Talk:Hard rock/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with my initial review, and I enjoyed going over it. This article had a *LOT* of work put into it. The coverage is fine, it is well-sourced, and the images are mostly appropriate. The main problem (aside from some MoS concerns with commas) to me is that, in a few places, it does read a bit like a glowing narrative for hard rock fans, rather than a neutral fact-based encyclopedic entry. I believe these concerns can be fixed, so I'm putting it on hold for a week. Aaron north (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few more small fixes, everything looks fine now. Aaron north (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Very active edit history, but that is understandable given that this is a popular and core subject. There does not appear to be significant disagreement about the basic structure and content of the article among the editors.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some problems with unattributed "words to watch", especially flattery and puffery. WP:W2W I have put together a list of these below.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commas can be difficult to use absolutely perfectly, but it is pretty clear to me that commas are overused in some sections of the article. It isn't bad enough to interfere with the prose style during reading so I'm just filing this comment under optional suggestions. I'll try to correct in areas where it looks very awkward, but down the road the article could be improved by going over it with an eye towards reducing the excessive use of commas. WP:COMMA Aaron north (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One extreme example of what I'm talking about is this one:

"Led Zeppelin began to mix elements of world and folk music into their hard rock from Led Zeppelin III (1970) and Led Zeppelin IV (1971), the latter containing the track "Stairway to Heaven", often considered an epic, and even a cliché, of the genre, which moved from acoustic mysticism to hard rock energy in a track just over eight minutes in length."

Those 5 commas cause me to stumble to a halt whenever I read that sentence. There's got to be a better way to reword or break that one up. Aaron north (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is also a doozy. Six commas and it doesn't even include a list! Aaron north (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As the initial impetus of grunge bands faltered, the middle years of the decade saw the emergence of post-grunge, with bands who emulated the attitudes and music of grunge, particularly thick, distorted guitars, but with a more radio-friendly commercially-oriented sound, that drew more directly on traditional hard rock."

Thanks for this Aaron. If you can do a list of the offending flattery that would be great, but otherwise I can probably find them in a trawl. On the punctuation I think there can be no argument. Probably the best solution will be to break up some of these over-complex sentences. Are there some more issues from OR, sources and images that you have not had the chance to outline yet, or were they part of these problems?--SabreBD (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know yet, I'm resuming my review today. Aaron north (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the pictures for this review, but I wonder if an older Alice in Chains picture with the original members (including Layne Staley) wouldn't be more appropriate since this is in the 1990's Grunge section.

Possible Non-neutral Words and Phrases

Puffery

These are examples of unattributed puffery and flattery that I found which likely needs to be revised. There are many ways to go about it, (just using the term "excellent" here as a theoretical example) from revising the word or phrase towards neutral language, to using attributed quotes from other people describing someone's excellence, to replacing the word or phrase with data and facts that would objectively lead one to believe someone is "excellent". Aaron north (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the early 1970s the Rolling Stones perfected their hard rock sound with Exile on Main St. (1972), initially received with mixed reviews it is now often seen as one of their finest albums.
In the mid-1970s Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic (1975) and Rocks (1976) made them international stars to rival Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. This claim (though I agree with it) is strong enough that it would probably be better to add more information to specify why this is true. (album sales? concerts? critical reviews?) The following sentence helps, but what about those 2 albums?
In Britain, Oasis was exceptional among the Britpop bands of the mid-1990s in incorporating a hard rock sound.

Unsupported Attributions

Otherwise known as "weasel words". There's nothing unsourced here, but in some cases where you see this "often considered" or "is for many" types of phrases, the source is some unsigned review that never names who these people are. In some cases, something might really be widely believed (the earth revolves around the sun) and cobbling together a list of experts who said it would clutter the article, but that probably doesn't apply here in every case. Maybe using quotations from the source would solve these problems. The GA-rated Alternative Rock often seems to take this approach. Alternatively, you could just drop the weasel words, state the fact (adding more support if needed), and let the source support the claim. Aaron north (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin began to mix elements of world and folk music into their hard rock from Led Zeppelin III (1970) and Led Zeppelin IV (1971), the latter containing the track "Stairway to Heaven", often considered an epic, and even a cliché, of the genre, which moved from acoustic mysticism to hard rock energy in a track just over eight minutes in length. I personally agree, but "often considered" by who? (Lots of commas in that one too)
The latter song's main riff made it, for many, the "signature" Deep Purple track.
Its success was so great that the follow-up Slip of the Tongue (1989) was considered a commercial failure despite selling over four million copies. This is a pretty strong claim.

Clichés and Idioms

Pat Benatar picked up the torch for women in hard rock, with three successive Top 5 albums between 1980 and 1982.
All this paved the way for U.S. acts like Mötley Crüe, with their albums Too Fast for Love (1981) and Shout at the Devil (1983) and, as the style grew, the arrival of bands such as Ratt, White Lion, Twisted Sister and Quiet Riot.
... alternatives to hard rock broke into the mainstream in the form of grunge in the US and Britpop in the UK.

I see no problems with these points and should be able to get them fixed over the next week. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the "necessary to pass" points are done and most of the advisory issues. I am still working on finding an older Alice in Chains pic. To be honest this is a problem with a lot of the pictures on the article, but older ones tend to create copyright issues.--SabreBD (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]