Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Coheed and Cambria/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Coheed and Cambria edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Consensus is to delist - article needs a section on critical reception, some sources have 404ed and the article needs a copyedit. Malkinann (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fan site, not an article- much less GA edit

Bless your hearts C&C progrockers... but "Good writing" is balanced writing. At this point this long piece on an act with breakout sales has a single, consistent tone: an approval apparently hopeful of raising the act's profile (cf. the editorships' rush to GA) alongside the sort of endless detail which obsessed fans might collect. I imagine howls if the article were to be made anywhere comparable to a "real encyclopedia" and were immediately reduced by 50%. But less IS inevitably more readable.

The C&C "Talk page" confirms the adulation throughout the article's editorship. Perhaps that emotion extended to the GA reviewers...? If not then please explain to me- Where is the article's genuine criticism- fair or subjective? Where are critics of the band, the music's derivation vs. what might be a broad derivativness? Where is any question or consideration expressed of the act's commercial expansion, its exploitation of arts, its bold pretensions, or its vanities? Or- is this act mature enough to have attracted any actual criticism? And if indeed not then this too needs be admitted and considered for what it is.

To promote academic articles such as this one as 'good arts writing' in the abscence of any of the above indicates either partisanship or a peculiarly narrow concern with styles over substance. Though the article may be some model of the grammar niceties- of accuracy in its unending dates & modest sales figures- or of another of the more mechanical GA criteria-- In my view this article is rather a model of failure of the GA process, since it fails to offer anything of "balance" to what is essentially one generously unpaid promotion from fandom via the "Wikipedia service".

Lacking balance and objectivity in tone, the article can neither be said to be broad nor impartial. Thus I must suggest this aricle can not be said to be "well-written" at any useful depth. Looking at the evidence as a whole, the involved editorship and their article entirely lack consideration, much less expression, of any true neutrality.

Hilarleo (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there have been fact tags lurking on the article since last November and February - per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, this is usually considered a problem. I find the prose of the article difficult to understand in places - it seems like I have to read The Amory Wars in order to understand the Coheed and Cambria article properly. I'm also concerned about the fair use rationales of the non-free media items - the one for the logo seems sparse, and the music clips don't have fair use rationales for the band. Are two song samples really needed? Is there sourced critical commentary on how the songs are exemplary of the band's work? -Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've deleted one piece of unsourced information and sourced another, also attempted to clarify some of the information you tagged. I'll have a look at a prose later (although I was never very good at it) and see if I can remove some of the unnecessary text to make it more understandable. As for the image and media issues, I can have a look at them but I feel it might be best if they were just removed (especially the logo), but personally I'd like to try and find sources to keep at least one media sample. Rehevkor ✉ 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) You might like to re-read WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Music samples to give you some ideas as to how to improve the case for the fair use of the media. Usually, if the article text talks about the media's critical commentary - like "So-and-so said Jimi Hendrix's riff in this song was "ace" and showed his skill and "free spirit"(ref)" then you should be alright. -Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added quite a few sources to back up a lot of thr article (if there's anything I missed please tag them). I've removed one of the samples and replaced placed the remaining one in a quote box, I don't know if the quote will do but it seems the best way to keep at least one sample. For now I've kept the logo, if I can't find a couple of sources I'll just remove it. As for the lead, I've been struggling to really do it justice, would anyone else care to give it a jab? I'll see what I can do either way. Other wise I think it's getting there. Could do with a copy-edit though. Rehevkor ✉ 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up the fair use rationales for the logo and the media sample for the Coheed and Cambria article. When a non-free sample is used in different articles, it needs a clear and detailed rationale for each of its uses in different articles. Please also use the negative review a little more, rather than just using it to help define genre. -Malkinann (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article could benefit from a section on critical reception. It also needs copyediting. Note the runon and the sentence fragment in this example:
Coheed and Cambria were nominated for Best International Band and Best Music Video (for "Feathers") in the 2008 Kerrang! Awards, they won the nomination for best music video.[33] In October that year the band played an event called Neverender, a four night concert series with each album being played each night, that were held in New York and Chicago. With a third due in Los Angeles in November and a fourth in London in December.[34]
There's other shortcomings as well. The lead could be better developed as to be a fair encapsulation of the article. And the fair use rationale issue needs fixing. I think the article can eventually meet GA standards, but the best course of action may be to de-list, give editors time to improve it, and then renominate at GAN when ready. Majoreditor (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per all the improvments needed above. The short unimnformative lead caught my attention too.Yobmod (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I've done what little I can but I just don't have to time myself (between work and Fallout 3) to do it justice. The main proponents that pushed for the GA in the first place do not seem to be active. Rehevkor ✉ 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you feel as though the reassessment discussion has been helpful enough in establishing what needs to be done if people decide to take the article to GAC again? --Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough to be getting on with. Rehevkor ✉ 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Coheed_and_Cambria/1&oldid=1088719663"