Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Reputation/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

The Reputation

edit

I believe this article meets the featured criteria, and would like to give it a shot. My rationale:

  1. The article is very comprehensive and factually accurate, relying on many, many sources. Some concern over the prose was lodged during its good article review, but some adjustments and changes have helped the flow, and I'll gladly make adjustments if necessary. The article also has no apparent neutrality issues, and is very stable.
  2. The manual of style is followed. The bottom area with the discography, features, and member roll call is consistent with other band articles as a easy reference tool. The lead is concise and the proper length relative to the size of the article, and the table of contents is sensible.
  3. Currently one fair use image, and my plan is to get a free image to replace this the next time they come to my area for a tour. The current image has no copyright issues, and I am not currently aware of a free GFDL alternative at the moment.
  4. The size of the article is concurrent with the information available and the stature of the subject.

I'm ready for it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems rather short. That's not really a criticism; I can't evaluate how much WP:V material there is out there that should make it into an encyclopedic summary. It does make it somewhat difficult to evaluate. I'm tempted, for instance, to remark that the WP:LEAD is too short, but I'm not certain that it is for this article length. Is there a reason why the "Members" section is just a list, and not paragraphs of prose (see, for instance, The Waterboys)? Do we not know anything about these people? Jkelly 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a list because there's absolutely nothing "verifiable" I can say about them that isn't already in the upper area, outside of the lead singer who has her own article. I can turn it into a paragraph - or outright remove it, as the information is in the paragraphs above as well as the infobox - if that's a sticking point, but, for the purposes of how we verify here, I can't do much to expand on the former bands at this point. I would like to, but it's simply not possible at this point. I thought about changing it, but I looked at Dream Theater, Marilyn Manson, Genesis, and Duran Duran and realized that there really wasn't any consistent way it was done, so I figured I'd leave it and change it if anyone had any issues with it.
    • Meanwhile, yes, it's short. Honestly, it's as long as I think it can get at present time given what's available for use. I checked up on some other FA's regarding length (Hurricane Irene, and, although somewhat controversial, Jigglypuff and Spoo), and felt that the length wasn't poor in contrast to the subject matter. I've bulked it up considerably over the last few months for flow in order to bring it to this status, I can't imagine going much further without making it look bloated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see why articles must have a gargantuan length to be an FA- this article is comprehensive and referenced, which is enough, content-wise. Borisblue 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object. It's a decent enough article but is it really one of Wikipedia's best? I don't think so. The prose isn't brilliant ("tiny regional tours"? tiny??, "Elmore ended up requesting a leave of absence", "The Reputation have cycled through a number of members in their 4 year existence"). It has multiple red links. 15 references isn't much for a band's entire career, and that might explain why the article is very short. There's absolutely no mention of why this band might be considered important or notable. There's no audio samples and the article doesn't even tell us what they sound like! (indie rock covers a multitude of sins, after all). Sorry but this is way way short of being one of Wikipedia's best. I'd think twice before even giving it a GA. --kingboyk 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps surprisingly, the amount of references available for an indie rock band of their stature is actually pretty comprehensive. I've been following this band closely since their formation, there's a limited amount of useful references (useful being defined as "having something new and different to provide information with.") I can certainly try to clean up the prose a little more if you need me to, and audio samples won't be too hard to pull together (i've never really liked them, but if it's a dealbreaker...). My only real qualm with your thoughts here involve the redlinks, which I don't consider bad things and would not change, but certainly some of these can easily be dealt with, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When The KLF underwent FAC (or some other process, I forget which) the redlinks were questioned, with the logic apparently being that new users can't create articles. So, we created stubs for the useful red links and (presumably, my memory is terrible) removed the others. It's worth doing - one of the links we filled in, Oberheim OB-8, is a decent enough little stub now :) --kingboyk 10:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, for some of 'em, I can certainly do that (I won't be able to do it until Sunday, though). I think some of them are indeed useful, just not really in a position to be articles that would survive some of our processes at this very moment given what I have at my disposal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite a few of the references are to the printed media, with no URLs provided, but they say "date unknown". If you didn't get from the web, and you don't know what date they were published, where did they come from? How can they be verified? --kingboyk 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any way of currently verifying exactly when a few of them were done, but they did get printed. I figured "date unknown" was more honest than just providing an incomplete citation or a link to what could be considered unreliable to some. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But where did you get them from? A fan site? Sleeve notes? Clippings you kept but you didn't keep a note of the date? --kingboyk 11:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're reprinted on the band's website as it stands now. Somewhat interestingly, I had compiled a number of them and sent them off to the band on request, and apparently either I forgot to include dates, or the datesweren't transcribed. Many of them (for instance, the Christgau ones) I originally pulled from the main site and as able to find the actual publication dates later. Other archives, not so lucky. Without LexisNexus access or anything similar, I don't know what else to do at current. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - 1a. Full of redundancies and vague/unexplained wording. Here are random examples.
    • "the band is currently working on writing and recording their third full-length." That's how the lead ends. Full-length what? "Working on" is redundant.
    • "This group of musicians would tour as The Elizabeth Elmore 4, and they completed a short, not-too-serious East Coast tour." "They" is redundant. What on earth does "not-too-serious" mean in this context?
    • "The group continued to record some demos and complete smaller regional tours under Elmore's name, and, learning that Hulet and Root matched up with her well musically,...". Continued to do that? But you haven't previously mentioned that they were recording demos etc. "Some" is redundant. What does "matched up" mean, exactly? All a bit impenitrable. Tony 08:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I was thinking about the "brilliant prose" issue relating to this article and I think the basic problem is that (forgive my frankness but I think it will be of benefit) it's really quite boring at the moment. Unless I already know about the band there's nothing but nothing to stimulate my interest. Why are they important, what do they sound like, what influence have they had, what's happened to them good and bad. At the moment the article is basically "they're a band from Chicago, the members names are x, x and x, they went on tour, made an album" etc etc. Something of a yawnfest, sorry. I don't feel any of the rock and roll excitement reading this that I feel when I read an FA on a musician or a great piece in NME or Rolling Stone. --kingboyk 09:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
  • Article is way too short to be considered comprehensive. No discussion of musical style, songwriting, lyrical content, recording techniques, etc., etc. The entire history of the band is consists of two paragraphs; the entire discography consists of five (of which half are quotations from reviewers); and the entire tour history consists of five sentences.
    • If you can give me an idea of how to do so without venturing into OR territory, I'll be glad to fix this.
  • Article is not well-illustrated, and the sole image used lacks a fair use rationale.
    • I wasn't aware the image lacked a rationale. As for "well-illustrated," I'm currently lacking in free images to do so. Not sure what else to look for here.
  • Several instances of clumsy writing as mentioned by others above.

--keepsleeping slack off! 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Reputation/archive1&oldid=1138473444"