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 lead needs expansion, and needs to be an adequate summary of the article. LuciferMorgan 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of inline citations have been added since this article was listed as lacking citations, and it is close to finished. With a bit more work, this article should be able to retain its FA status. Expanding the lead, a copy edit review, and finishing up the citations are in order. Sandy (Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. With one or two editors working on this, it should be wrapped up soon. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has improved over last few days. The lead now covers most of the main content, and cites continue to be added. - Coil00 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the improvement! Be sure to keep a consistent bibliographic style in the footnotes - they're kinda bouncin' around, but that can be fixed when you're closer to finished. Sandy (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Reference format fixed. Sandy (Talk) 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is comprensive, balanced and sourced. Lead has been expanded as mentioned above. + Ceoil 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of trying to trace punk's roots back to the US. Punk began in the UK as far as most critics are concerned. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer, this is a can of worms. Punk was defined by the '76 UK bands, but they crystallised the lead of the Ramones and New York Dolls, as well as The Stooges and the earlier US garage bands. See the talk archives for an extended, and heated, discussion on this. + Ceoil 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but more cites are needed. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever way, I'm not voting Keep yet, and people don't vote until FARC.
"Punk rock may have been influenced by the snotty attitude, on- and off-stage violence, aggressive instrumentation, overt sexuality and political confrontation of artists such as The Who, the Rolling Stones, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, The Velvet Underground, Alice Cooper, The Stooges, the MC5, The Deviants, and the New York Dolls. Other likely influences include the English pub rock scene, and British glam rock and art rock acts of the early 1970s, including David Bowie, Gary Glitter and Roxy Music. Early punk rock also displays influences from other musical genres, including ska, funk, and rockabilly."
May have? Says who? Which music critics? And which music critics disagree? I'd like to see citations in this specific paragraph, and also the "Characteristics" section needs more citations. Keep up the good work though. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'll find something on that one. I'd appreciate a few 'cite needed' tags else where, if needed, to focus the mind, like ;) + Ceoil 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add the most urgent first though, its a heavily edited article, carpet bombing might draw some reverts. If you see a lot of gaps, maybe add them in a few manageable phases, and I'll do what I can. Thanks. + Ceoil 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to add the tags, but I've been accused in the past of going overboard (see the Operation Downfall FAR). The main problem is that when you've cited something, I'll most likely scour the article for other areas that need cites. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you approch, knock your self out here. + Ceoil 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Fill whatever cites you want, and if there's some you disagree with then feel free not to fill them. LuciferMorgan 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lucifer, I'll need a few days though. + Ceoil 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, just a note to let you know, we don't vote Keep or Remove during FAR; if concerns aren't addressed in more or less two weeks, the article moves to FARC for another two weeks, and that's when you enter Keep or Remove. Sandy (Talk) 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops + Ceoil 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some problems with this article right off. For one thing, the editors don't seem to understand the need to keep original research (WP:NOR out of the article, even in the lead paragraph.[1] & [2] A lead paragraph that is full of what could not be more "self-evident" is not part of an encyclopedia--encyclopedias are not insiders clubs. Punk Rock has been around for ages, there is tons of research on it, some from the late 70s even. I would like to see this article approached as if it were a serious subject, culturally relevant, and important enough to be included in an encyclopedia, not just an editors evidence of himself as if Wikipedia were a blog. Self-evidence is not part of a FA that I can see. And if a FAR is telling the editors that more citations are needed, editors should consider whether a citation is needed or not, rather than saying, no, bollocks, this could not be more self-evident."
"...and placed emphasis on music that was fast, short in duration, and simple, often accompanied by a political or social outlook."[citation needed]
"The punk rock movement also encompasses a punk subculture, involving youthful aggression, specific clothing styles, ideologies, and a DIY (do it yourself) attitude."[citation needed] (In spite of its self-evidence to one editor.)
"...but its popularity was more sporadic elsewhere."[citation needed]
"Over the course of the 1980s, various forms of punk rock emerged in small scenes around the world, often outright rejecting commercial success or association with mainstream culture."[citation needed]
"By the end of the 20th century, punk rock's legacy had resulted in the formation of the alternative rock movement, while new punk bands popularized the genre decades after its initial heyday."[citation needed]
I had intended to go into the article and see how these other statements are supported, but learning that the first is supported by "self-evidence" showed me it would be a waste of time. This article desperately needs citations, citations that are readily available.
KP Botany 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KP, agree that 'self-evident' not good enough, and thought the reversal of you cite requests was plain rude. I kind of warned LuciferMorgan above about fact tags being rv'd by others, and have sandboxed the article so that tags can be added and dealt with in peace during the FAR. Please feel free to place more requests there, as you say there is an abundance of sources to choose from.
One thing though, I think I remember reading somewhere that you don't need to cite statments in the lead if they are ref'd further down in the main body of the article. I've searched around but can't find it again. Does any one know if this is actually true or not? + Ceoil 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, so all info there should be in the article body also. LuciferMorgan 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Status?I noticed that publication dates are missing on news sources - perhaps cite web was used rather than cite news? Does this article need more time? Sandy (Talk) 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some ref cleanup, and fixed most of the missing dates on news sources, but this ref is wrong: "Punk Music in Britain". BBC.co.uk (2002).Sandy (Talk) 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tidying up, & url for 'Punk Music in Britain' now fixed. Ideally, I'd like to extend this by a few days if possible, still need to track down sources for a number of statments highlighed by LuciferMorgan. + Ceoil 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you get further along, I'm hoping the lead will improve. There are a lot of references in the lead. Since the lead should summarize the article anyway, perhaps some of that text could be expanded in the article, with the references provided in the body of the article rather than in the lead. Sandy (Talk) 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also is quite long: can some of those be linked into the text and eliminated from See also? Sandy (Talk) 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List has been trimmed. + Ceoil 01:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 31 was lost: I'm having Wiki-technological problems, and can't track it down - someone needs to find it in the history. Sandy (Talk) 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That ref was ok when I checked it out; in that it pointed to a website, but not a very good one. I need to validate the sources created before this FAR, and also attend to POV issues noted by KP Botany. Realisticlly, this will take a week, at least. I'd prefer not to go to FARC; any objections to putting this out until the 31st? I picked up a few source books while x-mass shopping; as soon as my father tires of reading "Punk Dairy: The Ultimate Trainspotters Guide to Undergounf Rock 1970-1982" and other books like it, will incorporate ;) My openion is that the article is adequately cited for an FA, but the text needs work + Ceoil 00:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs a lot of work, but as far as I am concerned, if you're willing to do it, we should wait. I think Wikipedians can be impatient about what it takes in time and commitment to make an article something useful. Allowing extra time should, imo, always be a given. KP Botany 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Marskell 19:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of a stickler about readability. Consider making the paragraphs a bit smaller, and more even.
I love all the music in there - you got all the good ones right on the money. Consider moving some pictures to the right underneath the "music" boxes so the text isn't so squeezed.
Inline citations are fabulous for other folks. Personally, they make things hard to read as the formatting stands now. Hopefully, that will change, but multiple inline citations for non-controversial points I feel are unnecessary.
Lets diversify. Don't forget Bikini Kill, Le Tigre, Hole, etc. as well.
Two bands were particularly influential @ 1981 to span punk and new wave, though lesser known (currently). They're Pearl Harbor and the Explosions and Romeo Void. I'd particularly love to see Romeo Void in there, because it was headed by the largest Samoan woman you ever saw. If you can find references for them, I'd love to see them in there. This is not OR, they were both on the charts.
There's also the Waitresses; this band was a chart-topper back in the day.
PJ Harvey was a HUGE influence, particularly "Sheela-Na-Gig"; don't forget her.
Ani DiFranco - punk/folk, most notable for "fucking the system" and starting her own label and doing her own distribution before she ever released anything.
Pansy Division - have been around for 15 years.
Was Bad Brains "different"? How?
I'm not farting in the wind here. I want to see some of these people in this article:).Nina Odell 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations (1c) and LEAD (2a).Marskell 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was given extra time but I don't see any notes suggesting all the issues have been cleared up. History shows work is on-going. Marskell 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there, just checking back over a few old refs. Will let you know later this evening when I'm done. Thanks for the patience. + Ceoil 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Article has undergone an extensive restructure and copy edit. Hopefully it is also more balanced that it was, and that concerns re citations have been met. + Ceoil 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't like the "See also" section.--Yannismarou 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved the "See also" links into categories, where they belong. + Ceoil 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting that this be held. First phase was to take care of obvious weaknesses, but the article would benifit from an overall polish. + Ceoil 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the changes since nomination, I find this not well enough written to satisfy 1a. Take, for example, the lead:
"a number of artists that emerged"—Are they people or robots?
Remove the redundnat "as" in the first para.
"and placed emphasis on music that"—Why not "emphasised music that"?
"fast, short in duration, and simple"—What does "simple" mean in this context? Musical simplicity comes in so many forms.
"accompanied by a political or social outlook"—You mean in the lyrics?
What's a "do it yourself" attitude in this context? If I don't understand it, many people won't, I guess. Engage with those who aren't experts in this field.
Do we really need to link United Kingdom, United States and Australia? They're so obscure, aren't they. And why is "UK" (wrongly) dotted in a title?
"punk rock's legacy"—nicer as "the legacy of punk rock"; it's a major statement, too, so the informality of the inanimate apostrophe is even less appropriate.
We expect better writing throughout starred articles. Please fix the whole thing by finding copy-editors who are interested in this field. Tony 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I'm asking for more time, I haven't worked on the copy yet. + Ceoil 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At some stage soon, the reviewers may be happier with some idea of a timeline. Tony 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's taking much longer than I expected, but I can work towards finishing up for next friday. + Ceoil 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What are these five inline citations doing in the first paragraph of the lead? They're attached to perfectly straightforward information that wouldn't even need to be cited in the main body of the text, let alone up front as they are. The lead should, in general, summarize the entire article and should, again in general, be free of citations. As long as everything stated in the lead that needs a citation is cited in the text of the article, there's no need to cite up top. And, as noted, these are facts that don't even need citation in the main text. Remember the cite guideline: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." It's also desirable to cite (a) uniquely sourced and (b) often misreported info, but the five citations in question don't come anywhere near those realms. And packed in the first graf of the lead, to boot. This is hardly FA-level presentation. I would go in and simply remove them, as is proper, myself, but I see two are uniquely cited from there (to support the claims that the United States and the Sex Pistols were important to punk...ye gods!). Proposed remedy: (A) Determine if those two sources are needed for citations elsewhere; (B) Cite them there, if called for by Wikipedia citation standards; and then (C) Eliminate all five of these superfluous, distracting, and non-FA-worthy cites in the lead.—DCGeist 11:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cites in the lead are discussed earlier in the review; a rewrite is in progress (it's often easiest to rewrite the lead last, once the text is complete), and most reviewers here would disagree with your interpretation on whether those facts should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I caught the colloquy about the lead on Dec. 12 above. I didn't notice that you'd already followed up on the 18th. At any rate, I'm prepared to help out Ceoil with a general copyedit of the article to bring the language closer to FA quality. In light of that, I want to be clear on your position (let's encourage "most reviewers here" to speak for themselves):
I gather you agree that locating punk's emergence in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia does not call for citation in the lead; I gather you also agree that identifying the Ramones and the Sex Pistols as exemplifying the seminal wave of punk does not call for citation in the lead. I'm sure we agree that, if the latter claim is made in the lead, it needs to be supported by discussion in the main text, appropriately referenced per Wikipedia standards to the best available sources. What I remain unclear on is how you would want the broad geographical observation to be cited. The observation is supported by discussion of the many significant bands from each locale; what, if anything, would you want to see cited specifically in the main text on this point?—DCGeist 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in secondguessing Ceoil's ongoing efforts; I like to re-check articles that show ongoing progress once the main editors have finished their work. I'm confident Ceoil will work it out just fine, depending on what text is kept where once the rewrite is done, and I doubt that cited text will suddenly go uncited. I'm also confident that reviewers here will come to a consensus as to whether the article is well cited when the work is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume then you won't be interested in secondguessing my work either. Tony has suggested finding copyeditors who are interested in this field. I'm a copyeditor interested in this field. My aim is to assist Ceoil, as I clearly expressed, in improving the article's language and presentation. I asked you to weigh in on specific content and its appropriate citation. You've chosen not to weigh in. Fair enough. And once again you've spoken on behalf of "reviewers here." Interesting. I'm still waiting for one of those reviewers to step forward in support of your claim that "most" of them would say that a broad statement about the central role of British, U.S., and Australian bands in the emergence of punk rock should be specifically cited.—DCGeist 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DC, Sandy is right in that I'm leaving the lead for last. And for the record, he did a lot of work fixing poor citation templates when the article was first nominated for FAC. However, help from you on the copy would be much appreciated - I've mostly been concentrating on a rewrite and restructure, and a copy edit is still needed. Following a skirmish this morning, I've had to sandbox the article tonight to further tweak the structure, meaning some of the sections will be significantly rewritten by tomorrow evening. But if you could help clean up the "Characteristics" & "Legacy" sections, that would be great. And BTY, you should add your star to B movie! + Ceoil 23:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm more or less there in terms of content, hoping for a white knight re copy. DCGeist helped out tonight, have also left a note at WP:LoCE. + Ceoil 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update: I had a look, and saw some backwards progress on the refs, which will take some time to untangle and explain <sigh> ... will get to it as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of the untangling and fixing if you let me know the problem. + Ceoil 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it - got distracted elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work here, lots of progress, much improvement, but some small steps backward since I last checked. (Noting that you've taken what was a very old brilliant prose promotion - with no original editor/author - and brought it very far. Great effort so far.)
It looks like some "Main" templates are now being used incorrectly. The Main template is used when this article contains a summary of another Main article (think of is a min-lead of that article): that doesn't appear to be the case in all uses here - templates usage could be reviewed. Some of the templates could be switched to either See, See also or Further (can't remember which is which, someone should check), depending on the situation. For example, is the Pop section of Punk rock a summary of the Pop rock article, or is that further information ?
Even on a large screen, text is being scrunched between images and music samples. (When I go to another computer with a smaller screen, they look fine, since the text is forced to below the image and sample). Perhaps images or samples can be moved up or down to avoid this problem.
Tony1 is up on the legalities of Music samples: has he looked at these? If not, can you ping him? It's Greek to me: I just know there was a problem recently.
Some statements may need cites, example (I always work from the bottom of the article first): Some punk rockers complained that by signing to major labels and appearing on MTV, ... Maybe make another pass, looking for any vague-ish statements without attribution.
Paragraph in question heavily revised, fully cited.—DCGeist 07:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor prose issues, example (working from the bottom): Many groups such as Screeching Weasel that fused punk rock with pop melodies would follow in their wake. Trying to eliminate the redundant "many", maybe something like: Groups that fused punk rock with pop melodies—such as Screeching Weasel—followed in their wake. I see you've got a request in at LoCE.
Ceoil, do you have most of the reference books? Some of the extensive editing may have taken the text away from what is supported by the refs, so pls let us know that you can verify a lot of the ce changes. I see combined refs which I didn't see before, so checked to see what's up there, example:
The first issue of Punk was published in December 1975, and tied together earlier influences such as Lou Reed, the Stooges, and the New York Dolls, with an array of new bands centering around the CBGB and Max's Kansas City venues: the Ramones, Television, Talking Heads, The Heartbreakers, Blondie, and others. (Fowler, Damian. "Legendary punk club CBGB closes". BBC News, October 16, 2006. Retrieved on December 11, 2006; Sabin, p. 155; Walsh, p. 15, 24)
Yikes, disentangling this: I've seen the notion on several FACs that refs must always come at the end of a sentence, which is a misread of WP:FN. If specific facts, phrases, or words are referenced within a sentence, the refs can be mid-sentence. Combining these refs has munged verifiability, in some text that wasn't clearly sourced to begin with. Before the refs were combined, the text was:
The first issue of Punk was published in December 1975, and immediately tied together earlier influences such as Lou Reed, the Stooges, and the New York Dolls, with an array of new bands centering around the CBGB[1] and Max's Kansas city[2] venues: the Ramones, Television, Talking Heads, The Heartbreakers, Blondie, and others.[3] ...
so each piece of the sentence was separately sourced, and is now run together. But, the first (BBC) source doesn't appear to verify the text it is sourcing; by combining all of the refs into one, an individual piece that doesn't seem to be sourced is obfuscated, and we now have to look at three sources to find the text. Do you know where the text supporting the first part of the sentence is? I saw several examples like this in the text, so we need to doublecheck a few refs, and perhaps move them back to individual facts they were sourcing. The changes came from here; the original BBC text needs to be figured out, and the refs should probably go back to verifying each piece of text separately.
Sentence split. Specific source given for initial publication date. Sourcing improved.—DCGeist 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some other edits which warrant checking, where refs look to be lost or combined: [3]. Refs were combined here, also adding new text, the latter taking its name from a Minor Threat song - does that come from Sabin?
Sourcing changed to best available on topic.—DCGeist 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Savage 440 say hardcore developed on both sides of the country (the ref was moved to the end of the sentence, so it looks like it is now citing text it wasn't citing before)? Similar here; refs were moved, so it's not clear if text was incorrectly cited before, or is incorrectly sourced now - can you verify vs. refs ??
Looks ORish, sounds like opinion, needs a cite: In its noisy, fun-loving way, pop punk bridged the divide. Perhaps this is supported by Reynolds, p. xvii; can you check?
Quote substituted, cited.—DCGeist 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm close to a Keep - if you have the books, perhaps just a quick perusal of the refs that got moved around will suffice. In general, since a lot of text was rewritten and sources were moved and combined, a run-through of the article making sure that refs are still sourcing the text they are attached to is in order before passing this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. Over 60s edits since I had last looked at the page!
Sandy, thanks for taking the time on this. I have hard copies of most of the books (and two are from an online library); and judging from his work this morning, so does DCGeist. The article has improved greatly since I left it last night, but I need to give a run back over some of the older refs, read up on "Main" templates", and check on the acceptability of the sound files. This I can do tonight and tomorrow night. + Ceoil 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have another look at the concerns I raised above as to running though one more time on the prose and cites needed - the two examples I gave were only samples from the bottom of the article - entire article should be checked for similar. If we can get Tony to look at the music sample issue, we should be able to wrap this up. I'll add this to the urgents list, to get others to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the rearrangement of image/sound files in the New York section is better on both of my screen sizes: would it be possible to do similar in other sections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: not being familiar with the lingo, why is New Wave capitalized, while other similar terms (Punk rock, Pop rock etc.) aren't? Wondering about WP:MSH and section headings, but saw New Wave capitalized throughout - pls educate me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, it's almost always capitalized, while punk rock sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. Anyone know? KP Botany 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that because its origionally an art phrase, and art movements tend to be capitalised in general (Art Nouveau, Magic Realism, Color Field etc). Also, strictly speaking its 'the New Wave', rather than 'New Wave'; if that makes any sense.
I accept Sandy's point that the issue noted above are examples only; have printed the article, ticking each one off individally. However, most of the inserted text that led to the refs being undermined was valid, and greatly added to the quality of the article; just need to go back to the sources and back it up. + Ceoil 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, darn, I came over to see if I could add a Keep yet, and found a new problem. A new Reynolds source was just added to the References section [4], without adjusting all the footnotes to account for there now being two Reynolds sources. (Lesson learned; always use year on sources, even if there's only one.) Now every Reynolds footnote needs to be sorted out as Reynolds (1999), p. no. or Reynolds (2005), p. no. I am going to be traveling soon: if I'm not able to get back to this article, pls consider me a Keep once all of these recent changes to refs are sorted out - someone now needs to check and edit every Reynolds source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. All book refs will be styled to best Wikipedia standards.—DCGeist 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, All concerns have been met. + Ceoil 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent job Ceoil - you've taken a "brilliant prose" promotion and turned it into an FA that can be held up as an example to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 17 January 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.