Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 removed by Marskell 11:41, 30 November 2009 [1].

Sly & the Family Stone[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: WikiProject Music, WikiProject Musicians

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are large portions that are unsourced. The first paragraph of "Sly's solo career" is totally unsourced, as are the sentences "Sly continued sporadically releasing new singles and collaborations until a 1987 arrest and conviction for cocaine possession and use. After being released from prison, Sly stopped releasing music altogether." The first two paragraphs of the "Reunion" section are also totally unsourced. There are also some sloppy edits, including bare-URL refs (37, 41) and doubled periods in a sestence in the "Reunion" section. The grammy tribute also contains the borderline weaselly "Several people, however, were more positive about the performance…". My main concern is the lack of references in parts; it is clearly no longer GA class, having been promoted in 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transcluded on 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I just want to say that I think it's ridiculous how little articles change after promotion to FA, even if the concept of what is a featured article has changed. This article has had very few non-IP edits since its promotion two years ago, and while the concept of featured article has changed some since then, the article hasn't kept up with the times. I've noticed this with way too many featured articles. Even worse, none of the major editors (more than 10 edits) have edited the project at all since February at the latest, and most of them retired in 2007 or so.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation quality issues

Dates non standard D Month YYYY versus YYYY-MM-DD... even "Nov. 1, 2002"
Date presentation non standard, sometimes plain sometimes (bracketed)
Most cites end with a fullstop, some don't. Consistency.
This isn't a citation, this isn't a citation at all! ^ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0cfpxqy0ldde~T1
Volume, issue, pages: Aronowitz, Al (Nov. 1, 2002). "The Preacher". The Blacklisted Journal.
Self / Vanity? : Edwin & Arno Konings www.slystonebook.com Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea, but after all the crud I've done this week, I've been wanting to play a little safter and not do something that big. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody objects within a week, I will revert to the diff suggested by SandyGeorgia and close this FAR. I have no issues with that diff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Marskell, Joelr31 and Yellowmonkey can close a FAR: even if you revert, the article would need to be reviewed, since standards have changed. Also, if there are no other active editors, I don't think you need to wait a week: a few days should do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue. The previous FAR closed on Feb 15, but the article appeared on the main page on Feb 18. There were probably improvements as a result of mainpage day, so the version that passed FAR might not be the best version to revert to: you would need to look at how the article came out of main page day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only additions I saw in that timespan were unsourced and/or vandalism: on 2/18/07 it had a totally unsourced "reunion" section. I didn't see any improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one objects by tomorrow, I will look through the article history and do the revert, but leave it to you to do post-revert cleanup. Once reverted, you will need to ask Dabomb87 or Ohconfucious to delink dates and run the dash script, at minimum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That diff still has the problem of an unsourced "reunion" section, but I suppose I could just fix that myself, eh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you just delete it after the revert, thereby saving the other improvements. In other words, even after a revert, cleanup is needed and then the article will need a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the clean-up tasks would of course be a ref consistency polish. (I'm not reviewing the content here). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured criteria concerns are citations. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reverted to the revision in my sandbox. I see no citation problems whatsoever in this version, nor any other problems with content. My only concern is the one source of questionable reliability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TPH, go ahead and move your sandbox in to the article, and I'll work on it bit-by-bit as I have time; I see some things that need to be addressed, but it's easier to do them than to list them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TPH, please don't just remove the content I just tagged until others have had a chance to try to source it; it's important content, and I will ping some music editors to look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pinged three music editors, asking them to look in here. Please don't delete content that was just tagged; sources can likely be found, and the FAR is still young. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed a run-through, and asked Ealdgyth to look at the sources. There was a lot of overlinking, faulty ref formatting, faulty image placement, dabs, dead links and sources need to be checked for reliability. Ready for more eyes now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: I'd have to say that the article seriously abuses WP:NFCC, in that album covers are being used despite no textual justification (there's no critical commentary or discussion about the covers, merely that the albums were released. I'd recommend File:Slyfamstone-dance.jpg, File:Stand-slyfam.jpg, File:Slyfam-ghits-1970.jpg, File:Slyfam-riot1.jpg, File:Slyfamstone-fresh.jpg, and File:Sly-highonyou.jpg be simply removed entirely (Some of them also don't meet the "low-resolution" requirements, but that's another issue altogether.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, (but now the article is lacking images; perhaps someone can locate some that comply). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Elcobbola has added another image, and Eubulides has worked on alt text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll try to add more later today. I've only had time to look for one at the moment (and someone will probably want to add alt text and improve my no doubt lousy captions). Эlcobbola talk 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added two more (they'll need alt text, btw). The current amount of images seem sufficient, to my eyes anyway, to break up the prose and provide some visual differentiation. Although it pains me to do so, I might actually recommend adding a fair use sound clip. As an article about a band, it may be helpful to the readers to have a (i.e. one) sample of its music. Stand! has some clips to choose from, but they are currently too high of quality (330kbps runs afoul of NFCC#3B) and I don't know enough about the band's style and a given song's relative importance to write an appropriate rationale. Such a clip would also have the (highly secondary) function of further breaking up the prose visually. Эlcobbola talk 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - What makes the following reliable?

Note I'm not watchlisting, so if I'm needed again, ping me. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: several editors are at work here, and there are now only two unreliably sourced pieces of text, as far as I can determine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, the archive.org is an archived version of a there1.com page; there are several there1.com pages used as sources. Are they reliable?
I checked the about.com page, and the author appears reputable (the problem with about.com is when they have housewives writing :) He's a journalist and has written for reputable music mags: http://oldies.about.com/bio/Robert-Fontenot-1533.htm
Classic bands surely isn't reliable; that info needs to be resourced.
Slys little sister's website is not a reliable source to make claims about herself, like:
  • Little Sister's "Somebody's Watching You" is the first popular recording to feature the use of a drum machine for its rhythm track.
That needs to be sourced elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify, I'm questioning the whole there1.com domain, not just that one page. Sorry, my link got screwy somehow. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The There1.com page was written before 2004, by Jeff Kaliss. Jeff Kaliss published a bio on Sly and The Family Stone in 2008. [3][4] Although we may consider Kaliss a published expert on Sly, it is apparent that the article doesn't consult the latest published sources, and his 2008 bio should be consulted to source these statements and more, since it's a recent bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a RS to replace Little Sister's website. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaliss's book is available at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone will need to read the entire book, to assure this article meets 1b and 1c of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As a general rule, I'm against the use of google books snippets/previews to source articles. There are a very few exceptions (such as using a small encyclopedia entry, or something similar where it is possible to get the entire context within the snippet/preview) but generally the snippet or preview does not allow you to gather the entire context of what the author is getting at, so it can lead to issues of misinterpreting sources. For something like this, where you'd be using a biography, and thus would need the whole thing, this concern really applies. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree (slightly). Google books "limited" preview general gives the reader enough information to understand the proper context of what is being written. With limited preview you can usually read up to four or more pages in a row which is then followed by a section of the book that is omitted. "Snippet" previews on the other hand are definitely unreliable as they only make a sentence or two available to read (hence the term). I've used google books limited preview on almost every article I've written on wikipedia and I've had no trouble getting a comprehensive understanding of the information that is made available. In situations where relevant information happens to be what is omitted from the preview, simply look for another source. Google books has plenty of music encyclopedias, so it shouldn't be difficult at all to replace any current unreliable sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example: Here you can view at least four pages that talk about the group during the "Dance to the Music" (1968) phase and after. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this has now been moved to the Discography sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments There are several paragraphs that don't have any inline citations. The band history section begins far too early than is necessary. The lead needs to be rearranged and culled of "peacock" wording. All those citations in the lead should be moved to the article body. Only studio albums are necessary for the discography section. Chart placings in the article body need to be cited. Why not make a "musical style" section? Why not spin off "Impact and influence of later material" into a "Legacy" section? Why is so much space given to Sly Stone's solo career? Awards should be worked into the article body. The amount of space given to the 2006 Grammy Awards tribute is full of recentism. Remove links to the personal websites of band members; the band is the article subject, not the members. For more recent musician FAs, look to R.E.M. and Janet Jackson for inspiration. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wesley, this FAR is proceeding nicely towards salvaging the FA status. Would you mind adding citation needed tags on any text that you think needs citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the opinion that not only does it need more sourcing, but that the article needs to be drastically rewritten in places. More research certainly needs to be done; citing what it currently in the article only solves part of the problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common music abbreviation for "backed with", meaning the b-side of the single was "Walking in Jesus' Name". Still, it doesn't belong in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article needs massive overhaul, accompanied by greater research to fulfill the comprehensiveness criteria. Many problems still exist, primarily unsourced paragraphs and elements of recentism. not much work has been done on the article lately. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delist per Wesley's concerns; there are still major issues with the prose even after my bold reversion. At another glance, it indeed doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:04, 27 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Sly_%26_the_Family_Stone/archive2&oldid=1089082385"