Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Supremes/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 kept by User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [1].

The Supremes

Review commentary

The article hasnt been reviewed in close to three years. Im guessing standards have improved somewhat. The article needs a good copy edit, the language and grammer are not up to FA standard. The article is hardly sourced and some sources are unreliable such as youtube. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination, KEEP - Article has greatly improved, well done to all involved. — Realist² 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

BrothaTimothy (asked editer to informs any other major contributers I miss) - Link
FuriousFreddy (editer retired) - Link
B Touch - redirects to FuriousFreddy
Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music - Link
Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians - Link
- Sorry I did inform them, I was unaware it also needed to be brought here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I feel the article has been inaccurate to some degree. FuriousFreddy worked his butt off to make that a great article. I hate that some people chose to link YouTube videos to the article. BUT for the majority of the article, it did seem "featured" since a featured article star icon is still on it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify people, I was unaware they needed to be added here too, ill get right to it. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That entire discography section needs to be replaced by just a list of studio albums. (See: R.E.M., Radiohead) Pretty much all those album covers do not satisfy our fair-use criteria, and the sound samples (max 3-4) need to discussed in the prose. Of course, this is the easy part. indopug (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - Comments by Indopug appear to be done, the samples have been removed it appears. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the logic behind using a listign of albums to summarize the career of a singles-oriented act? When the article was originally done as a featured article, we took the U.S. and U.K. top ten singles (because it was a NPOV way of summarizing the best known songs without us having to arbitrarily pick them). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed. WP:MOSDATE (sample: between August 22 of 1964 and December 27 of 1969 ...) WP:MOSNUM (sample: ... ended its eighteen-year existence in 1977.) Unencyclopedic prose: The Supremes became hugely popular with international mainstream audiences. Lack of citations (sample: In 1971, Ballard sued Motown for $8.7 million, claiming that Gordy and Diana Ross had conspired to force her out of the group; the judge ruled in favor of Motown.) Citation cleanup needed, including unformatted citations and dashes on page ranges. Concerned that edit history shows little work being done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly no one works on this article anymore, I honestly havent got the time to get this article up to FA standard, it would take weeks, time I personally cant afford. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly, it'd take far too much time and far too much work to fix this article. However it'd be left up to would be taking on a one-or-two-person job, since Wiki articles about non-hip-hop African-American subjects aren't very popular with Wikipedians unless somebody dies. Not to mention that Wiki article requirements have gotten pretty ridiculous over the last four years (like the massive number of citations expected of featured articles, whether they truly need them or not), to the point where you can't even write a decent article without dedicating salary-level effort to it. And yes, it is godawful-looking right about now. Delist it, and hope that anyone who wants to learn abou The Supremes or Motown actually picks up a book instead. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will indeed take a mammoth amount of work, black music has few strong writers on wikipedia. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1c) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No new citations have been added in the last month. Many sections and paragraphs have no cites at all. Also, citations are not formatted properly or consistently and some of the references are from non-RS or random websites. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Very close; and citations are very easy to find. I making efforts to format the existing refs; but its painful boring work :( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You got that right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as nom - Since I nominated this article for review 6 weeks ago it has only had 78 edits, included in that count is vandalism and reversion of vandalism. There is just no motivation for this article. A terrible shame really, this is one of the few articles on black music/black artists that is featured. Im sure it's placing will be filled nicely by yet another punk rock band. Wikipedias music department moves one step closer to a complete white wash (no pun intended). — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I support giving Ceoil more time. — Realist² (Speak) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have some paintence Realist! Its on hold...work underway! And what value does the number 78 have? Pha. Put more though into your opinons that featured article shouild be delisted, and have more good faith in the work of other editors. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, don't patronize me. I'm quite capable of reaching a conclusion of my own. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Prove with facts rather than with vaugue statements and broad summaries.~~ ( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughs, lets not fight, as we often edit the sames areas and both friends with Wesley. If you could highlight what you think needs to be done yet, well that would be a great help, and we will get closer to fixing this. Sorry if I was patronising. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I'm really sorry to have to vote to withdraw this article, but for me it no longer a featured article. This might well have reached FA standards in 2005, however it's 2008 and the criteria for FA has gone up a few notches. For me, it is the lack of citation that is worse; the sections such as Impact, Name and personnel changes, Slowdown, Exit Diana Ross and The "New Supremes" barely have any sources. What I am worried about is the community is seeing the star in the top right hand corner of the page, and is getting the wrong impression of what a Wikipedia FA article is. It might be good for this article to be delisted, and if Ceoil feels strongly enough, could bring the standard up to today's FA requirements and re-nominate. Good luck. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Owl; its clear that citations are the biggest obstacle, and to be honest I've only been tinkering around with copy editing and MOS stuff for the last while. I'm not even sure I be able to verify all of it, but we'll see. Would you mind watchlisting this page, and when I'm done I'll ask for a second view. If its still not up to scratch, then fine, I'll take you advise and go the longer route. Thanks anyway. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding still given that Ceoil has asked for it. Marskell (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold, Ceoil is working on this and it's coming along nicely; I'll run through when he's closer to done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Status: Work is on going; reasonaly happy with cites; looking for a copyeditor. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get off my ass soon enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promises from a self confesed LA layabout. Hmm. I'll believe it when I see it; dude... ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Realist is doing a very fine copy edit. I'm hoping we should be done here soon. Ceoil 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, its coming along nicely, it's still a little under sourced but I'm going to buy some books and help out with that too, sourcing is generally the easy part as all this info seems to be accurate from my knowledge of The Supremes. — Realist² (Speak) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree there are gaps re refs left yet. But most center around chart positions imo, and these can be easly fixed with this link. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update This is moving along but is going slowly; more because I havn't been to edit much recently rather than because its not do-able. Its very close now - some citing, a bit of cutting, bits of MOS pruning and a ce spruce. The likelyhood is finished by the end of the weekend. Jesus, this page is a wash of green and orange. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a Musical style section is needed, and a few samples too. indopug (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style is covered variously through out the article, and I added a few samples. The article is at a stage now where I need specific feedback to carry it across. Realist has a headache, but has promised to revisit in a day or two. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to looking through it today. — Realist² 14:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Don't spare the horses! Ceoil ^sláinte 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks really good. If that one fact tag can be resolved then this should be kept. --maclean 06:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE — Realist² 07:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was quick! I guess that is a keep from me then. --maclean 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep presuming resolution of the one fact tag I just added. I did a full copyedit; the prose wasn't bad but there were a lot of book titles lacking italics, dashes were inconsistent, and the external links needed to be pared down. All done. Also attacked the navigational footer template to clean up song title formatting (italics and quotes both was a bit much). Maralia (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. I cut the statement you added the tag to; it was a bit crufty and trivial. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done all. Nice to get that last formatting look over from Maralia. Marskell (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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