Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chris Field (composer)/1

Chris Field (composer) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: A clear consensus for article demotion was reached D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 23:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails point 2 of the GA criteria – I don't believe the majority of the sources in this article are reliable ones, and much of the article remains unsourced, e.g. the entire "Albums" section which can only be sourced from non-RS, or no sources can be found at all for some of the statements. Of the sources cited, ZoneMusicReporter is a website which invites artists to pay subscriptions to promote their music, so it is not impartial, and the interview is almost entirely about the equipment used to compose music for his studio album. Trailer Music News appears to be a blog run by five enthusiasts of trailer music – in any case, the majority of the interview is primary material asking Mr. Field about his inspiration and method of composing music, not about the actual music itself. The AllMusic link gives no details or review of the album whatsoever, so it's useless. The only two sources that could be considered reliable are the interview in the trade magazine of ASCAP, and a paragraph in Sound on Sound talking about Mr. Field's most well-known composition [1]. Most of the music for films in the table can only be referenced to a primary source, Mr. Field's own website. The "Further reading" section is simply a repetition of the first four sources in the references section. Mr. Field certainly seems to be a big name in composing movie trailer music, but in my opinion the sourcing falls a long way short of that required for GA. In addition the article appears to fail point 1 of the GA criteria: the lead is too long and full of unnecessary information, and the section headings and content do not follow MOS:LAYOUT (the "Discography" section, for example, seems entirely unnecessary – it presumably refers to the album, but it's unnamed and it shouldn't include a complete track listing). Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demote. This article is ineffably feeble for a GA. The criticism above says most of what needs to be said, but I note that the review which initially promoted it was perfunctory to say the least. I am astonished that it received a GA rating: I should say it deserves a C rating at best.--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demote vastly underreferenced. The "Albums" section has no sources at all! While the version that got promoted to GA looked much better with regards to citation placement, there still is a concern over source quality. This probably shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demote Does not meet at all #2 of the GA criteria - much of the information is unsourced or poorly sourced. I am also of the opinion that the article does not pass criterion #1 - what is the reason to put the Albums section (which, under MOS:LAYOUT, is an "appendice") as the first section of the article? Not to mention that the information in Albums is not presented chronologically ... Zingarese talk · contribs 00:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]