I'm trying to get this good article status and maybe eventually FA status. I've put in a good deal of work into this including finding a bunch of references. I'd like to know if my references/citations are properly formatted and sufficient. Other subjects of interest that I would specifically like to hear about are encyclopedic tone and concise language. What else do editors think needs to be done here? Wickethewok 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the automated notes - the technical stuff especially about headings and stuff is useful. I'll make those changes later today. If anyone would like to help out with removing "redundancies" and copyediting in general would be great, as I think it needs a second set of of eyes. If anyone would like to expand on the automated stuff regarding "how to satisfy 2a" that'd be great, too! Also, if anyone can judge how "complete" the article is, that'd be cool as I'm concerned about people's perspectives who don't really know anything about Sasha or electronic music in general. Wickethewok 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, taking a shot based on my limited knowledge of the subject...
- One aspect where this article has exceled so far, I think, is presenting information in context. Explaining the artists' influence and stature in their musical fields is something that's not always easy to do, so good job on that. One thing, though — I seem to recall some criticism about the musical direction he's taken more recently, particularly post-Digweed. Any substance to that? Worth discussing?
- Yeah, I agree. Pretty much all of the reviews and such I seem to find don't really have an criticisms of Sasha. I realize that some fans don't like the direction he has gone musically, but I haven't found any reliable sources discussing this (yet). If you find any discussing criticism, I'd love to integrate them into the article. I will continue looking myself as well. Thanks for all the feedback btw, its much appreciated! Wickethewok 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't really think of any obvious major sources. Actually, I get the feeling sometimes that public opinion like this, particularly regarding dance music, is all just concentrated in forums — it can't really be pinned down to a solid, reliable source, which is what worries me.
- Thought of another topic — the Allmusic review of GU013 kind of puts things into perspective regarding Sasha's place in the "rise and fall of trance music", so to speak. The first half of that has somewhat fallen out of public memory, while the second half of that I don't think many people are even aware of. Might be worth expanding. –Unint 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest sorting the discography by release types, as seems to be the widespread practice. Also, maybe awards could be sorted by won/nominated rather than using bold, though I wouldn't know where to find a specific citation on that; this is mainly based on the policy discouraging people from bolding #1 chart positions. –Unint 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the discogs as you suggested. I'm not quite sure how to format the awards section as I think sorting by won/nominated might look a little awkward (unless anyone can find a good example of how to do this). I think I might change the "Awards" section into prose instead of a list. Do you think thats a good idea? Wickethewok 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at featured articles on films for ideas. The trend seems to be that major, award-heavy subjects get awards sections, while lesser-known subjects list awards with prose in a section like "Reception" or "Influence". (Of course, the significance of the award itself is going to be factor here.) Make what you will of that. –Unint 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback, Unint. When I get a chance I'll add the Allmusic review stuff in and write the awards section in prose. Thanks for the feedback! Wickethewok 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]