Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Genesis (band)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Genesis (band)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:13, 1 May 2007.

Genesis (band) edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Arejay and Biography. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is now one of my favourite bands, I am nominating their article for review per FA criterion 1c (a trifle for a newer FA, which was promoted last April). For starters, three statements have {{fact}} attached to them, hence conflicting with the proper requirements:

  • "However, Collins, in a Genesis history video, explains that the whole story is about a split personality." (referring to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway)
  • "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway strained relations between members of the group, particularly Banks and Gabriel."
  • "Phil Collins, whose backing vocals had featured previously in the Genesis sound of the Gabriel era, was given the job of coaching prospective replacements, including Jon Anderson of Yes."

I sense rightly it must be the only thing wrong with the page. If there are any other issues, feel free to tell me about them. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have addressed the concerns above here. However, I will go through the article again to eliminate weasel/peacock words and anything that seems to be an interpretation of Genesis' work rather than a statement of fact. AreJay 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the music samples are to long. Samples can't be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the song, whichever is shorter. (see: Wikipedia:Music samples)— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Footnotes are not formatted to a consistent (or any) biblio style, including publisher and last access dates; See also templates are used incorrectly at the ends of Sections; dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly throughout (pls see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have not read article yet, but a number of the sound files lack a fair use rationales. The most usual justification is that a file is used to "illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken"; little evidance of that here. Ceoil 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and various formatting issues (2). Marskell 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Fair use rationale added to sound files, although some exceed the typical 30 second cut off point. Have tidyied up the refs, however most are from 2nd hand reproductions of reviews/interviews, and a number of the links are dead. The copy needs extensive repair, which I may or may not get round to (really don't like Genesis). Ceoil 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have worked on the article, the copy editing needed was relatively light; think this is close to a keep. Ceoil 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is the number of ogg files. Ceoil 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — looks pretty good on the whole. — Deckiller 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't had time to read it, but I don't see any major problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, from a cursory look. Tony 08:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In "Phil Collins era: 1976–1996" there is a picture that should be replaced or removed.--Yannismarou 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—The writing needs a serious copy-edit before this is worthy of retaining the gold star. There are many WPians who could be enlisted to improve the writing throughout the article, not just these random examples from the lead and the first section.
    • Why are dictionary terms such as "album" and "hiatus" blued out? We do speak English. Ration linking to direct readers to the high-value links, please.
    • The opening sets up a chronological frame, yet the Grammy Award in the second sentence has no year attached.
    • En dash has a left space and no space on the right. Try em dashes without spaces (my preference, but the current format is unacceptable).
    • "The band's origin lies in the late 1960s, when founding members Peter Gabriel and Tony Banks were"—past or present tense? Choose.
    • "and layered string arrangements into the arrangements"—ungainly repetition.
    • "The album sold poorly, however, on advice from King,"—This is not the intended meaning; needs recasting.
    • "Genesis recruited a new drummer, John Mayhew, it is interesting to note that, during a show with the band Smile, Gabriel offered"—Please don't tell our readers what to note and what not to; the whole article should be interesting, too. The sentence is ungrammatical. Tony 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove until Tony's concerns are addressed. LuciferMorgan 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment about fair-use audio excerpts. I'm concerned about the number of fair-use audio excerpts in the article (17!). I find it hard to justify their educational function, given that there is no mention of musical and/or lyrical features of these excerpts in the surrounding text (they appear to be decorative). The info pages do not specify the durations, an important issue for fair use. The recording company, the catalogue number of the recording, and the names of personnel such as the producers are not mentioned on the info pages. I've posted a note about this nomination, and more generally about the lavish use of fair-use audio excerpts by some nominations at FAR and FAC, at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. Tony 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Although I am usually of the opinion that our inclusion of brief audio excerpts for contemporary musicians is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia:Fair use, seventeen is a remarkable number. Tony1 is absolutely right that detailed copyright holder information is a necessary criteria for uploading audio files here, and that they need to be a small excerpt from the work. Purely from an editorial standpoint, it just isn't clear to me what educational purpose seventeen different excerpts is serving when they lack accompanying descriptive text explaining to the reader why they should be listening to one excerpt instead of another. Jkelly 22:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can the length of all samples be added to their info page? This'll help to prove / disprove fair use slightly. LuciferMorgan 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep—prose issues need to be fixed before this review can be concluded. Apparently, the quick glance I had didn't notice the underlying issues. — Deckiller 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Have asked AreJay to trim the number of ogg files. I can look after ce issues; but it will probably be towards the middle of next week by the time I finish. Request a hold until then. Ceoil 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Extra time granted. Please inform when you have completed. Joelito (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Am not ignoring this, but its been a busy week in real life. AreJay has trimmed the oggs to an acceptable number. Ceoil 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's up here? This has turned into quite a long one. Marskell 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about half way through a copy edit. I'll finish on thursday night at the latest. Ceoil 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made progress on this, but unfortunately I under estimated the extent of the work needed. I'm still hopefull that it can be saved, and I appreciate the time allowed thus far, but two more days? Thanks. Ceoil 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Keep up the good work. Marskell 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relectantly, I suppose I'd say that 1a just passes, but there are opportunities for polishing it. Tony 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was in the middle of a final copy edit when Tony reviewed; I'm happy now that the article meets 1a. Ceoil 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've double-checked every major revision. Quite confident about the text at this point. –Unint 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep, I told Ceoil about some very minor cleanup needed in References (not Footnotes); I'm sure Ceoil will get to it quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources were too vaguely described to keep, or were dead links. However, the notes adequately cite the article's statements-imo-and I took them out. Ceoil 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, so I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Genesis_(band)/archive1&oldid=1078810778"