Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | The Greencards
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia on 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[1][reply]

The Greencards edit

I began this article back in August 2006 but unfortunately wasn't able to work on it again until recently. I've significantly expanded and rewritten it in the past few days, and wanted to put it up for a possible Featured Article. If it matters, almost all the development was here in my sandbox. Self-nom. rootology (T) 04:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Not every reference needs the publisher to be italicized—only the ones that are publications.
  • The prose is pretty good, so now, the main problem is comprehensiveness. Specifically, most, if not all, musician FAs have sections such as 'Musical influences', 'Style', 'Reception', etc. depending on the artist. There is no analysis of this musician, there is no reception, no analysis of their music, etc.

Gary King (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can adjust the italicizing. The analysis and reception of their music is interspersed throughout the text under each album section--it's all chronological, with the responses and analysis mixed in to the corresponding time period of each album, as the responses changed as their music did each album. For example,
"were said to bring a global sound to bluegrass and by drawing on influences such as Bob Dylan and The Beatles, were pushing the genre's boundaries,"[2] "Young's voice was noted for it's "dreamy, haunting quality," [3] "was seen as a deliberate move from the jam-style of their debut album Movin' On to instead focus on Americana-focused music,"[4] "was described as a "Pogues-like romp'",[5] "compared to Nickel Creek and Alison Krauss & Union Station's own musical work to expand bluegrass,"[6] and "traditional bluegrass core, with a worldly flavor."[7]
Is just the ones I picked up with a quick re-read (sourced to the section its found in). It seemed like a better idea to make it proper prose instead of a bunch of smaller little sections? rootology (T) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recently promoted musical artist article, with Musical style and Reception sections: The Wiggles. Please take a look. Gary King (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll start to break it up thus. I found an additional 10+ sources, which at a glance seemed solid, so it should grow further into that format. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done, in the form of The_Greencards#Musical style and The Greencards#Reception, with summaries of whats in the existing sections in the flowing prose, and I've also got another large batch of reviews and material to go through now, so it will expand a bit more beyond that. I've adjusted all the reference italicizing as well. rootology (T) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Many many many of the articles at the bottom have authors given, you should list those when known.
  • I'll retool all the citations to include more of the fields. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authors are all included where listed now. rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authors should be entered with parameters like ... | last = Payne-Hertz | first = Shirley | ... so they are listed last-name first (except with um... I don't know... Chinese names I guess) with the option to link to an article if | authorlink = is provided. Also anything that vaguely resembles of a newspaper should probably use the "cite news" format (I think all the parameters you have used are compatible with both templates, so relatively easy to fix and I will do it if I get bored enough but it's just something to remember if you are adding 17-odd more sources). — CharlotteWebb 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the refs should show the exact publication date of the source if the source is kind enough to provide it. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All set, all the references are formatted with all specific publication dates and that standard name format! rootology (T) 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 4 Greencards drawn to American roots music ... the publisher is Deseret News, not Desert News.
  • No worries, I've just spent enough time in Salt Lake City to have that jump at me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's Eamon McLoughlin, one of the three band members.[8] He's a reliable source about the band. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just remember the caveats about self-published sources, and their bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought about that... its pretty uncontroversial information, so self-published is fine there, for info about the band. rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its one of the larger radio shows for that niche genre of music (Bluegrass, and specifically the forms that this band plays, aren't big market--the fact this band got a Grammy and the press it is has is monstrous). It looks like a smaller site, but thats like comparing a smaller-town newspaper to CNN, if you're comparing this scale of the music industry to MTV News. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it looked like a radio show site, but wanted to double check my understanding, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a radio producer, on-air host, authority with 30 or so years of experience.[9][10][11] rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fairly well-known music magazine that is cited by a fairly wide array of other news sources.[12]. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankee. I'm not really a music person. Except classical. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another smaller online magazine, but dedicated to a smaller audience. Going through the coverage of them, and the reporting they've done, they're a reliable source, but they're no Country Music Television or Rolling Stone (but not everything needs to be to the A-list standard, or else we'd be cutting off all sorts of small press as valid sources). rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks... any other feedback? I'm going to go through based on all feedback mid week when I have time to clean up. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I didn't read the prose, and we're just waiting on the other bibliographical information! Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. Will you be planning on bringing more bluegrass/country articles to FAC? If so, I'll make sure to archive these sites so I don't necessarily question them again (although there are times when my brain cells don't fire and I forget to check.. so I make no promises to never ever question, just try to not question) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help and feedback, I meant to get to this tonight and tomorrow, but can't--gotta run out now and I got a bluegrass show tomorrow for The Paperboys, hopefully I may meet the band to get more info (they apparently have a stash of hard copies of lots of good sources)! And yeah, I want to get a bunch to FA. The Greencards, The Paperboys, and Bluegrass music itself are at the top of the list. :) rootology (T) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Songs should be in quotes, not italics. Albums should be in italics, not quotes. Some stuff is in italics and quotes. Also, the infobox needs to be filled out with label and associated acts. Finally, are you sure it's not Kim Richey who produced the albums? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll run through it Saturday--I'll have several hours then. Thanks! rootology (T) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, all set--I fixed the weird indenting/italicizing and you're right, it was Kim Richey, I got stuck on a typo and confirmed on the liner notes and other sources, and expanded out the associated acts. rootology (T) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've expanded the article still more, and I've got a large number of sources to pore through that I found via http://thegreencards.com/reviews.html#, which were not appearing for the most part from other searches I was doing. I will expand it even further this week from these. What else does this need immediately for fixing? rootology (T) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great, Joe. The only suggestion I do have is moving the album cover images into (newly created) articles about each album rather than using the "preemptive merge" format. I might be able to help with that tomorrow or the next day. A belated welcome back, by the way! — CharlotteWebb 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. :) I was thinking about the eventual forking... I've got yet another 17 sources to go through, I think, and once the album pages would be forked there would be more material for each in the existing sources already in place. How much would reasonably trimmed from this one, for those? I did forks back before but nothing on that scale. rootology (T) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the best approach would depend on what information can be gleaned from these yet-untapped sources. If they primarily focus on the albums, then the album articles will be expanded and the "recording history" section of the main article may need to be fine-tuned to more fairly summarize the content of the album articles. If they primarily focus on the band itself, the information would be added elsewhere in the main article and the album-specific information could be trimmed (to avoid exactly duplicating the album articles). Have to play it by ear I think. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image issue; those album covers are unnecessary fair use. There's no real justification to keep them in this article. No harm in creating a few album stubs to house them. :) giggy (:O) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already done yesterday, I just didn't have a chance to remove the FU images from the main article till just now (I updated all the FURs yesterday, about an hour (?) before you posted. :) See... [14][15][16] rootology (T) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, all looks good on image front then. giggy (:O) 07:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semantics issue: Apparently "progressive bluegrass" and "newgrass" refer to the same genre (one is a redirect to the other) so it would be best avoid implying a distinction between the two, unless of course there is one, in which case we should have a separate article. I'm sure you know more than me about this. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's messy, since the descriptions are interchangeably used in different sources for the Greencards, probably leaning a fair bit more over towards progressive. Someone redirected newgrass there since nothing else really fits it until someone (probably me :P) writes Newgrass as a separate article. It's honestly pretty accurate to describe the Greencards as they are based on the sourcing and interchanging language depending on who's speaking about them, since sources label them both ways, and to WP:OR it they do bounce back and forth from song to song I'd say. rootology (T) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on my reading list. :) rootology (T) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - image sourcing and copyright all looks good. Nice work. Kelly hi! 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Joe Ross' review of Viridian seems to have slipped into a crack. I can't find it on his site or in any of his archives [17], just an anchor link to a non-existing section. A site-wide google search [18] led me to the cached version [19] which contains the same broken link. — CharlotteWebb 16:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just nixed the Ross source and replaced it with sourcing to the CMT bio. What a weird disappearance, there. The new source is better though anyway. rootology (T) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are some problems with the prose:

  • ’’The trio had all been separately raised on a variety of American country and bluegrass musical talents’’ - raised on talents is non-idiomatic.
  • ’’ The Greencards were formed to raise funds by performing to record the original music the three had written.’’ This is messy, can this be better expressed in plain English?
  • ’’Found themselves’’ - this occurs a couple of times, and it sounds odd, as if it were by accident or after a heavy drinking session.
  • ’’ After meeting, they made the decision to emigrate to America for their music’’ – emigrate for their music is non-idiomatic.
  • ’’ Warner credited the frantic pace during their Austin formation for their cohesion as a group and for driving them to create more new original music.’’ - frantic pace of what?
  • ’’ Their music through the Weather and Water album had been called Celtic-influenced and bluegrass-flavored, but noted that the band had a distinctly American sound despite their overseas origins.’’ - I know this is followed by a citation, but who noted?
  • ’’ Luckily, their winning personality translates to this disc -- even with several melancholy, yet melodic, songs’’ – Should be an Emdash I think, and why the ‘’yet’’? Many melancholy songs are very melodic.
  • ’’ The Washington Post observed that The Greencards plays traditional American music’’ – should be Greencards play.
  • ’’ The Greencards relocated from Austin to Nashville, Tennessee to be closer to their label and production staff.’’ – I suggest ‘’closer to their production company and its staff.’’
  • ’’ During the 2005 summer tour, Kym Warner wanted to get the chance to pick Dylan's brain, but never had the chance.’’ - a nasty repetition of ‘’chance’’.
  • ’’ The Greencards had individually recorded their separate musical tracks in isolation booths’’ - tautology, ‘’musical tracks’’.

Lastly, because the Lead is not referenced, it suffers a little from weasle words. I enjoyed reading the article, it’s close to FA standard prose but some wrinkles need ironing. GrahamColmTalk 14:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (comprehensiveness concerns)
  • The reception section is a positive POV dump, everything in there could be incorporated chronologically into the article.
  • No music samples? They are essential to understanding the band's sound.
  • The musical style section is rather sparse (compare with Joy Division); for instance what does Progressive bluegrass even mean? "In particular, on their latest release, The Greencards evoked the sounds of progressive 1960s American folk rock.[30] However, in spite of this, it has been observed that The Greencards maintain a distinctively Americana sound."--what is that even supposed to mean? You pretty much have to describe all the major elements of their sound so that somebody who has not even heard their records has an idea. And try to do it without too many unexplained genre terms. Is there anything about general lyrical themes.
  • Early history and Recording history are very odd ways to study a band; why not just section it album-by-album (or similar) like any other band article? indopug (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pursuant to criterion 2b: I have to say I'm stymied by the system of headings, which doesn't seem granular enough. "Early history" and "Recording history" are entirely too broad. Check out some other musical group FAs (like Red Hot Chili Peppers) that break down the history by album. --Laser brain (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Greencards/archive1&oldid=1138473190"