Talk:Experimental rock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Iadmc (talk · contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No problem with grammar and spelling but the prose too often loses its focus and meaning. The second sentence starts "Artists aim to liberate..." Liberate what? We are not told. Then we get: "...most of its leading players had incapacitated themselves in some form". How? Presumably drugs/alcohol but this isn't addressed in the article. Next: "...new openings were created from the aesthetic intersecting with the social...". Yuk! It's even marked "jargon". Then: "...was released to a four-month chart stay..." Is that really how people speak? Why not: "...spent four months in the charts..."? And: "...inspired the trend of experimental rock as commercially viable music..." This clause is too loosely constructed and sounds more impressive than it actually is. Why not: "...inspired experimental rock musicians to attempt to make money from their music..."? Worst is the sentence starting "From then on, the ideas and work of British artist and former Roxy Music member Brian Eno...", which at that point breaks off into a massive aside by the end of which I'd forgotten what the context was.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout fine. The prose (thus WtW) is the problem as highlighted above. Also, "In the opinion of Stuart Rosenberg..." doesn't tell us who he is or why we should listen to him. (Perhaps the film director, Stuart Rosenberg?) Ditto "professor Kelly Fisher Lowe claims...", [Claims? Is her word in doubt?] "Author Doyle Greene identifies..." [another WtW...] and "author Barry Faulk writes...". Who are these people? We need to know, otherwise one could just quote some bloke's book bought in a second-hand book shop that didn't even make its advance back...
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine, if a bit over-complex for my taste.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Presumably the people I mentioned above are reliable. Some of the citations are from hard copies without e-versions, so I can't verify, which is another reason this is on hold... perhaps someone else can verify the sources?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything appears to be attributed to sources (aside from the "leading players had incapacitated themselves" bit in the lead which is a well-known enough fact but still needs citing, IMO).
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	As far as I can tell, all good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Well rounded and to the point.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problem here either.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	All good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	A bit of vandalism but what article doesn't?
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All seems good. One is out of copyright; one is a cropped version of one from flickr; the third is a cropped version of one assumed by Commons to belong to the uploader.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good.
	7. Overall assessment.	I can't in all honesty pass this article. If I find myself wanting to edit while reading, it can't be a Good Article. And there are too many places where I would edit as highlighted above. Indeed, I might come back and do just that! Hopefully next time...

• 1b — This is per WP:INTEXT. Their statements are sorta subjective and difficult to paraphrase in Wikipedia's voice. Simply stating "Tte most groundbreaking group", for example, would be WP:PUFFERY. I think it would be awkward if the article spent every 2 sentences providing a bio for its sources. Every other issue you raised was a fair point, I'll try to address them.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah... I got a bit too knit-picking with 1b. The other points are important to address though. I'll give you a hand when I've time — Iadmc♫^talk  23:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)