Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Mayer/archive1

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 at 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Mayer

Review section

Featured article candidates/John Mayer

Featured article review/John Mayer/archive1

Notified: Esprit15d, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Guitarists, WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Music

I am nominating this featured article for review because after looking it through, I find that it fails multiple FA criteria and would require extensive work to even meet GA standards. Here is what I've found when comparing this against FA criteria:

1.a. "Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"

Not the worst, but could definitely be better. For example, these statements could be more encyclopedic: "Mayer's reputation began to build", "Aware inked a deal", "Mayer has also done endorsements, such as a Volkswagen commercial for the Beetle's guitar outlet and for the BlackBerry Curve", "It was around this time that Mayer began hinting a change in his musical interests".

1.b. "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"

Absolutely not. This is a major weak point in the article, especially when compared to FA's like Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. While it discusses his career as well as controversies he faced regarding his dating life and such, it doesn't really go into his artistry (musical styles, themes, and influences). As Czar stated this past April, it doesn't include what critics have said of his works or anything like that. It is mostly this unaddressed issue that prompted me to list this for FAR. In fact, I've noticed this was missing when the article was promoted to GA back in February 2007 as well as when it was promoted to FA in July 2007. For this, I definitely would've failed its GAN and opposed its FAC if I was reviewing back then. It also doesn't give a list for his tours or mention them much in article body.

1.c. "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"

Another major concern. I see references such as Tumblr, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter being used. These are generally discouraged—especially for FA's—when high-quality third-party sources could be used in place. Additionally, many dead links, thus making much of the article's content difficult to verify. The statements "The song was the third most downloaded song of the week on the iTunes Store following its release on July 11, 2006, and debuted at No. 25 on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart", "He recorded a session for the British program Live from Abbey Road at Abbey Road Studios on October 22, 2006", "He accompanied Alicia Keys on guitar on her song "No One" at the ceremony", "A follow up cruise titled "Mayercraft Carrier 2" set sail from Los Angeles from March 27–31, 2009 on the Carnival Splendor", "In August 2006, Fender started manufacturing SERIES II John Mayer Stratocasters", "This performance was led to Urban and Mayer teaming up again for future performances, including at the 2010 CMT Music Awards", and "In 2004, after being asked for numerous past years, he performed for over 1000 students at the Pennsbury High School Senior Prom. Wonderland: A Year in the Life of an American High School (Grove Press, ISBN 978-0802141972), a book written by Michael Bamberger, describes the world- famous prom and John Mayer's performance" are missing citations.

1.d. "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias"

Seems OK

1.e. "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"

Probably the article's strongest point, as it hasn't been edited much in recent months.

2.a. "lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections"

It appears to have fair detail, but is not very well organized. It would be better to have the first paragraph focus on his career beginnings, the second on his continued career, and the third on his awards and other endeavors.

2.b. "appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents"

Not really a concern

2.c. "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)"

The citations are a mess. I see many malformatted references; "PBS.org", "TweedMag.com", "J-mayer.org", "Berklee.edu", "CreativeLoafing.com", "MixOline.com", "AllMusicGuide.com", "AwareRecords.com", "Nique.net", "Star-Ecentral.com", "SongWritersHallofFame.org", "ArsTechnica.com", "LA Times", "ellen.warnerbros.com", "Jhnmyr.tumblr.com", "E-Online", "allheadlinenews.com", "Details magazine", "The Belfast Telegraph online", "WashingtonExaminer.com", "US Magazine". Some of them are even missing work parameters.

3. "Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."

No copyright issues with images, but this article seems a bit cluttered with them.

4. "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."

I'm not too sure if the details on his parents' divorce is needed since it took place when he was an adult, and perhaps "Touring" could be trimmed down somewhat.

With all of the above issues, I feel the article should be delisted, and is currently no higher than a C-class. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, particularly on criteria 1a and 1b. Having no section on musical style in a biography of a musician is obviously a problem. EddieHugh (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review mostly focused on coverage, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as nominator and due to lack of effort to resolve listed concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist on comprehensiveness alone. It's a shame - I'm very fond of Heavier Things and Continuum and his article is one of the few FAs we have about music created in the 21st century - but it simply isn't appropriate for this page to be classed as one of Wikipedia's best. Tezero (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because of uninspiring prose–excessive use of day, month, year structures.--Retrohead (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2014 (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) 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.