Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alison Krauss/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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:34, 28 April 2010 [1].

Alison Krauss

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Alison Krauss

Featured article review/Alison Krauss/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Music, WikiProject Illinois, User:Staxringold. Note that I have the second-highest amount of edits to this page, after Staxringold.

Yeah, yeah, I'm always whining about how few country music articles are of GA or FA quality, and then I go and nominate the only country music FA for a FAR. Bear with me... I kind of didn't want to do this, but I'm doing it anyway for about a bajillion reasons, mostly 1a, 1b and especially 1c. My goodness, the sources are terrible terrible terrible.

1a — Quality of prose

Under 1992-1999: "Some critics said it was "untraditional" and "likely [to] change quite a few…minds about bluegrass." Who are "some critics"?

1b — Comprehension

Only two sentences explicitly about each album under the 1992-1999 section. Surely there's more to say about each album — more in-depth discussion of the critical reception, chart performance, etc.? I mean, I was able to get two full paragraphs on In the Vicinity of the Heart in Shenandoah's article (which is GA), and that was even after extensive digging turned up only one actual review of the album. Entertainment Weekly and Billboard have certainly reviewed at least some of her albums, not to mention more country-centric publications such as Country Weekly or Country Standard Time.
No mention whatsoever of her guest appearance on Shenandoah's "Somewhere in the Vicinity of the Heart," surely an important song as it was her first Top 40 hit before "When You Say Nothing at All." This song's article says the song's success boosted her own. I added a mention, and am amazed that there was previously no mention of it.

1c — Unsourced content

All but the last sentence of "Music Videos" is unsourced.
Under 2000-present: The section on "Whiskey Lullaby" is entirely unsourced.
Also: "The album was very commercially successful, but was received with a lukewarm reception from critics." — unsourced. In fact, that entire paragraph is source-free.
"in a breathy yet penetrating style using little to no vibrato" is not supported by a source.
I've slapped a few unsourced sections with {{fact}} tags.

1c — Quality of sources

Source numbers are as of this diff.

~~Source #1 is broken. This should never have been credited as being part of billboard.com anyway; before the June 2009 redesign, Billboard's bios were mirrors of Allmusic (which is currently ref #11).~~

~~Is Askmen.com, currently source #3, a RS?~~
Sources #6 and #7 claim to be from interviews with Krauss and Tyminski, but provide absolutely no way to verify that they did. Shouldn't this, at the absolute minimum, be a {{cite episode}}?
~~Source #8 is a promotional piece for some event, not looking reliable.~~

Source #13, LP Discography, has been declared unreliable in the past.

Is source #14, Second Hand Songs, reliable? I see no editorial policy.

Source #15, a Last.fm link, is definitely not reliable.

Source #16 lists a #53 peak for "When You Say Nothing at All," not at all verifying the claim of "It was her first album to rise onto the Billboard charts, peaking in the top seventy-five on the country chart. The album also was a notable point in her career as she earned her first Grammy Award, the single "Steel Rails" was her first single tracked by Billboard[…]"

Is source #17, Music Video Database, reliable? I see no editorial policy.

Sources #18, #21, #31 and #72, from Alison Krauss' own website, both redirect to the front page.

Sources #20, #25, #29 and #30 are Amazon.com links. Surely something better, like Allmusic, could be used here.

Source #27 is an IMDb bio, obviously unreliable.

~~Source #28 looks dubious.~~
Source #32, from Rolling Stone, doesn't credit the author.
Source #33 is a bare URL.
~~Source #36 is broken, pointing to some sort of placeholder/domain squatter.~~

Is Source #37, this, reliable?

Source #39 is Musician Guide, which seems to have a weak consensus for being unreliable.

~~Source #43, Soundtrack Info. Reliable?~~
Source #48 is malformatted.
~~Source #49, a Dolly Parton (!) fansite, seems unreliable.~~

Source #51, from the BBC, redirects.

Source #54, Harmony Ridge, seems unreliable too.

~~The three links at CD Universe (#59) are formatted very weirdly for a citation, and don't seem reliable.~~
Is Source #68, this, reliable?
~~Source #70, a Wayback Machine archive, gives me a "not in archive" error.~~
Is source #73, this, reliable?
Finally, source #89, this. No editorial policy.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad stepping away from an article like this I worked on for so long, but the article has morphed so much during my long several year Wikibreak and I'm just not linked into the topic anymore. I can't really see myself saving this article. :( Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~In that case, I suggest moving this baby to FARC, stat.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, please quit asking us to ignore process and move articles along more quickly. The focus of the FAR process needs to be on saving articles, not delisting them, and pushing them through in a few days would not be in line with this focus. Articles will remain in the FAR section for at least two weeks, and in the FARC section for at least two weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pruned most of the dead or egregiously unreliable sources. Also, I thought that the music clips didn't have sufficient fair use rationale, so off to FFD they went. Issues with prose and uncited information still stand. Also note that none of the citations uses a template; while this is not mandatory, I still believe that use of citation templates should be encouraged for GA and FA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...but they are still not required and therefore not an actionable request. Just saying. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing, prose and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as nominator. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.