Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Aerosmith/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aerosmith

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. The article has been improved to meet the criteria, and suggestions for further improvements have been made. Geometry guy 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article failed nomination primarily because of the reviewing editor's personal disliking for the organization of some of the body and organization of the lead. I tend to disagree with the assessment, and look to featured articles on similar artists such as AC/DC having a similar lead (mentioning specific albums; not naming members right away), and don't really think that there's a set guideline to follow for the organization of history. This one went decade-by-decade, which fits well for the article, while other articles might work better with a different system. The failure was unfair (article wasn't even put on hold) and the reasons given didn't seem adequate. Clairification on how to improve the article was also unclear. At best, the article deserves a second or third opinion. Abog (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Various FA and GA class rock group albumns take different approaches. Some, like AC/DC, are strictly chronologic. Others, like Genesis and Kate Bush, include non-chronological sections such as musical influences, awards, etc. I'm not sure that I would have failed the article based on organization, but I would encourage you to consider adding sections which provide a more holistic, non-chronological overview of the band's importance, influence, etc. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a degree of subjectivity in any GA evaluation. This is one of those cases where the article falls into that gray area between an easy-to-judge pass and a clear fail.
I agree with the reviewer that the article would benefit from structural enhancement. That said, the article is pretty darned good as it is; it's GA material or darn close. Personally, I prefer using GA-Holds when these situations arise - but different reviewers take various approaches as GA Hold is a somewhat subjective call.
Perhaps some other editors will now offer their insights. Majoreditor (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this article needs some reworking. A separate critical reaction section would be essential in my view. There are other minor issues that make the article hard going. One is citation. First, the lead is meant to be easy to read at a glance, but it is so heavily cited that this is difficult. There is no requirement to cite noncontroversial facts in the lead which are cited in the body of the article. There is also no requirement to cut back such citations, but I think the lead would be much easier to read if you reduced citations to those which either are not supported by citations in the body, or are supporting controversial points. In the body, please move citations to the ends of sentences unless there is a really good reason for providing them mid-sentence. These suggestions would help the readability a lot, I think. Geometry guy 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I find it a little ridiculous that this article is being criticized for being too heavily cited, while other articles that have horrible grammar mistakes, aren't comprehensive, aren't detailed enough, and aren't well-cited are given a free pass to GA, while this article sits in limbo because it has too many citations. In addition, I'm sure there are other GA and FA articles that are more cited than this one. As far as the lead goes, particularly the first paragraph, many statements are made regarding the band and their overall achievements are made that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. They may be repeated in other articles (Aerosmith discography, Aerosmith's awards and achivements, etc.), but I think many people are going to want a citation for 150 million albums sold, and 4 Grammys won, and their nicknames (America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band, Bad Boys from Boston), and other things that could be disputed and have been disputed in the past. Genres/musical styles are also frequently disputed and also need to be cited. And in many cases, citations are provided mid-sentence because they refer to a statement in the middle of a sentence that could be disputed. I really wish I could have more input on this, and I think there are many more reasons to pass than to fail this GA nom.
As far as a critical reaction section, I don't really see the point, when it's noted in the history the commercial and critical success rates of just about every album. Also, I often point to the AC/DC article (an FA) which lists their history and doesn't really have any other sections. Abog (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not sitting in limbo because it has too many citations: please read by comment above that "there is... no [GA] requirement to cut back... citations": it was a suggestion not a requirement. And I'm afraid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not going to help you much here either. All the matters is this article and the criteria.
Now to your comments: "As far as the lead goes, particularly the first paragraph, many statements are made regarding the band and their overall achievements are made that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article." This is contrary to WP:LEAD, which is a GA requirement. "the AC/DC article... doesn't really have any other sections". Yes, it does. In particular, it has a "Recognition" section, which corresponds roughly to the missing section here. Such a section might also provide a place to expand on the first paragraph of the lead.
I share your hope that more reviewers will comment. Note that none have yet made a list/endorse-fail recommendation. Geometry guy 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, Aerosmith has an article called List of Aerosmith awards and achievements, which was created to replace an original awards section, which was deleted to cut down on article length. I'd rather keep the article short by making citations in the lead than creating a section that mirrors the lead and another article. I recently broke down the article into further sub-sections as suggested by the original GA reviewer, which appeared to be the bulk of their concerns. Abog (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a long list. All the more reason to have a summary of the most important awards in a separate section of this article, per WP:Summary style. Geometry guy 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added an awards section, as well as some other sections per the "summary style" guideline. I also broke the history down into more sections and re-organized the lead per the suggestions of the original GA reviewer. I also took out un-necessary citations in the lead per suggestions made here. Abog (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to great work by Abog, this article has been much improved, and I'd like to make a recommendation to list, but I can't do so yet because of WP:Embedded lists, which is a GA requirement. Some of the lists here are probably fine (e.g. the discography), but some are not. The most obvious case is the Awards and Achievements section. This should be converted into prose per that guideline. Possibly one or two of the other listy (sub)sections should be given the same treatment: the guideline provides good advice. Geometry guy 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I converted the awards and filmography sections to prose. Abog (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List as GA. That's good enough for me! One question, though: is "Aerosmith" singular or plural? I can live with the current compromise in which "Aerosmith" is generally singular, but uses "they"/"their" as an antecedant (the singular "they" is becoming increasingly common anyway in this gender neutral world), but I wonder if it would not be better to make "Aerosmith" a plural noun throughout. Geometry guy 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you mean "Aerosmith are..." instead of "Aerosmith is..."? I would assume that there'd be some sort of precedent already on Wikipedia with other bands, but maybe there isn't. Perhaps someone else might have a clue, but I do know this has been the subject of debate several times before. Abog (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is exactly the issue. Can anyone comment? Geometry guy 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is a question of a difference between British and US English. I personally would usually say "Aerosmith are", but then I would also say "Manchester United are", whereas I am aware that in the US sports teams take a singular verb. It's probably the same with bands. Meanwhile, I'm happy for this to be listed as GA, though I'd rather there not be four (!) citations at the end of the first sentence, and I feel that the references could be simplified; in fact, I'll go in and do some of that myself now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the more time I spend with this article, the more I think I prefer the plural. For consistency, if nothing else. Take this sentence: "The band performed at London's Hard Rock Cafe in February of 2007 to promote their European tour." To be consistent with the current style, surely this should read "The band performed at London's Hard Rock Cafe in February of 2007 to promote its European tour." But that sounds weird to me; and presumably it does to the sentence's original author, otherwise he or she would have put "its" instead of "their." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant by the singular "they". I am inclined to prefer the plural too, but the very first sentence ("Aerosmith is an American hard rock band") shows that such a solution is not entirely unproblematic either. Geometry guy 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having gone through the article, I'm a little disquieted at how much it relies upon the "Autobiography of Aerosmith," which is hardly a third-party source, and yet fails to quote six further books in the "Further reading" section, while using a seventh merely as source for one quotation from the band. As such, I'm withdrawing my support for this article's listing as GA. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for cleaning up the references. Although I'm a little discouraged by your comments. Keep in mind that this article is backed up by numerous web, magazine, and newspaper references, in addition to the book. Also, since the book was actually written by a third-party writer (Davis), based on conversations with a multiude of people (not just the band), it actually provides a very accurate, fair, balanced, and comprehensive picture, more than I think you would get from one of the other books. Since many good Wiki articles are based solely on web journalism, I think it's actually quite remarkable that we've been able to cite sections of this article with a book reference. One book is better than no books in my opinion. Abog (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, one book is very much better than no books! Absolutely. And I don't know this particular book, except to note that it declares itself to be the band's autobiography. Moreover, in general I agree that this is very well-sourced compared to the vast majority of similar articles. I'm not opposing the listing, but I thought I'd withdraw my active support in the hope that you might be prompted to dig out something from the other books. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think I'd be able to get my hands on any of the other books anytime soon, and have already put forth days upon days of research with the book that is currently cited. I feel like I've already gone above-and-beyond the call.
As for Walk This Way, the book is half-autobiography/half-biography. It is primarily back-and-forth tesitmony from dozens and dozens of people, primarily band members and their associates but also several other outside individuals. In addition, Davis, as a third-party individual, fills in the blanks for everyone with cold facts throughout the book, and many of the citations do come from these facts. Abog (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never like to be simply negative, so I've spent quite some time copy-editing the article. The prose could be improved (it suffers the common WP problem of what I'll call the "and then this happened" syndrome), but it's good enough on the whole for GA, I think. --07:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    Jbm, you might like to know that there is an "official" WP term for "and then this happened" syndrome, or at least something very closely related: WP:proseline. Geometry guy 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, marvellous, I have a term!  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List as GA. There's still room to improve the article's structure but it meets GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Aerosmith/1&oldid=213568199"