Wikipedia:Featured article review/Punk rock/archive2

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) 8:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC) [1].

Punk rock

Notified: Guerillero (diff), Finnusertop (diff), Ceoil (diff), Tony1 (diff), SandyGeorgia (diff), WikiProject Music (diff), WikiProject Punk music (diff), WikiProject Rock music (diff)

Review section

Fourteen years after the first FAR and eighteen years after the article's first FA promotion, article issues were initially raised three months ago (Talk:Punk rock#Article issues). The issues include amount of non-free content (some of which were removed/orphaned since the discussion started), lengthiness of the article, over-detailing, and reliability of sources, those of which would affect the article's compliance with WP:FACR, like #3 (length) and #4 (media). Since the discussion, major edits have been made.

I'm creating this subpage because we want to be sure whether changes made within months of the initial discussion improved or worsened the article quality. Also, this subpage should receive attention from others wanting to improve the article. Whether to keep the article's FA status or delist it can wait for a while. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Dunno. The article is impeccably sourced, but there is a strong editorial POV that calls to mind some of User:Geogre's best work. My suspicion is that the article needs a lot more trimming than it does addition, so hopeful that this can be saved. For the record, was involved in the earlier FAR, and was somewhat friendly with User:DCGeist, the main editor after that, who was widely regarded for his ~~(if verbose)~~ writing style, and banned for socking rather than sourcing issues. Overall this is doable. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the problems came after Geist. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think George Ho is right in bring this here, for sure the page needs work, I think his rationales for noming are to the point and bang on, so thanks for pushing GH. Also, I'm planning a two week or so break from the wiki madhouse, but keen to look back in here after that. Nikki, once again you might have to be patient. My impression is that most of the work will be toning down the language, and making it less excitable. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both and I look forward to being able to !vote keep after we do an overhaul --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

tense, pace and tone are major issues here...eg By 1996, genre acts such as Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake were being signed to major labels
every general statement on the music and subculture is followed by multiple examples, and too much detail on the particular band (what US city, who wtrote the song, who produced, bla). eg, picked this random sentence "Somewhere in between, pop punk groups created blends like that of the ideal record, as defined by Mekons cofounder Kevin Lycett: "a cross between Abba and the Sex Pistols".[202] A range of other styles emerged, many of them fusions with long-established genres. The Clash album London Calling, released in December 1979, exemplified the breadth of classic punk's legacy. Combining punk rock with reggae, ska, R&B, and rockabilly, it went on to be acclaimed as one of the best rock records ever.[203] At the same time, as observed by Flipper singer Bruce Loose..." Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update in 2 days, but not hopeful. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these key rock music articles fail to define what the music style is. These articles talk about the genre's history, and provide lists of bands that are believed by some writers to be influential, and their equipment, and the bands in other genres that they latter had an impact on. The Grunge article recently lost its FA status, and Punk appears to be going the same way for similar reasons. From the third sentence of the Punk Rock article, perhaps someone might explain to the reading public just what "hard-edged melodies and singing styles" actually means. William Harris (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a quick skim, I think this article is salvagable. I think this article needs a trim, and some sections need to be expanded upon, merged or deleted (like "Synth-punk") I am not an expert, so I have some questions outlined below and I am sorry if they sound stupid and ill-informed. Please respond under the bullet point of the question you are answering in order to keep the conversation organised:

The early history and second wave sections focus on the English-speaking world. Is there history to note in other places (maybe Germany?)
Early history in North America seems to just be New York. Is that the only place in NA that punk was happening at this time?
Would it be worth spinning off parts of the history section, like second-wave punk?
In "1979–1984: Schism and diversification" it outlines how punk split off into sub-genres. One of the sections is called "Oi!", which is about an album label and not a genre, AFAIK. Should this label have their own section here?
Why is revival and later success put after the legacy section?
What are the developments of punk-rock in the 21st century? There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on that time period.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping if you need a follow-up. I am happy to do a non-expert copyedit and review when the article is ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Z1720, this is punk rock - relax knowing that nothing sounds stupid and ill-informed! Regards, William Harris (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article history, @Ceoil: did some edits on Sept. 11. They might be interested in fixing up this article. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include coverage/organization and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, too many issues (mostly around excitable tone and a too inclusive, over detailed range), and no real work since nom. I think several hours deleting might do the trick, but its not something I want to do at this time. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Ceoil, whose judgment I trust with this subject matter. Hog Farm _Talk 06:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist sad to see this go, as this FA was originally promoted in 2004 (back when FA was "brilliant prose"). However, some of my concerns in FARC are still unresolved. I also respect Ceoil's opinion tremendously in this field: if they think there are too many issues, then it might be time to let it go. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 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) 18:16, 16 October 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.