 | Eddy Arnold was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Versions edit
As the person who put the 'peacock' tag here recently, I thought i'd put my pre-emptive two-cents worth in here, before a disagreement develops between editors as to the preferred version. While it still has some minor issues, I think Mitchazenia's version is to be preferred over the version to which Radiobroadcast sought to revert (and which was what I saw when I tagged it). Work should in my view proceed on the version as it stands now ('now' - see my signature date stamp :-)) Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Eddy Arnold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article is inadequate for a major artist of this stature, longevity and importance.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- See comments below
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- There have been large-scale reversions and major edit changes within the last two months, involving several editors and IP addresses. The GA nomination itself was challenged, and the nominator may have lost interest in the article
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Would be nice if more images could be found, perhaps in U.S. gov't archives?
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
This article is way too short to comprehensively cover the career of this major musical artist, and pales in comparison to other WP FA and GA articles about musicians. The article never describes Arnold's music in any way; it says that he created the Nashville sound but it never describes what that sound is in any detail or what Arnold did differently from previous artists. The lead says Arnold was a role model, but the article body never explores that. If Arnold was a songwriter, it never describes his writing style. Just the first paragraph of this Allmusic bio tells me much more about the characteristics of Arnold's music than this entire article does. Much of this article reads like an abbreviated annotated discography. Nor is there any description of what his film and television persona was like, just another list of appearances.
The article also makes basic MoS blunders, such as putting songs in italics when they always belong in double quotes. The lead is inadequate, and gets into a digression about comparing his hit numbers with George Jones that belongs in the article body.
Because of these shortcomings, along with the article's unstable edit history, I am failing the GA nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I've never contributed to Wikipedia in any way, but I read through the entire Eddy Arnold article, and there's no way that 2nd paragraph under "Later Years and Death" can be true - someone's pulling a fast one (a funny fast one, but fast nonetheless!). Can someone with more authority/time check on that? - WP user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.203.28 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)