Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hip hop music

Hip hop music edit

Article is no longer a featured article.

Doesn't fit Wikipedia:What is a featured article-- its not neat, for one, and repeats with history of hip hop music. It doesn't cover the topic in its entirety; theres not even a section or even summary on the subject of rapping, which to most people in the world is the defining characteristic of the music. It repeats itself many times, both in the information it gives and in the words it uses to deliver it. I nominate it to be removed from FA and cleaned up, and peer reviewed again before being nominated again for FA.--Urthogie 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree that is is not worthy of featured status at this point. However, I think removing it would violate one of the guidelines for featured article removal:

Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either listing is likely to be summarily removed.

The article has not changed significantly since its featured version (see diff). Only 193 edits have been made, many of which are minor or reversions. I don't think it should have become featured in the first place (see [1] for how it did), but now that it is featured, it apparently has to stay that way for now.

Remove - the article definitely needs work. Most prominent to me is the huge overlap with history of hip hop music; the meat of the article right now is completely repetitive. I would approve of listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review (if having a featured article there is kosher), and also maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Music_Articles_that_need_attention. thejabberwock 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan is sadly misinformed as to the history of this article - it was featured in December 2004, and speedy keeping this article under the time clause simply cannot happen. Additionally, there have been far more than 193 edits since its promotion - too many to bother counting. The real difference between featured and current version is here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. I assumed that the box on the talk page that states "Hip hop music appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 25 January 2005" meant that it had just become a featured article in January 2005. I change my vote. thejabberwock 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom. In addition, another problem is the lack of inline citations. I think you misread the rule- 193 edits is plenty (plus its not the number of edits that matters anyway). I consider December 2004 as plenty a time ago, and it hasn't been recently nominated for removal or been recently FACed, as the rule you pulled out. The point of this page is to remove featured articles that no longer conform to standards. AndyZ 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. The article is filled with too much unnecessary history and trivia that could be moved to other pages. The main focus of the article should be the distinction the genre has from other genres of music. I have no idea how it even became featured in the first place. --Mod 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who originally nominated it and got it featured in the first place. I'd like to point out that it was pretty much in line with featured articles at the time, and has gone downhill in several ways since. I have no doubt it would fail FAC now, if for no other reason than the lack of inline citations. My understanding of FARC, however, is that it generally takes a lot to be removed, and I'm not sure this qualifies. I'm not voting either way at this time, though, because I hope to make some significant changes to improve it. If anybody has any specific suggestions, please note them -- I think the most important thing is to make it clear that this is an article on hip hop music with a summary of the history of hip hop music. History sections in genres tend to become bloated because some people feel they need to contain every minor permutation and development, so that needs to be majorly trimmed and the sections on not-history need to be expanded, especially "Characteristics". (don't take this as a guarantee that I'll be working on it, since my schedule in the next week or two may be changing rapidly -- if featured status is removed, I'll be working on it soon, so specific concerns to fix would be a big help, even if they're not addressed swiftly). Tuf-Kat 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone outtright object its temporary removal from FA?--Urthogie 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - The article has many problems: the History section overlaps the article, no inline citation, very little information about music characteristics, variations and subgenres, little information on rapping/MCing, little or no figures and numbers (sales, impact), plus like I've suggested in the talk page there should be discussion on which samples would be "encyclopedic" and really useful for the article. These one were arbitrarely chosen. CG 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, history section is too long, too little information, needs cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
remove article has devolved Zzzzz 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]