Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive4 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AKMask (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 2 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:32, 2 April 2006 by AKMask (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

We Belong Together

The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this lengthy process. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak support: categories aren't in alphabetical order. (Also, I think that the sample should be in "Music and structure", and that there are too many chart positions in the infobox.) -- getcrunkjuice 16:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote -- getcrunkjuice 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look at several other featured articles on music-singles, many of the samples have its own individual section so that it is easier to locate. Yes, there are many charts, however, Misplaced Pages is here to summarize the facts and not exlcude any that are collected. Although I'm positive three charts had been removed from the list earlier this month. Thanks for your vote. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose While im glad to see the fair use images were cut down, my complaint about the chart graph from last nom remains. It's not exact, it clutters the page, and it is unneccesary. It adds a few kilobytes to the page that are unneeded, and handled better by the table to it's left. It's a simple fix. Drop the graph and I'll change to support. -M 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)