Rush (band) edit
I think that Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is very close to FA status, and I'd like some extra eyes on it as that goal is approached. Citations have been...well, cited as one thing that may hold it back, and, in my opinion, that's all it really needs. I think this article needs some feedback from the rest of the community as a whole now. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A few things:
- Footnotes and references are needed.
- There are some POV sections, such as the meanings of songs without sources, styles of play, and so on. That needs to be worked on.
- History needs to be trimmed slightly.
Deckiller 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said earlier, I've worked extensively on this article in the past, and I'm willing to continue working on it (references, trimming, etc.). I should have some free Wiki time today. Deckiller 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Just from a quick glance: The complete lack of references is definately the article's biggest problem. Another problem are the images: They all lack fair use rationales, and most of them are uploaded too large to qualify as fair use. The discography also seems to make unnecessary use of fair use images (the album covers). Also, years and month are overlinked: Both should generally not be linked, unless part of a complete date (e.g. February 24 2006), see date formatting. And the RIAA certifications under Awards seem to just repeat what was already listed in the discography. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- 1989 To Present needs a sort out, it's way too long (split it down into smaller year groups if need be, or create a separate section about Neils troubles and other noteable incidents, maybe). Needs references. Compare with the featured Iron Maiden. I want this featured, problems should be easily fixed. Still prefer Steve Harris on bass, but y'know ;) --PopUpPirate 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Footnotes will be key, IMO. I keep saying it, and I will say it again; I'll try and get working on it ASAP :) Deckiller 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Some problems:
- Lack of inline citatations, as mentioned above, which means that there are many unsupported claims, most of them reasonable, some doubtful.
- Reads at time as a fan page, not an encyclopedia article, e.g. "It also showcases the instrumental talents of all three band members with aplomb." I say this as a Rush fan since the late '70s.
- The article is too long and this leads to reader fatigue. The problem is too much detail on the individual albums. General readers will only need three or four sentences on each album at most; they can click on the articles for the individual albums if they want more. Editors here have done a nice job dividing the band's career into periods, but tighten those sections, and move extra details to the album articles.
- Tighten wording elsewhere too. For example, we don't need to be told Geddy's and Alex's real names in the first sentence, and then again in the early history of the band. The second mention is all you need.
- Overlinking of common words here and there (e.g. "book" and "daughter") and then no linking at all for something like "September 11th", meant to indicate the terrorist attacks. That's just sloppy editing, a common problem when an article is too long and one person rarely reads the whole thing in a single pass.
- No mention of why people who don't like Rush typically give as a reason: they don't like Geddy's high-pitched vocals. I've heard that one many, many times, and so it might be worth a mention if it can be documented. Also mention that New World Man was the first song that Geddy sang which didn't make dogs howl. ;-)
- Also mention, perhaps, that Rush was (still is?) perceived as a band for geek-types. Rush was never really a band that the "cool kids" listened to, and was never very fashionable with the critics either. (The album title Permanent Waves was a swipe at this perception: the "cool" people were into "New Wave music" back then, but Rush were asserting a claim to something less faddish and more "permanent".) Is there any documentable writing on this aspect?
--Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have begun to work on the above observations/suggestions Wisdom89 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)