Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Evanescence/1

Evanescence edit

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

Result: Delist per consensus below. Article fails criteria 1b (WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), 2a/b, and 3a/b. Nevertheless, there is also consensus below that not much work is needed to bring this article back to GA standard. I suggest fixing sourcing issues, adding information genuinely about style and influences, and only then revisiting the thorny genre question. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: weak pass - No spelling mistakes, most of the article is well written, but there is a lot of unnecessary text that is obviously just filling the article so it looks bigger.
Factually accurate and verifiable: weak pass - Most of the article is accurate, however there are some invalid sources. This can be easily solved, so it is not one of the bigger problems of this article.
Broad in its coverage: fail - It addresses the main aspects of the topic, but, as I said before, lots of unnecessary text just makes the article look bigger while in fact there is very little said in it. Also, everything within the Style section is practically useless because it just talks about many different genres associated with the band while not considering their influences and band's sound itself. For this, I advise shortening all the genre talk in a one sentence, just saying: "The band has been critically associated with many genres, including:...", or something like that. And the rest of the section should describe band's sound (and yes, there are many sources for that).

This is probably the biggest reason for delisting this article.

Neutral: pass - No problems here.
Stable: pass - Vandalism is minimal and controlled. No edit wars.
Illustrated: weak pass - There could be some more images. But the main reason for a weak pass is that I don't see why should we have a picture of John LeCompt, who is an ex-member, while not having a picture of Terry Balsamo, who is, correct me if I'm wrong, the most important member of Evanescence together with Amy Lee, since they are writing most of the songs. And also the picture of Evanescence performing live should show all of the band members and not just Amy Lee.

There are many usable sources for this article and I am sure that it has potential to become a good or even featured article. But I don't think that it meets the criteria for now, especially when I compare it to other good articles. I think that it is time to fully rewrite it. — Gahonzu (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Huntster edit

The best thing I would suggest is laying out, for example, what sources you feel are invalid so they can be fixed, provide sources for the band's "sound", and begin finding images that you'd feel are more acceptable.

Images are a problem, however. There are, surprisingly, very few freely licensed images of Evanescence. A quick search of Flickr and Picasa revealed zero images of Terry Balsamo, so that may simply be impossible to fix. A picture showing the entire group at once also doesn't seem to exist...the one we have is old, but it may be all we can get.

I would also disagree with your opinions regarding the Style section. I would also *strongly* oppose culling the section to a single sentence, since that is what currently provides much of its stability. People love edit warring over genre for some reason. And it does a good job showing how varied different persons and sources feel about their musical style. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from NikFreak edit

Well, I agree with most of that. But, as much as I think that this article could be much better, I think that you are judging it too hard for a good article. If it was going to be FA, then all of what you said is in place. Still, there are definitely things that should be better in the article, so I do think that it's GA status is very questionable. I don't think that the whole style section is useless as you said. There should be more coverage on band's musical influences and descriptions of their sound and less about many different genres the band has been associated with. The problem with pictures is probably unsolvable, so we can exclude that from the problem list. There are no huge problems with this article, but there are many little glitches that, in my opinion, make it "unworthy" of GA status. Overally, I would have never nominate this article for GA status in the state that it is in right now. I think that removing the GA status is a good idea, since it might be encouragement for people in charge for this article to improve it further. A good rewrite would be nice, however I don't think it is necessary. Regards… — NikFreak (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the writing needs work - even for only GA level. The information in the style section may be too much detail - we don't need comparison's to bands less popular than the subject for instance, and critics giving very similar detirminations of genre don't have to all have their own sentence here, inless it is backed up with some discussion that gives more inf that "critic xxx called them goth, but yyy did not, but zzz did". Tightening up the writing would go a long way to solving this problem before any information needed to be cut. I think the "In other media" section is mis-titled. It implies work outside of music, not soundracks etc. Is there a re reason this is a separate section anyway? Why not intersperse it with the rest of the career? If the work is only by one band member, is it really suitable for the bands article, rather than the member's article?YobMod 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current version where it's a link to the style section where it is "Discussed; see below". If you are going to find out the genre, you shall not have to hunt the info.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that that is a good solution for the infobox. I think the problem people are seeing is that the section that it links to is just too rambling. It also implies there is some kind of debate about this in the sources, which there isn't. Different sources just mention a variety of overlapping genres, which, while containing useful information, really does not need so much text to cover it.Yob Mod 06:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the mess is one problem. Another one is that genre debating does not belong to the style section and all the important stuff is left out. We could make a separate section about the genre (which is not usual), or we could rename current section into "Genre, style and influences", but then also add something about the other two - style and influences. Currently, I think that the title is misleading and a very important part of article (which is present in any other good article about an artist) is missing. Therefore, I don't think that the article meets GA criteria. I don't know how long does the reassessment usually last, but this will have to be resolved sooner or later. If no one opposes to delisting it, I think that we should bring this discussion to an end. — NikFreak (leave message) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the GAR depends on whether editors are working to fix the concerns brought up, but are usually at least a few weeks, so enough independant reviewers get a chance to chime in. I don't see much (any?) work so far, and would agree that in it's current state it should be delisted. But a dedicated editor can do a lot in a few days, so the article could still be improved.Yob Mod 10:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair. Let's hope for the best. NikFreak, you can help me to find some sources to improve the style section, than we can present them to the others. I would like to rewrite, but you were the first to ask for it, so I will leave the decision to you. We can also do it together if you want. Let me know... — Gahonzu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from CyberDelia edit

Well, everything has been said. I would like to contribute, but I just don't have much time on my disposal at the time. I don't have time for any major edits like rewriting the style section, but, for what it's worth, I agree that this article needs much work. Until then, I say that we should delist it. --CyberDelia (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Aaroncrick edit

Delist - Obvious prose problems and not every sentence in sourced. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana boomer

I would like to point out to Aaroncrick above that GA status does not require that every sentence be sourced. With that being said, there was one spot that I felt could use a reference, and so I added a fact tag there. Of greater concern is the number of dead links in references, see here. Acronyms in references, such as "RIAA" in ref #13, need to be spelled out. Several web references need publishers and/or access dates. The lead could also be longer - two skimpy paragraphs is not long enough for an article of this length. At this point I am leaning towards delisting this article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Diderot's dreams

The GA criteria seem met to me, except:

The lead doesn't summarize the whole article
the term "EP" is jargony-- it needs explanation
The "In other media" section has a dispute that uses "claims" and "supposedly" for one side and "refuted" for the other in violation of Words to Avoid. It needs neutral phrasing.
There is no description of what Evanescence's songs are generally about, or alternatively what a few individual ones are about. What do they talk about? Also, if you talk about a few individual songs, what do they sound like?
I agree with Dana Boomer's fact tag-- definitely needs a cite for GA.
I agree with Gahonzu's comment on the Style section-- it's just a list of different discriptions of the band's style. But culling the section to one sentence is too brief and loses valuable content.

I think the writing is OK at this time, that fleshing out the refs more would be nice but not required, and that every sentence does not need to be referenced for GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]