Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rush (band)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Rush (band) edit

After a few months of preparation, including a bunch of work and a peer review, I think it's time to see Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the list of featured articles. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support/co-nom Strong Support I think this article will be 100 percent, once another reference or two is given to balance things out. Even then, that's just a bonus. Deckiller 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Could the external links under the references section be cited according to WP:CITE? Perhaps Template:Cite web might be useful here. AndyZ 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Self-nomination Strong Support. The article has responded to all of the suggestions contained in this FAC forum. I feel there is little more that needs to be done. Wisdom89 18:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object;this looks pretty good, but the history section is really long—31 kb. Create a subpage History of Rush (band), copy the section there, and then cut half the history out of this article. Move the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thing above the trivia/popular culture, and add some citations there. Incidentally, I'm not sure that the trivia and pop culture stuff is really necessary for this article, and I don't really like it being in a list... maybe a couple paragraphs mentioning the most important things would be in order? Citations are crucial in the reputation and musical style sections (think billboard magazine, rolling stone, arts reviewers in major newspapers, etc.) All complete dates need to be linked (I've done a few). Note that this does not include things like "xyz happened in August 2004" or "xyz happened in 2004", only "xyz happened on August 4, 2004". —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've created that article (the section still needs summarization) and added three cites to the style section. Still need to work on some more cites, and that pesky trivia section still needs work. The wikilinking of dates is a trivial thing that I'll probably do last if no one beats me to it. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section is much shorter now, and I simply removed the trivia and pop culture sections, which might merit a separate article but aren't really notable enough for the main one. I don't see any dates that need to be linked. The one thing remaining from your checklist seems to be those cites. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed the history section a bit more. Deckiller 16:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the Allmusic guide is a particularly good source. I'd prefer to see citations from music magazines and newspapers. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing on WP:RS that gives me reason to think AllMusicGuide is a very reliable source. Andrew Levine 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what bias or other inaccuracies can you identify that make AMG unreliable? Do you have original evidence, articles written by others claiming AMG is not a reliable source? Can you provide us with these? From what I've seen, AMG is fairly respected in the music field. Moreover, they're only used in a handful of references on the article. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to throw my two cents in on this one, AMG has some reputable and well-known experts on popular music, such as Stephen Thomas Erlewine and Blue Gene Tyranny, who offer some excellent criticism. I'd definitely consider it to be a reliable source. Alexthe5th 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AMG should stay, in my opinion. — Deckiller 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, huh? I was under the impression that consensus is what determines such issues. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rephrased my comments, I'm stressed out over vandal catching, so I might be a little snappy. Sorry for being a little punk, it won't happen again. If it does, I block myself for a day. — Deckiller 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, my childish incident aside, AMG does interest me in the fact that it has professional, well-written reviews, though it is also nice to use another review source just for diversity. In that sense, I recommend not removing AMG sources, but including others to balance them out more. — Deckiller 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reducing to weak object due to the addition of several print sources and overall diversification of the sources. I'll see what I can do about getting newspaper refs later, but for now, the referencing isn't too bad for a popular culture article. Other than that, it looks great. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the reputation section has a lot of "Rush were criticized for X, they were also praised for X; they were criticized for Y and also praised for Y" without any citation. Find some credible sources for these statements. I will read through the rest of the article later. Andrew Levine 17:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the history section has been curtailed sufficiently for now. I will work on citations for the reputation section abit later, or if someone wants to beat me to the punch that's fine. Those claims should be easily verified as they are quite common. Wisdom89 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations have been added to the reputation section Wisdom89 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of the censure evaporated as time wore on, and as the lyrics became increasingly more introspective, humanitarian, and thoughtful" ...? No citation there. Also, I'm sketchy about the amateur reviews posted on Amazon and AllMusicGuide. What about professional statements from well-known music magazines or record guides? There are no shortage of well-regarded publications related to rock music (or to prog-rock in particular). Andrew Levine 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When making statements or claims about the general public/fan's reactions to lyrics and the band's heavy usage of synthesizers, I feel that "amateur" critic analyses and reader opinions make complete sense as a reference... However, I agree that the comment you quoted needs a citation. Wisdom89 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe sporadically, but professional reviews are more reliable and authoratative. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AMG should stay. However, I think we do need to work on some of the claims. — Deckiller 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have confidence in every claim currently in the article. However, more "reputable" sources may need to be sought after in certain cases. Wisdom89 04:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the Rock and Roll hall of fame debate could be merged with the reception/criticism section. Deckiller 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Also, I believe the reputation section needs to be expanded. Wisdom89 03:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Am I the only one who thinks it's very bizarre that there is a separate article for the history of Rush, and yet the info on their history, on Rush's main page, is still extremely long? Support - All my problems with this article have been solved, I'm all for making it Featured. TheImpossibleMan 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length of the current history is just fine considering the band's active tenure spans well over 30 years. Just examine any other band/artist featured article and compare. Dream Theater and Iron Maiden for instance. Wisdom89 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?!??!?!? This very FAC page suggested that separate article! Egad, I just can't win. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The satellite article should stay, because MANY FAs have one. — Deckiller 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Summary style. Good articles often have links to more details. The history section is now around 18kb, which is a pretty significant improvement from 31kb, and the article isn't too far over the ~30kb guideline (it's at 41kb at the moment). A little shorter might be nice, but that 41kb also includes citations and a big table and other stuff. So, I'm not inclined to argue over this more. I've struck out the relevant parts of my objection, but I'm still objecting on the basis of the references. I see 6 AMG, 1 Amazon (even worse than AMG in my mind), 1 About.com, some fansites, some reputable websites, and 1 book reference. I'd probably be ok with a few wisely chosen AMG/fansite references, but for a band with 30+ years of performing and lots of fame, there should be plenty of print devoted to them too. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extensive and sourced article. Gflores Talk 20:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--This is a great article...we need more music-related FAs on Wikipedia. Osbus 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is very well written, very informative, contains appropriate pictures and captions, and is well referenced. --NEMT 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article, very informative, well referenced, good layout, relevant pictures and usefull supporting tables --KaptKos 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, good balance in reference material, very informative. A great article! Anger22 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Support. A very well-written and referenced article, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the only audio samples available being from an outside source. Get some fair-use OGG audio samples directly into the Wikipedia and added to the article, preferably integrating them directly into the main text (using the appropriate {{audio}} and {{listen}} or {{multi-listen}} templates) instead of just providing a selection at the end, and you'll have my support. - dharmabum 08:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll fire up Audacity and get right on that. Probably will have it done sometime tonight. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now done. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not a fan of popular music FAs in general, but Rush has always been extremely influential among young musicians, and the article is goodness. JeffBurdges 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object As I already pointed out in the article's peer review, all images lack fair use rationales, and most of them are uploaded too large to qualify as fair use. The audio samples should be better incorporated into the article and the sections Videos and Audio samples at the end should be removed or merged into External links. Also, the labels in the discography table are overlinked and(done) "years in x" links should not be piped. I also think the History section should be the first after the lead. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are opinion-based, except for the fair-use issue. — Deckiller 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Perhaps the reputation section can be moved to follow the history, but band members and music style will remain where they are as they are logically placed Wisdom89 19:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Raul promotes this article, he'll only look for objections that address points that go against the criteria, not user opinions. The fair use is the only issue remaining from this objection. — Deckiller 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The objections seem to be style-based, but they're not objections that relate specifically to the MoS. Thus, opinion. Hell, I prefer the way the song samples are linked...one song per "era". Fritz, if you want to try your hand at improving what you suggested, go ahead...but I think it looks fine now. As for the fair use images, I asked the dude who owns the copyright to one of those photos to release it to the GFDL, and I'm still awaiting a response. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't really mind the order. However, according to the fair use tag for audio clips "The sample is being used for commentary on the music recording in question" which is clearly not the case here (the songs aren't even mentioned in two of the sections). And they all lack fair use rationales. Also, the guide for piped links can be found at WP:PIPE. Plus I don't see any reason to keep the Videos and Audio samples section outside of External links.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary is really that I was trying to provide an example of a song from each "era." Thus, the commentary is the entire section. As for the fair use rationale, it's that I'm using it in an encyclopedia article about the artist, duh. :-P —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there needs to be a detailed fair use rationale on the image discription page, even for audio. (See Fair use rationale) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some minor fair use rational to all images, please add to, but am confused as to what to to bout audio, User talk:Fritz Saalfeld, as you highlight your contrib to New Radicals to FA on your user page, yet audio clips on that page have no fair use rational which you insist for this article. How do we square this circle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos (talk • contribs) .
That's a little off topic here, but thanks for letting me know, I'll fix that. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rush_(band)&oldid=1138470388"