Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive2

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 User:GrahamColm 11:30, 30 November 2013 [1].

Of Human Feelings

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the first nomination was found to lack consensus due to an editor's objection regarding close paraphrasing; the material specified by that editor was corrected. Otherwise, my last response to the editor at the first nomination page was not responded to (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Of_Human_Feelings/archive1#Comments_by_Quadell) Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{Note to Dan56: the review has begun)

Comments by Brianboulton

Sources and media review: I am dealing with these, in the hope that this will kickstart a substantive content review. This has been at FAC for 15 days now; high time someone with knowledge of the subject jumped in.

Sources

As close paraphrasing was an issue at te last FAC I carried out a limited number of spotchecks. I found nothing that I would describe as plagiarism or close paraphrasing
One small nitpick re ref. 27b: the source says "learning to love jazz" while the article says "learning to listen to jazz. Perhaps they're considered one and the same, I don't know, but I thought I'd raise it.

Revised to "how to enjoy jazz", closer to source. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 44 is behind a paywall and needs a "subscription" tag.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise all sources look reliable and of appropriate quality, and are properly formatted.

Media

The lead image has an appropriate non-free use rationale, the other two images are properly licenced.
The sound file, a 21-second sample, has the proper non-free use licence.

Just to add – although I have not read the text in detail, the parts I have read while checking the paraphrasing indicate a well-written and comprehensive article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Well, it seems that my attempt to animate this dormant review has failed. I wonder why the silence? At the last FAC six reviewers commented, two supported. The GA reviewer thought the prose "beyond flawless" (a level which should raise eyebrows, to say the least). It doesn't seem that any of these reviewers have been alerted to this renomination, and I suggest that this is done without further delay. I don't have any more time to devote to this, but unless some interest can be generated soon, the article won't be promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted several reviewers of this article's renomination ([2]). Hope it helps, tho turkey day is coming up. Dan56 (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Such bullshit!~~ I asked like a dozen editors and at least two or three said they'd review it. A little more time for ppl with actual lives couldn't be given considering its Thanksgiving weeknd? What's the friggin rush to archive an article that's been refined and fixed through two FACs and is ready to be promoted?! Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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