try to chip in with copyedits etc after that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this. It would be super useful if someone (not me as I find it super tedious) could update the professional ratings box with some better sources. We can have a maximum of 10 (there's only 8 at the moment) and maybe get some more interesting publications in there. Perhaps some negative reviews would be good too, for demonstrating how divisive it was on release? Then we have a separate reviews box for the collector's edition rerelease, like the OK Computer and Hail to the Thief articles do, showing a wall of 5/5s. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to address the unreliable sources that are still tagged in the article. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, stalled ... besides tags and sourcing issues, pls address spaced WP:EMDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's information, it's still my plan to dramatically rewrite this article (you can see my work in progress on my sandbox), but it's not going to happen soon. So yep, do what you gotta do. IMO this article hasn't been worthy of FA for years or maybe ever. Popcornduff (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC and hope for future progress. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Though improved, problems remain; as shown by the remaining tags: lacking reliable references from January 2015, needing additional references from January 2015, bare URLs, citations lacking titles, and needing factual verification from January 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, insufficient progress on deficiencies noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist mainly due to lack of comprehensiveness as noted by editors of the article. Thanks to Popcornduff for the improvement thus far; hope to see it back at FAC eventually. Maralia (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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