Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guns N' Roses/archive2

Guns N' Roses[edit]

Moved new comments from archive but I haven't moved anything in the history. See previous nom --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. Article has been heavily revised since it was last considered. 26 Dec 2005

Support. The article is much improved now and I feel it can be a featured article. --Snkcube 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Only two references and no footnotes - the article's references are not well cited in a Notes section. — Wackymacs 21:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Lead paragraph is an example of POV at its worst. Only 2 references and 3 inline citations in the entire article - much more is needed. Very little critical commentary for the band itself or for specific projects - if they were an influential band, much more needs to be said about how/who they influenced and what was said about them. Numerous examples of one sentence paragraphs followed by unrelated points - the article does not flow very well, in some areas it is very disjointed. Image:Axl Rose.jpg is the only image for which even a vague attempt to comply with Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page has been made (although it's weak). Every other image could possibly infringe copyright, and their use does not comply with Wikipedia policy. Image:NewGNR.jpg is tagged "unconfirmed" with a note saying it "may be deleted within a week". This is not acceptable, and especially not for a potential featured article. Rossrs 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. POV statements (specially the lead) and lack of references, as Bcrowell has pointed out. JoaoRicardo^talk 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object per Bcrowell; didn't the Siegenthaler incident teach us anything? --Andrew Levine 08:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obvously not; how else could an article asserting "Dinosaurs still exist today" be a successful FA candidate? (Fortunately, although it's already been noticed at one site highly critical of Wikipedia, it hasn't had much other attention.) Monicasdude 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object True sources lacking (Google some of the content!) Also sources cited quoted verbatim. --HasBeen 08:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. As much as I would like to see this article featured (I'm the proud owner of three albums and a sweater of this band), I cannot be in favour of the article as of now. First of all, where are the sources? Second of all; Image:Axl1992concert.jpg doesn't have a source or license, Image:NewGNR.jpg has an unacceptable copyright status and no source either and Image:Guns_N.jpg has no rationale for fair use. Please address the sources- and images- problems accordingly. Until then, I'm objecting. -- Soothing R 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]