Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alison Krauss

Alison Krauss

The old nomination drew a numbner of objections, which the nominator had addressed (or so he says), but had trouble getting follow up critques. As such, I have restarted this nomiation. (Old nom here). Raul654 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old nominator here I'll continue to strive to fix any issues anyone may have with this article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks generally good.
- Per summary style, put some content under all section headings. For example, under "Biography" put a paragraph or two giving a quick overview pointing out the encyclopedic highlights over her life.

I could remove the "Early life" sub-tag, but I was following the style of the already featured Mariah Carey (and basically Kylie Minogue, though it's called "Recording and performing career" there). Would removing the early life tag be sufficient (as that seems like a decent lead in for a bio).
- It's not really supposed to be a lead-in. It's supposed to be a stand-alone section that summarizes what comes next. Tuf-Kat

Summary style is used for split-off articles, not for completely in article sections. What is the point in essentially regurgitating the lead to lead-in to more detailed text? The only place I've ever seen the kind of lead-in you are talking about is maybe something single sentence where an entire section is a table (The following table summarizes ____ or what have you). What are you looking for, outside of essentially a thinner rewrite of the lead directly below it? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be organization. If one of the main topics of "Alison Krauss" is "Biography", then there should be a summary of that topic. If necessary, more detail can be added in subsections, and more beyond that in subarticles. In any case, there's still supposed to be that brief summary. The reason is because the point of Summary Style is to provide different layers of coverage, and a brief summary of a major part of a topic is a useful layer. Someone who just wants the highlights of her career could then read a one or two paragraph summary of it, then go on to read the details if needed. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will simply point to Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey once again as two already featured current musical artists who don't follow that style at all. Summaries provide a quick explanation of the included material, and the lead does that for the article. Furhter summaries are used for split-off material. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~"Artistry" seems somewhat inappropriate as a section heading (it's kind of vague). Change to "Reception" or maybe "Reception and historical influence"?~~

Again, following the style of the already featured Mariah Carey, but renamed to "Reception and influences".

- Some more substantive references may be nice. There's nothing wrong with the references used, but it should be possible to find some more scholarly sources. I think I've got at least one I'll be able to track down in the next few days.

If you can find one, great, but I the references are all reliable and I'd say the article is pretty well-sourced.
- I disagree. There's nothing wrong with the references used, but she's probably the most notable bluegrass performer of the last decade. I think a featured article on her requires more substantive referencing - the entire section and subsections on reception and influences is cited from a few web bios, reviews, interviews and other promotional literature, except for a single pointer to a Dirty Linen article. That's not enough to adequately place her in a historical context. Tuf-Kat 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article cites numerous printed sources like the NY Times, Billboard, and Country weekly along with a few very solid televised refs from Great American Country and some interviews (which are about as pure a source as you can get). What would you add? What issues do you have with the citations? A preference for a different kind of source is fine but not a piece of WIAFA, and if you believe a source is providing faulty information I will find additional sources to back up the statement or remove it. She has no biography, official or otherwise, and most bluegrass books I have found deal with the generation before her while country books completely ignore her (and focus on drek like the Dixie Chicks. What could I change to satisfy this issue (I thank you for not making it a formal objection). Just as an example, a lot of the biography section was also covered in her interviews on the Great American Country interviews, but I sourced them with net versions that sourced the specific statement (and were easily accessed by other users). As for influences, there is no heavy information included in album notes, she has no biography to provide really juicy meat, and what is wrong with using interviews with Alison Krauss to cite the musical influences and style of Alison Krauss? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked for "substantive" references, not necessarily print. I'm not concerned about the biography section, but rather the Reception and influences section. As an example, "Some credit Krauss and Union Station, at least partially, with a recent revival of interest in bluegrass music in the United States" -- I know this to be true, but it's cited to her agent, which is not independent. As I've said, the sources used are fine, but they are not sufficient; Krauss is a good source for her musical style, but she is not a sufficient source to be comprehensive because she is not independent. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is the kind of thing I was looking for. If you feel something needs further or better referencing just tell me what it is. I'll go find another ref for that right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it looks pretty good on a cursory glance. Tuf-Kat 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional Support.~~ I think Tuf-Kat is right on the money. However, this article is very good, I would supoort in a heartbeat once his concerns have been addressed. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what would you have me do though? I'm following, to the letter, the pattern laid out by another featured article for a currently active American musician. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok then, you do have me. I did support the Mariah Carey article, so I guess this one gets a similarly strong Support. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; my objections were taken care of in the previous nom. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support; it's a good article, but the images are really bad. Especially the lead image; that looks like it was taken with a cameraphone, or worse a Fuji Finepix, from a distance and then blown up. Surely for someone as notable as Krauss we can get some better non-copyvio images? No other objections, though. Suntiger 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]