To ensure this process is objective and transparent I have created a rubric for evaluating GA nominees based wholly on the Wikipedia Good Article guidelines.
In order to achieve GA status, the article must satisfy all the criteria listed below. If any are not met, I will post explanations and links to the article sections needing work. Editors will have the opportunity to improve the article before a final determination is made.
Be forewarned: I am unlikely to approve an article for GA status if it is not a balanced treatment of the subject or if it reads like it was written by a fan. This means no:
Hyperbolic statements about the significance of an artist or his or her work. (ex: "a highly influential rapper", “one of the most influential songwriters in music today” or “one of the most innovative albums of the last decade”). If the article is on a subject whose influence and impact is long established, such as a Bob Dylan or a Chuck D, then these sorts of pronouncements may be appropriate. With newer artists, I will that ask that superlatives be toned down.
Attempts to present the opinions of one music critic or musician as consensus opinion.
Resistance to including negative opinions about an artist or album.
Non-neutral descriptions of the artist’s music. It’s ok to talk about instrumentation, effects, lyrics and other compositional elements but no evaluative words like “gorgeous”, “thrilling”, “lush” or “brilliant”.
Because verifying sources is such a time-intensive process, I ask that significant problems with content, style and mechanics be fixed before I tackle citations.
Thanks everyone for your hard work!
Current status
Last review update
04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Y = satisfies this criteria N = needs improvement
Lead section =N
Defines topic without being overly specific =Y although as I state later, there's more information about his interest in visual arts in the lead than there is in the article body.
If known, gives full name of subject =Y
Establishes reason for notability early in lead=N reason for notability (i.e. critical acclaim, popularity, how he achieved these things--i.e. the constant touring, artistic innovations) should be established in the second sentence. Had Arthur been a musical hack whose career had gone nowhere, the fact that Peter Gabriel supported him wouldn't be enough to establish noteworthiness. The lead should read as follows:
sentence 1: name, DOB, profession, origin
sentence 2: reasons for notability
sentence 3: major works
Briefly summarizes article’s important points =Y
Topic placed in context familiar to readers =Y
Avoids specialized terminology and symbols =Y
Information in lead also covered by article =N the information about Arthur's interests and accomplishments in the visual arts is more detailed in the lead than it is in the article body. Most of that information should go here: Joseph Arthur#The Museum of Modern Arthur, and the information in the lead should be replaced by a general summary of his non-musical projects. The title of that subsection should be changed to encompass all his visual art activities. "He staged his first art exhibition in 2006 at the Vertigo Gallery in London from February 10 to February 12.[1]" can go in a visual art section as well.
Appropriate length =Y
Fewer than 15,000 characters = one or two paragraphs
15,000–30,000 characters = two or three paragraphs
More than 30,000 characters = three or four paragraphs
Layout =Y
Disambiguation links (dablinks) =Y
No maintenance tags =Y
Infoboxes =Y
Images =Y
Navigational boxes (navigational templates) =Y
Introductory text =Y
Table of contents =Y
Appropriate use of lists =Y
Style and mechanics =Y
Prose is clear and concise =Y I usually fix this as I read. However, please be mindful of these issues:
Complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style =Y however, check MoS for how to format citations. The Sonic Youth article, for all its flaws, has beautifully formatted citations.
"long and successful tour during which performances were, to a large extent, recorded and sold immediately after the last note had been played" = editorializing, imprecise time referents.
Spelling and grammar are correct =Y
Content =N
Addresses main aspects of topic =N Over-reliance on quotations. Generally quotes are only used if they're of the memorable, Bartlett's Quotations variety; if they resolved a controversy or longstanding mystery; or if they influenced notable events (i.e. "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."). Facts never go in quotations. In the following sections, replace quotations with factual summaries and, if necessary, briefly paraphrase the sentiments expressed in the quotes:
Since the information on his personal life is scant, that section should come after sections on live performances and visual arts. It's very typical in Wikipedia for personal information about an artist or musician to be the last section. If you can reference information about marriages or children, you should probably include that.
Joseph Arthur#musical instruments and Joseph Arthur#sound processors can be combined. Listing a bunch of effects pedals isn't very meaningful to readers. Talk about his sound (or various "sounds"), then explain how he uses effects to achieve a particular sound.
Stays focused on topic without going into unnecessary detail =Y Nice information about Arthur's relationships with other musicians.
Sufficient exposition of topic and facts =N you'll need to fix some sections where the meaning is unclear:
There should be more information about critical reception and Arthur's musical style and artistic process. Brief mentions of reviews from sites like Pitchfork (i.e. "Let's Just Be received a favorable 7.3 out of 10 rating from Pitchfork"). Information about how Arthur writes songs and why he writes so many, his influences, his sound, and his lyrics is essential. What distinguishes him musically, other than the extensive touring?
Sourcing = will address when issues with content, style and mechanics are fixed.
Provides reliable references to all sources of information =
Follows the scientific citation guidelines (science-based article only) =
Contains no original research =
Neutral:Represents viewpoints fairly and without bias =Y
Stable:Does not change significantly because of edit war, content dispute =Y
Illustrations = will address when issues with content, style and mechanics are fixed.
Images tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationales for non-free content =
Images relevant to the topic and have suitable captions =
