| Revision as of 15:58, 2 December 2014 editRationalobserver (talk | contribs)11,997 edits →Comments from Spike Wilbury: oppose; per Spike Wilbury← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:26, 2 December 2014 edit undoTeflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers140,333 edits →Comments from Spike WilburyNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| * '''Oppose''' per Spike Wilbury. Since Ian Rose on October 26, Dan56 to clear the article of close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and peacockery. In fact, , and none of them address the bevy of concerns identified during . I also share Spike's concerns that Dan56 has notified three editors: , , , in an apparent attempt to ] here in favor of promotion. ] (]) 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | * '''Oppose''' per Spike Wilbury. Since Ian Rose on October 26, Dan56 to clear the article of close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and peacockery. In fact, , and none of them address the bevy of concerns identified during . I also share Spike's concerns that Dan56 has notified three editors: , , , in an apparent attempt to ] here in favor of promotion. ] (]) 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| : {{u|Spike Wilbury}}, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM (), , ). {{u|Snuggums}} was ultimately "neutral", while {{u|Tezero}} gave a "tentative support", and {{u|Ian Rose}} concluded they wasn't enough to determine a consensus. The burden is not on me to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences. The same reviewers would lead to the same conclusion, which was no consensus--I invited different reviewers--you have a problem with that? ] (]) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:26, 2 December 2014
Xx (album)
Xx (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive2
- Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus. Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Spike Wilbury
Object as in the previous nomination. I find it a bit curious that this was opened when little was done during the first nomination to address objections (other than negating them) and nothing of substance has been done to the article since the last nomination closed. It closed with three open objections, 2 of which directly reference plagiarism concerns. I also find it troubling that you notified three editors of this nomination, but failed to notify any of the editors who opposed the last one. I can't help but to feel you are trying to sneak it under the radar. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Spike Wilbury. Since Ian Rose closed the last nom on October 26, Dan56 has made no effort to clear the article of close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and peacockery. In fact, only 4 edits have been made to the article in that time, and none of them address the bevy of concerns identified during the last FAC. I also share Spike's concerns that Dan56 has notified three editors: , , , in an apparent attempt to skew the consensus here in favor of promotion. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Spike Wilbury, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM (), , ). Snuggums was ultimately "neutral", while Tezero gave a "tentative support", and Ian Rose concluded they wasn't enough to determine a consensus. The burden is not on me to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences. The same reviewers would lead to the same conclusion, which was no consensus--I invited different reviewers--you have a problem with that? Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)