Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grunge music/archive1

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 13:44, 8 September 2007.

Grunge music

Review commentary

Messages left at Alternative music WikiProject, WesleyDodds, LGagnon, Music genres WikiProject.

The article was promoted to Featured status in early 2005, and, since then, hasn't had a review. It's clear the article fails some immediate featured article criterion:

It contains at least one ^{[citation needed]} template
Many things in the article are not backed up by factually verifiable sources, as only 19 in-line citations are present in the 36 KB article.
An all around thorough copyedit is in order, as I doubt many fresh eyes have done serious editing to the article since promotion.
The Decline of Mainstream Popularity section has been nominated to be checked for neutrality (therefore having two templates on how it may/may not be phrased in the neutral point of view), and has a {{Not verified}} template.

Overall, this article does not currently exemplify Wikipedia's best, and a review is in desperate needed. NSR77 ^T_C 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been planning to work on this. However, one of the sources I ordered won't arrive in the mail until two weeks from now. WesleyDodds 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on improving the article. Given I have to wait for a source in the mail (and I have to renew my library card) I anticipate this taking about a month, but I am absolutely confident we will be able to keep it as a Featured Article after all the work is done. WesleyDodds 05:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confident you will be able to keep it a Featured Article when you receive the sources. NSR77 ^T_C 04:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also add that I am busy at the moment with work and three of the most active editors in the Alternative music WikiProject are all on some sort of Wikibreak, so please forgive what will be a rather slow pace. WesleyDodds 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also has these tags:

{{Not verified}} {{npov}} {{bias}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) July 15, 2007

I'd give Wesley the extra time, especially given the great contribution he gave to heavy metal music. LuciferMorgan 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some rewriting and gradually adding citations. Luckily past reference work on Nirvana and Pearl Jam-related articles is proving very useful. As I mentioned above, circumstances out of my control have pretty much determined that I will be working on this largely by myself and very slowly, but I appreciate everyone's patience and good will. WesleyDodds 08:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the final section needs work. The chronology ends rather abrubtly, and more could be said of grunge's influence on contemporary music. I think there's room to talk about very popular 2000s post-grunge bands--like Creed, Godsmack and Puddle of Mudd--groups who, years later, were derivatiely aping the sound of classic grunge bands (and were critically lamabsted for it). I'm not much use as an article writer, but I may be able to find some references to critics' views of these bands.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address that, but it's hard to find good sources about the decline of grunge and its later influence. The best-covered aspect of that (which isn't addressed at all in the current article) is th advent of Britpop in the UK, which was in part a reaction to grunge. Luckily I have plenty of references for that and will be inserting information sometime soon. WesleyDodds 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help out when I can, though happy circumstances mean my editing may be at weekends only for a while. That said, aside from the problematic "Decline of mainstream popularity" section, the article needs a light ce and sourcing only. Ceoil 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Does this need to go down to FARC or is it OK? Marskell 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress to date. I agree with Ceoil; sourcing is the highest priority, along with the "Decline of mainsteam popularity". In my opinion it's salvagable. CloudNine 09:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been a bit caught up by other things, but doing further work on it. I should also receive the Hype! DVD (one of the main sources of the article) in the mail within the week. WesleyDodds 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the DVD in the mail today. Huzzah. WesleyDodds 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, its not going to be completed within time and should probably be moved down. Ceoil 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and accuracy (1c), copyediting (1a), and neutrality (1d). Marskell 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently sourcing the bulk of the article. Much has been sourced and/or rewritten already. Hopefully will be done in two weeks. Then the article will need a copyedit (my own prose is kinda crap in some places; just trying to get the general idea down first) and then it should be a keep. WesleyDodds 07:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may also be able to help with sourcing. Reviwers are welcome to place {{fact}} where material may need citing. My main concern with the article is the number of weasel words, although I'm addressing this. CloudNine 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Been distracted by another FAR. Hoping to finish sourcing in a week. WesleyDodds 09:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS breach in "dirty". Read "Words as words". Can it be linked or explained, too? Tony 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another update Sorry about the delays. Now that I'm done with my other FAR, this is my top priority right now. I'll try and finish this as quickly as possible. WesleyDodds 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, coming together well. Some more rewritting, a few more citations, and standardization of the references, and we should be done. WesleyDodds 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been really tied up elsewhere; will someone pls ping me when work is completed and this is ready for a final look? I won't have time to spend on it, but would like to take a look when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm close to done. Mainly have to rewatch the Hype! documentary DVD and rework three more paragraphs. WesleyDodds 09:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good! NSR77 ^T_C 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now all I have left is to rework/source the glam metal paragraph and then standardize the references, and that should be it. WesleyDodds 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with the major work. Now just have to tweak the prose and standardize the references. WesleyDodds 11:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been virtually transformed. NSR77 ^T_C 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have difficulty with the "Prominent bands" section. Its more or less a see also; I prefer that the cats look after this. Other than that the article is significantly improved. Ceoil 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's necessary for the article since some of the major bands (ie. Hole) can't quite be worked into the prose. WesleyDodds 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Ceoil 12:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.