Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Heavy metal music/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Heavy metal music

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Metal, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Music, Music genres task force, Sergecross73, Ceoil, Piotr Jr., Aza24, Ihcoyc, OnBeyondZebrax, ‎Madreterra, talk page notification 2021-12-04

Review section

[edit]

The issues about the "Women in heavy metal" section were initially raised in April 2021. To this date, the section has been still tagged for undue weight and insufficient worldwide representation. Furthermore, some more statements are tagged with "better source needed" and "citation needed". Also, four non-free audio samples remain, yet I wonder whether they comply with WP:NFCC. This isn't an FARC yet; rather this Featured Article still needs further attention and improvements. George Ho (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: - why were no individual users notified about this? The original FAC nominator (User:Ihcoyc) from 2003 has still edited some over the last few months, User:OnBeyondZebrax is a significant contributor and is still active, as is User:Madreterra; User:Ceoil appears in the top 10 in authorship, is still active, and is quite good with music articles. Hog Farm Talk 06:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna notify users until you pinged. Also, I was in a rush when I was creating this review. Well... the users have been notified. George Ho (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: @George Ho: I do not see the required talk page notification two to three weeks before nominating. Where is that? Absent that, this FAR is out of process and should be placed on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "‘Women in Metal’ section balance issues" section made months ago? Isn't that enough? If we put this on hold, how else do I complete the process besides awaiting two to three weeks? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a WP:FARGIVEN. As Ceoil is the editor most likely to take an interest in this article, maybe we should hear from him before placing on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I think the article suffers from a lot of the issues that FAs from prior decades have - the standards have gotten higher, and I think this one no longer meets the modern standards. I also don't want this entirely tagged on the "Women in metal" entirely. As someone who's watched over (but mostly not written) the article, it's been subject to countless sexist efforts to scrub women from the article. It's wrong for it to be entirely pegged on those sections. In general, the article struggles with completely documenting more modern happenings from 2010 to the present. Which makes sense - I can testify, as someone who's been watching over it for many years - there aren't any experienced writers consistently adding to the article. It's fallen out of date. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sergecross73 is bang on the money wrt the page; thats exactly what's happened. I'd be happy to let this go, as in am not in the mood (and dont have the time) for saving, much as I still love metal. This was a FAR save some 10 years ago, with Wesley and Geist, and both of them are long gone from the project (or have moved under diff guises to diff subject matter). Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re misogyny, hear loud and clear and have edited a bit, and re watchlisted. One thing to be clear, that tendency is more typical of the "lower" orders of metal (eg mid 80s NWOBHM, all hair-metal and late period nu-metal), whose fans are more into the perceived "attitude" rather than the music and contain an high % of, well basically, misfits and incels. Thinking about how to couch, but a mention is now in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate it. Yeah I have no problem with altering or reworking, or adding more nuanced explanation. There's just been a number of people try to go the opposite route and just delete anything that's not 100% positive about the genre. I mean, all fanbases try that sort of stuff, but I've experienced it especially at this article. I believe I've largely warded off those attempts, but I just wanted to make sure we didn't go down that road in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceoil is this one salvageable, and are there plans to save? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Ceoil agrees the FAR is needed, and isn't planning to take it on, I can see letting the FAR go forward, but hope George Ho understands the need for notification going forward; one goal is to not overwhelm those (few) editors who might take on saving the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I already notified enough related WikiProjects and editors. Also, I created the notification as needed. I also don't intend to have the article lose its status, but I predict that it will, especially if much work isn't done and remaining issues aren't still resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting because I was listed as a major contributor (which isn't really true, I just edited a few things a while back). I was surprised to find the repeatedly disproven notion that the Catholic Church "banned" the tritone interval in this article a few months ago (I've since clarified/removed it). If a completely incorrect idea like that can survive in the article since at least the last 2007 FAR, I have strong suspicions that the depth of research is probably lacking to some extent throughout. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist we're not seeing the kind of edits necessary to overhaul the article and get it to meet the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - those more familiar with the subject matter than I (Ceoil, Aza, Sergecross) seem to agree that this does not meet the standards. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Taking another look, so can we hold for a week for an more in depth assessment. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked over during the day (but not yet edited) and some quick points to supporting holding the voting for now

  • Its well written, (mostly) well cited and hasn't changed drastically since a few months after the last FAR when DC Geist continued the expansion.
  • The language is a bit excitable in places, but nothing compared to say the recently delisted Punk rock, and don't see significant bloat
  • From a scan the sources are mostly grand...with some weeding and pruning needed
  • I agree with Aza that some of the music theory and terminology needs work
  • The sexism issue that brought this FAR has mostly since been addressed?
  • Its quite up-to-date with recent trends...as far as c. 2011...BUT there has been huge fragmentation since with the development of numerous micro-genres, the return of doom, and many types of metal-gaze
  • Still only very much looking...sorry this came so late! Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
George, if in doubt re sources, remove the ref and ag the claim. I'll be watching, and appreciate the pointers. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. My opinion is that the article is FAC standard, with issues around files (which George Ho, whom I have trust in with him having been most helpful on other music pages) seems to be on top of) and reference formatting. Honestly, I t would be a big job to fix the different ref styles (or lack there-of), but it would be a shame given the article is otherwise, surprisingly, still v good. I am totally over-committed IRL and here for a bit, but if this was let sit for a few months as I work though here and there, that would be great. Afer I report back here on refs, feedback re other issues would be most welcome. The former metalhead and current punk rocker Ceoil (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Ceoil is planning to work on the article, and if the FAR is to hold, I will work on the citation formatting (but yea, I see lots of problems there, including incomplete citations that I may not be able to track down and possibly unreliable sources). George Ho, pls ping me should my help in citation formatting be needed; I don't really have time to take on that task unless the article is in the process of a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, to be clear, I am willing to take on the burden of standardising the refs, and while there will be some culling (as highlighted above), most pass RS, but are all over the shop in formatting. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you plop in valid sources, I can clean up the formatting; just let me know when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are a star. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least one week later, very little further progress has been made so far. How long shall further improvements last? George Ho (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil and others; are we going forward with this? If so, should I convert book citations to sfns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My life circumstances have changed since the above posts, and with regret can no longer give a commitment to this page, except to say it is not a clear fail, and that - more or less - all that is needed is work on the cite format. Alas, but loosing the star doesn't take from the integrity of the page overall, and thus the heavy metal music community (who are much maligned but surprisingly self aware) will struggle on, and the article (imo) is still pretty, pretty wide ranging, representative (now), and of high value to readers.
The FAR back in the day lead to a lot of improvement that remain, if it has a star or not in 2022 doesnt detract from its overall quality. Thanks all to all who have looked in, but this has to be a delist: lack of time, the editors from the last FAR are mostly retired and /or blocked, etc, and hard as that is the FAC/FAR process has still delivered a page wiki can be proud of. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Heavy_metal_music/archive2&oldid=1075472358"