Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Athens, Georgia/archive2
- 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 Joelr31 17:44, 7 February 2009 [1].
Music of Athens, Georgia[edit]
- Notified: WP Rock music, WP Georgia, TUF-KAT.
- previous FAR (14:46, 15 March 2008)
I'm concerned that this article no longer meets criteria 1a, b, d. The first problem I notice is that there are a ton of red links. Do acts even need to be mentioned in this page if they're not worthy of having articles? By padding the article with so many facts about (purportedly) non-notable acts and venues, it seems to make the article seem thrown together. Furthermore, the "origins of the modern scene" has a fully unsourced paragraph, and part of the "Rock" and "Other styles" sections have unsourced claums. I'm finding unsourced OR puffery like "Athens also has a small, but loyal hardcore/metal music scene. Venues such as Tasty World, DT's and LunchPaper held regular shows featuring bands including The Knife Trade, Another Broken Vehicle, and Aegis of Athena." creeping in, which also has me concerned about 1e (stability). Other problematic pieces of prose (how's that for alliteration?) include vague numbers ("housed a number of black professional businesses as well as many performance spaces"), yet more original research ("The B-52's and R.E.M. became by far the most famous…" and "that made R.E.M. the top underground band in the country") passages not backed up by sources. Furthermore, there seems to be more weight given to the B-52s and R.E.M. than other groups. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:RED; redlinks are not a valid objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was on the main page two days ago. Have you raised these concerns in the article's talk page? I am sure that the talk page would be a better forum than FAR at this moment. Joelito (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links alone are not a valid objection, but the high number of them gives me the feeling that the article is being used to promote subjects which would otherwise not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Yes, I'm aware that this was just on the main page a couple days ago, but I did the same thing with Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) and no one objected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, the article was on the main page four days ago, so it doesn't violate FAR instructions, but I agree that these concerns could have been brought up on the talk page first, especially as there are not many technical issues (uncited, MOS, instability). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links alone are not a valid objection, but the high number of them gives me the feeling that the article is being used to promote subjects which would otherwise not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Yes, I'm aware that this was just on the main page a couple days ago, but I did the same thing with Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) and no one objected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was on the main page two days ago. Have you raised these concerns in the article's talk page? I am sure that the talk page would be a better forum than FAR at this moment. Joelito (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to boldly revert this article to a version from last March. Looking through the diff, I don't see any real improvements since then (somebody please correct me if I'm missing something). I think that resolves at least some of TenPoundHammer's concerns. There are still some red links, but I think they all deserve an article. Everything is cited (or at least, should be - I got this through FAC and I believe I've reverted any uncited info, but it's possible some has crept in. This page sees a lot of editing for a rather obscure topic.). REM and The B-52s are covered in great depth because they are by far the most well-documented, popular and historically important part of the topic (which is covered for the references in the version I just reverted back to). Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tempted to just revert your reversion because that was a pretty big move, but at the same time I trust you. The current revision is still peppered with red links, and it seems a little skimpy for a FA. I'll go ahead and withdraw this though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.