Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petra (band)/archive1

Petra (band)

self nomination

Ok, I'm re-submitting this article to be a "Featured Article". Again, even though it's my favorite band, it was also one of the most important bands in Christian rock from their beginnings (1972) up to their retirement (2005), which IMO, makes it a relevant article. The band:

has been nominated (and won) several Grammys (10 nominations and 4 wins).
has been a constant seller until their retirement reaching Gold with two of their albums.
had a long, prolific career of 33 years, which is much more than lots of bands nowadays (secular or Christian).

I went over everything people objected in the past nomination of the article:

put the discography in a separate page
added sections about critical reception, musical style, influence, etc.
Lots of people objected before saying there were few references, but if you check them you can see that the ones posted cover basically everything that's being said in the article.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Thief12 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- congrats for submitting an FAC, however I suggest you still have work to do. Generally speaking my complaints are 1) the tone and 2) the depth of the article. Re: tone, I mean to say that the article reads too much written like a fan -- for instance, find two "amazing"s in the first one or two paragraphs of the article. Or Unfortunately, it turned out to be their final album or also Petra released what is considered their heaviest album to date. Adjectives tend not to be a good idea in an encyclopedia article, unless they're obvious. (NG: also, you repeat the latter adjective in the sentence ...the band's last studio album, Jekyll & Hyde, which is considered by many their heaviest)

The second point is that your article doesn't have very much depth. What you've done is you've reconstructed this band's history from several sources (good) but the rest is lacking. Take your "critical reception" part: you have no critical sentiment to speak of, and your only citation is not for an opinion. How were these guys received? Find some articles in the press or reviews or something that lets one know how their career progressed, but from the prespective outside the group.

Does my feedback help out at all or would you like me to expand some more? Pablosecca 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object article needs work

Alot of the refs come from fansites, which are not reliable sources, while some sections like Critical Reception is completely unsourced
Not good prose, Lots of one and two sentences paragraphs, needs a strong copyedit, lots of fanish and weasel words and a few grammar errors around,
Remove or merge the trivia section somewhere
Images need fair use rationales
Should have an small 20-30 second music sample like most music FAs

Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, though I have to disagree with your blanket statement about fan sites being unreliable sources. Some fan sites (including mine) have done in-depth, on-the-record interviews with key band members. I don't know how you can have a better source than the band's founder himself or the lead singer, for example. Kirkman 18:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on tightening up the writing. Once we address the issues outlined here, maybe we can give it another shot. Wordbuilder 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]