Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Athens, Georgia/archive1

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 14:46, 15 March 2008.

---

Music of Athens, Georgia

Review commentary

Notified User:TUF-KAT, Wikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national music, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).

Doesn't satisfy 1a: This article is in need of copyediting. Also, 1c is not satisfied: there are several unsourced statements. I question 1d neutrality as well. 2a: lead is not concise. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some edits, fixing a few things, partially reverting a chunk of it to the version originally featured. There's still some things to do (e.g. update referencing to use the citation templates), which I'll get to in the next couple days. I may also be able to expand the article a bit. What specifically do you not like about the lead? At two rather brief paragraphs, it's definitely concise. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't really thinking when I wrote that last part. (Hey, it was pretty late when I wrote that, and I was tired!) The section marked still needs some copyediting, though. The previous section also has some formatting issues. If those are finished, then I'll support it being an FA. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some major copyediting on that section, and have boldly removed the "needs editing" template - feel free to reinstate it if you still aren't satisfied, I just like to get those sorts of things off featured articles unless someone actively wants them there. I've made various changes to the section before that, not sure if that fixes the formatting issues you mention or not. I've started fixing up the references to modern wiki standard, but I've gotta go now, so I'll finish up later. There's at least two dead links which I'll fix one way or another. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the references and all other issues I'm aware of. I'll do another copyedit tomorrow to see if there's anything else I missed, but I think it looks good. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question Under the Fair Use criteria is it okay to have as many as eight music samples in one article?--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, the number in a single article doesn't really matter. If each sample were documenting the same thing (e.g. if they were all from B-52s songs) that might weaken the claim, because you couldn't say that each recording was uniquely irreplaceable. But these aren't all documenting the same thing, they're presenting a variety of different components of the subject. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Several issues:

• My main gripe with the lead currently is the fact it focuses on what people say about the city's music scene, rather than efficiently summarising its venues and major styles.
• The samples also need more explanation, and a wider range of music (or splitting the huge box) would be better.
• Prose, organisation and flow issues; one para in the Rock section starts with the B52's formation and ends with R.E.M.'s musical style. Let me know if you need some examples. CloudNine (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), neutrality (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any outstanding concerns over citations or neutrality, and I'll take a look at the other stuff this week. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made a stab at the lead. It still talks about what people have said about the city's music, but not as much and less prominently. I'll work over the prose issues momentarily. Please let me know if there are any further issues. Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll try to look this over tomorrow, Tuf-Kat. Good work, as ever. Marskell (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I did a bit more major surgery, including a little bit of expansion (nothing major, just a few facts here and there). Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything else looks good, but the prose is a bit rough going. Since I'm not a prose guru, I can't put a finger on it, but some of the sentences were hard to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll give it another go-through tonight or tomorrow. The changes you made look good. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.