Talk:Lafayette Afro Rock Band/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
At this point, the article, while well-written, does not appear to be sufficicently comprehensive for GA status. It presents a very brief summary of the band and its recordings. Although the albums are mentioned in passing, I get very little sense for the sound, the sales, the reception, etc.

Although the lead section is supposed to present a summary of the article, much of the information in the lead is not given later in the article.

1. "they are now considered one of the standout funk bands of the 1970s" is a weasel word problem without stating who considers them to be a standout.
2. Do any critics comment on the band as a whole? I don't get a sense of what kind of impact, reception, or legacy they have outside of having some songs sampled.
3. The table for the songs that have been sampled is only partially referenced.
4. The url for the "On the Continuing Resonance of "Rump Shaker" reference has changed and should be updated in the citation.

I am going to place the nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the article is not comprehensive; it covers a very niche topic and I think have scraped up all the information that can possibly be included without violating various editorial norms (WP:V being paramount). About the sound and reception - I will try to find more about them, but more info on sales is probably out of the question - sales figures from that era are not very reliable, plus this band flew under the radar until the late '80s. On your specific comments:

1. Will fix this, as well as cite it to a secondary source, rather than AMG.
2. Not really. Lafayette Afro Rock Band went largely unnoticed during its lifetime, and are famous only for getting some breakbeats stolen from them. The Melody Maker review of their Greatest Hits album is the only thing I could find aside from blogs here and there. I'll try to expand on their reception. I've found a couple mentions in some other music anthologies, but will need some time to get the books from my library.
3. The table is actually entirely referenced (cite number 3h). I thought it would be better to place it near the heading rather than repeat the same cite thirteen times in the same small table - if you can think of a different way to get this done, I'll be glad to try it out.
4. Fixed.

I'm also going to rework the entire lead (and knock out your first objection at the same time :]), but please give me a couple of days - I've been swamped with various other obligations recently. Thanks for taking the time to review this article. east718 // talk // email // 15:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to work on the article, I'm in no rush. Take care of things in the real world and get back to this article when you have a chance. I've still got this page on my watchlist, and you can also contact me on my talk page. If you will be unable to edit the article for more than five days or so, just let me know. I'll assume you're planning to get to it, but open communication works best. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be able to get to this around Saturday afternoon (eastern time). Sorry about the long delay. east718 // talk // email // 06:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes look good. I think the "Reception" section really helps. I am promoting the article, as it now meets the six GA requirements. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)