Talk:Rock music/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Citations need to be removed from the lead, which should be revised further to better capture the evolution of the genre and emergence of sub-genres. I would like to see a new section created at the very beginning of the article that discusses more of the points currently brought up in the lead, relating to the typical composition of a rock band, typical characteristics of the musical genre as a whole and identifying a few key evolutions or variations. It will serve more as a definition of the genre. With these changes it will be possible to alter the lead so that it more effectively takes on the role of a summary of the entire article. Great work here. Bravo! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

I would prefer to see the citations here use a template, because as it is there is some inconsistency in the style and inclusion of complete reference information from one citation to the next. Ref 159 could be reformatted to be more informative (i.e. volume and issue number, page range for the article). For example, ISBN numbers have been left off of some of the books. Ref 172 should be split into two separate references. References to something like the All Music Guide to Rock should reference the names of the authors of the particular section, as well as the chapter/section title, in addition to the book's title and editors (such as by using the Encyclopedia template with "contribution" field). Also, it would be preferable to archive links to webpages using something like Webcite and the template fields archiveurl= and archivedate=. Given the interest in this topic and the frequency with which URLs go dead, it's especially important for this article to ensure its web references remain accessible in the long term. Excellent! Thank you. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

~~Ref 61 - is this the most reliable source for this information? Replace if possible. Otherwise, sources all look very reliable.~~ All good here. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

~~Refer to the suggestions above about a new intro section after revising lead.~~ Done. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:

I noticed that the Gothic Rock and Industrial Rock sub-genres are briefly mentioned in the article but have neither their own sub-categories here or prominent links to the main article beneath a related sub-category. There are probably others that didn't jump out at me. Every sub-genre mentioned in the article that has a well-developed article of its own really should be either represented by a sub-category or linked prominently at the top of a related sub-category. Good changes here. I suspect this is an aspect of the article that will continue to evolve as it moves toward FA. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is little mention of African Americans and their contributions to the music. Otis Redding and Donna Summer (both Rock Hall members)are not mentioned. Many are barely mentioned....Princes "When Doves Cry" not rock enough for you? The article is slanted towards white guys with guitars---it is not the standard accepted history of rock but a wikipedia creation. fdog9

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

* The image of "The Fifth Estate" appears to be in violation of copyright and needs to be replaced. * The image of the Beach Boys album is of questionable copyright status and may need to be replaced - I'm looking into this. * The David Bowie image should be re-uploaded to Commons correctly as a Flickr-sourced photo so its share-alike license can be independently verified. The photo of the Clash was not uploaded in accordance with Commons regulations, and appears to be a copyright violation - it should either be re-uploaded correctly with the authorization from the creator, or replaced. With my removal of the Clash and surf music flyer images due to noncompliance with Wikicommons copyright standards, this criterion is met. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

This is a huge article and much hard work has gone into it - a hearty congratulations to everyone who's contributed over the years. Because of the scope of the article and how many people's passion for the topic has made them into experts in their own right, I want to be sure we do the topic justice. I'll be reading over as much of the talk archives as I can over the next few days. In the meantime, let's try to get started on the changes I identified above, or discuss them here if there is disagreement. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments so far: here are a few thoughts on the major points. Lead There is already agreement on the talkpage to produce a "characteristics section", but I will expedite it for this review. I think that taking material out of the lead to put in that section (and creating a more summative lead) should resolve the citation problem. The issue here may be getting editors to reach a consensus over what might be contentious, so I will probably prioritise this. Citations I admit I am not a big fan of citation templates, not least they they tend to produce a format that is different to what most publishers would accept, and their use is not required by the MOS. I am a bit puzzled about the comments on missing ISBNs and consistency, since the books look very consistent to me and I cannot see any without ISBNs, but perhaps I may have missed some. I guess if a move to templates is insisted on I will do it, but I know that since there are over 300 citations here, it will take a very long time and a lot of work, for something that will then look pretty much the same. I take the points over encyclopedias and over archived webpages (although I will have to work out how to do that as this it is new to me). Coverage Bit of a surprise this one, as I thought the discussion I might be having would be to shorten the article and collapse some sub-sections. I am not sure a sub-genre having its own developed article is a good criteria for needing a sub-section here, but would rather place the emphasis on what it adds to knowledge of the topic here overall. Knowing the genre articles pretty well my guess is that this would probably add 30% to 40% to the length of what is already a very long article. There has been a conscious attempt to deal with some sub-genres collectively under wider headings here. This might also open the article up to the argument that not very significant sub-sections should be added on the grounds that they have a developed article (this would be a bit of a nightmare in the case of punk or heavy metal for example) no problem with adding more "see also" links under relevant headings, although there could be a lot of these in some sub-sections. Images I will hang fire on the Fifth Estate and Clash images until they have been investigated. The Bowie image was recently changed and frankly doesn't illustrate its section very well (I have a copyright free one in mind).--SabreBD (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Sounds great. Citations: I won't make the citation issue a reason not to award GA because you're right, it's not a must. There were only a couple of citations that were missing the ISBN - I'm sorry I didn't note the numbers at the time. I'll have a look myself. Regarding archiving urls, WebCite is very easy to use and I'd be happy to answer any questions that might come up as you're trying getting the hang of it. Coverage: I take your point about the length of the article. New sub-sections for every sub-genre is not what I had in mind. For most cases, it's preferable just to provide links to well-developed articles on sub-genres at the top of sub-sections as "Main article: ___". That would be in line with the MOS and be highly informative to readers looking to learn more about the topic. It's true this is a long article, but it's a massive subject too. This is the definitive resource page, the place where people will start when researching subgenres of rock, so helping readers to identify which sub-genres have well-developed articles by linking them prominently will help achieve its objective as a base reference. Well-developed is key - and only articles on sub-genres. Otherwise, you're absolutely right, the number of possible articles to link could become overwhelming. Images - The Clash one is in violation unless someone can contact the image owner and get her to upload an authorization. We can work together on that if you haven't done it before. For the Fifth Estate, the image needs the opinion of a copyright expert. Maybe the easiest/best way for you to proceed would be to flag it for possible copyright violation and see what the response is on Commons (since those weighing in do so regularly and are ideally better acquainted with the laws) then go from there. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Progress so far: Lead - In case it has been missed, I have posted a new version of the lead and characteristics section in my sandbox. If there are any minor changes (like punctuation) please just do them on the sandbox. If anything more major please comments at Talk:Rock music#New sub-sections. I would normally give this more time, but since it is part of a review I would like to post this into the article fairly soon. So silence will be taken as consent if editors don't post soon. Citations - This was (I hope) the largest task requested. I think we are now pretty close on this one. I have converted all of the online sources to a template that gives an archived version. I have given names of authors and sections in the encyclopedias where possible (sometimes there is no author given). In the process I checked and sorted a few minor problems. There is just an issue with a couple that won't easily archive (Billboard links are one of the issues), and I am still working on that. There are also some issues with the citations in the Metalcore, retro and contemporary heavy metal sub-section. Which lacks a couple of necessary citations and for which some do not actually lead to the necessary pages. I am doing a rewrite of this section that will deal with these issues, either by finding alternatives or removing content that cannot be provided with reliable sources. Coverage - I have started, but still working on this one. I am going to produce main links for articles with total coverage and then key sub-genres as see also articles - at the start of each section. That should make navigation easier. As already done at post punk. This may mean adding the odd sentence or two for clarification, but that is probably no bad thing. Illustrations - I replaced the Bowie image with what I think is a better (free) one. I am not particularly committed to the Clash picture if we can find an alternative (can anyone remember why the Sex Pistols image was deleted - it is still on the commons?). I have to say that I feel that checking into the licence of every illustration on the commons that asserts that it is free is not really my job here. If there are problems then I think it should be noted at the image, or they should be deleted in accordance with policy. I am happy to find alternatives where possible, but I have to take what others upload, and what is not challenged, in good faith. Sometimes the resources and time just run out. Other issues - Have I missed anything that we need to be considering or doing? If so please do point it out so it can start to be dealt with. Hopefully we are moving into the final stages of the process. Thanks to those concerned for the support so far.--SabreBD (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close to finishing? Lead and Characteristics - this now posted and hopefully fulfills the suggestions and improves the article. Citations - this almost all done. I have rewritten the Metalcore, retro and contemporary heavy metal sub-section so that it can have reliable sources. Still cannot get the Billboard pages to archive, but this may just not be possible. On what was note 61, George Starostin's reviews. After exhaustive searching I cannot find any other reliable source that takes this view (that Pop rock is a sub-genre of pop), which is odd since it is a common popular view. I have adjusted this so that the status of the site is evident in the text (i.e. self published), if that is not acceptable we may just have to delete it. Coverage - the "see also" headings are added and hopefully that covers the issue, although I may have missed some major sub-genres. Illustrations - Of the remaining images. Is there any news on the Clash picture, or do we need an alternative? I replaced the Fifth Estate picture, with their incarnation as the D-men, but I am pretty sure the replacement is equally suspect. Sadly my resourcefulness has run out here. I cannot find any copyright free images of a garage band from the period, so I would really appreciate some help on this one. Other issues unless I have missed something I think all the requests are pretty much done once these minor issues are resolved. But if there are more issues please just let me know.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article now meets all criteria for GA status. Congratulations and thank you to everyone involved, and particularly Sabrebd for your tireless efforts throughout the GA review process. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I disagree about the GA status---I have always felt it is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It does not follow the standard definition of rock music (see Mojo Magazine, Rolling Stone, most critics and authors,The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Britannica and World Book, and the artists themselves). It is a slanted work that has a narrow definition of rock music and includes numerous bands that have achieved no real note (but obviously someone's favorite)---particularly in the heavy metal field. Article should be merged with the Rock and Roll article (they are the same thing) and include the enormous contribution of African Americans to the genre. Otis Redding is not in this artcle but Iced Earth is.....horrible article. fdog9