Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One Direction/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14:44 18 May 2025 article candidates/One Direction/archive2&diff=1291012478&oldid=1291012478 FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

One Direction

Nominator(s): jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English-Irish boy band One Direction. Formed in 2010 on The X Factor, the band grew to be one of the most successful musical acts of all time before their indefinite hiatus in 2016. I believe this article is FA quality. It is well researched, having consistent citation style and inline citations, with appropriate, reliable sources. They are several academic sources included as well. The article is well illustrated by images with the appropriate licensing. It is neutral and stable. As a defining band of the 2010s, contributing extensively to the popular culture, I hope to bring the page to FA by the band's 15th anniversary in July of this year. jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Avoid duplicating captions in alt text
Some images are missing alt text
Captions need editing for grammar
File:What_Makes_You_Beautiful.ogg is missing a fair-use rationale
File:One_Direction_2012_Stockholm.jpg is quite blurry
File:One_Direction_figures_at_Madame_Tussauds_London_(33783672342).jpg: what is the copyright status of the figures? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done
Done
Done
Does it not have one? I can see one at the file's page.
Ah... this image is up for debate as to whether it should be included in the page. Some people think it should be included, some don't. I personally think not since it doesn't illustrate much and isn't noteworthy by any means. See article talk page and this for more info. I removed it again since there has been a lack of discussion on the issue.
Good catch - on further research, I think the figures may be possible copyright violations so am removing it for now, swapping with another image.

jolielover♥talk 04:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fair-use rationale is needed for every article in which a piece of non-free content appears. It has a rationale for a different article, but not this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the rationale, is it fine? jolielover♥talk 07:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the figures are not copyright violations per c:COM:FOP, so are added back. jolielover♥talk 08:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why that would be the case? These aren't permanent displays, to my understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, multiple discussions on commons have expressed the sentiment that Madame Tussaud's figures are allowed. See: 1, 2, 3, 4. The discussions express than Freedom of Panorama applies to the sculptures. Wax figures count as permanent displays. jolielover♥talk 04:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, they can be - but it appears in this particular case they are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it doesn't apply in this case, when all the discussions previously establish they do. Technically, nothing can be considered permanent. Displays in museums are shifted around frequently. However, FoP considers such sculptures permanent. If you find an issue with it, feel free to start a discussion on Commons, because as of now, there appears to not be an issue with the image. jolielover♥talk 05:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the discussions - see for example this one or this one. In this particular case, it appears that the display was limited and has now been decommissioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the links say it doesn't exist, did you put the wrong ones? jolielover♥talk 06:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the links work now, those deletion requests are from 2011, predating c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom as they were written in 2012 (this is addressed in the first discussion I linked, expressing that Madame Tussauds figures are allowed). From c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wax figures in the Madame Tussauds London, here is examples of what permanently means: if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indeﬁnite, period of time". So if the viewer should not realize it is for a limited time it is permanently (limited time can be ice sculptures, sand castles and graffiti which is expected to be painted over sooner or later). So with that argument I would also think that it is permanently unless it is clearly stated that is it only for a limited time. jolielover♥talk 03:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have stalled, so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the main issue with this contribution is that it is obviously written by a fan, or at least reads like it was. It's full of flattering statements. Take the Lead for example where the reader is told twice that the lads became one of the best-selling boy bands of all time. It also assumes the reader has knowledge of the format of the show, for example the casual mention of the judges' houses, without an explanation. I also noticed some glitches in the prose, e.g. "The video revealed Horan being chosen as the band's first member", which should be "Horan's being" because here "being" is a gerund (or should be). I cannot see this candidate garnering much support as it stands. Graham Beards (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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