Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grunge/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: OnBeyondZebrax, WikiProject Music, WP Alternative music, diff
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because the quotes disrupt nice flow of prose, inconsistent referencing (including bare urls), and lacking page numbers, as laid out by RetiredDuke. I really hope that this important article is saved :). Not notifying editor without edits after 2013. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from RD
Oh God, I was hoping this wouldn't come here, but seems like nobody picked it up. I think that the article has become bloated due to the number of quotes, particularly on the "Clothing and fashion", "Alcohol and drugs" and "Legacy" sections. Just as an example, House stated that there was "... no more (heroin) here [in Seattle] than anyplace else"; he stated that the "heroin is not a big part of the [Seattle music] culture", and that "marijuana and alcohol ... are far more prevalent"
- 3 quotes in a single sentence, and most of it can be paraphrased since it's nothing groundbreaking anyway. I think this article needs a significant trim by someone knowledgeable, but I'd like to hear other opinions. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HumanxAnthro
So many blatant issues, including those mentioned above.
- Original FA nomination was from 2007, so it's another article promoted to FA when standards were far lower and there was much less access to print sources on the subject.
- The 2007 FA nominator has not been active since 2012, only having one edit in 2013.
- The lead is missing summary of some key factors of this genre, particularly the clothing and fashion and use of alcohol and drugs associated with it as while as the overwhelming involvement of women, unusual in comparison to other rock genres.
- The History section needs to be split into its own article, and there needs to be more subsections within History to divide already insanely-long subsections
- "Grunge appeared as a trend again in 2008, and for Fall/Winter 2013,"
- (1) Citation for grunge being a fashion trend in 2008? Found it nowhere in any of the citations in this subsection?
- (2) Why are we so extensively talking about fashion collections Courtney Love encountered?
- "With Courtney Love as his muse for the collection, she reportedly loved the collection." Repetitive prose.
- Why is "bass guitar" section just a few disparate instances of how bass was incorporated? There doesn't seem to be a consistent grunge-style bass here, which doesn't justify the section.
- Why aren't the album names of the Neil Young img caption italicized?
- Several citations are incorrectly formatted and incomplete.
- Bare URLs are unacceptable even for good articles.
- Inconsistent cite formatting, as some book cites are fully presented in the footnotes are others are cited the Harvard way where you only give the last name and page number and have to go to a separate "works cited" list to see the full source.
- Our first cite (which is for one of the genre origins of Grunge) cites an autobio that isn't mainly about grunge. Shouldn't we have professional music journalists' pieces primarily about Grunge cite origins?
- Ref 21. Incomplete citation, and are we sure WatchMojo owns the TV interview cited? If not, we have a mighty WP:COPYLINK problem on our hands.
- Ref 110 is a WP:COPYLINK-violating Dailymotion source.
- Ref 140 is a Blogspot source.
- Ref 178. (1) AllMusic is not a work. (2) I don't think that's how you format titles of AllMusic source
- So many more cite formatting problems I could bring up, but I'd say to look at it yourself. You'll find more of them in a flash.
This is in severe need of cleanup. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, no engagement, no improvement. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - Not much happening, much needs to happen. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC Lots of work needed to be FA quality. Unfortuantely there's been limited engagement. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include citations, organization and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Significant issues, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unsourced paragraphs, including words to watch such as 'typical', 'preferred', 'polished', 'unique', 'key figure', 'most successful', and 'notable'. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, uncited text, bare URLs, poor sources, inconsistent citations, and the article does not adequately use summary style to avoid excessive detail and length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I warned the editors who frequent this article over two years ago that an FA review was long overdue. Uncited text, un-WP:RELIABLE sources, dubious sources, media articles reporting rumours - rumours have no place in an FA - and use of sourcing to direct readers to a WP:POV without discussion of other points of view. The style and instruments used by a few bands have been generalised to represent the entire genre, which they do not. William Harris (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.