Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Radicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New Radicals

Self-nomination. It is a rather short article (which is probably unavoidable since the band was only really around for less then a year), but comprehensive and (hopefully) well written, and since it has been listed as a good article and did well in peer review and in the Featured Music Project evaluation (the only problem, lacking fair use rationales for images, has been taken care of) I thought I'd give it a try and nominate it. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'd come right out and say yes, but the relative shortness of the article is the only thing that's stopping me. --CJ Marsicano 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Could use some reorganization... the history section is long, and could be broken up by sections. Could use a section dedicated to discussing critical review of the group. Have there been negative reviews? For comprehensiveness sake, there could be a section discussing the style of music they play, what makes them different from other bands, and anything notable about them in that area. Is there any more that could be said about the fact that the group was so short lived? Fieari 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, some of the content of various critical reviews (including negative comments, and some describtions of their musical style) are included in the History's first paragraph. I also just added some more quotes from reviews.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I get what you're saying... I just feel uncomfortable supporting an article this short. I can't honestly say at this point what is lacking or what could be added, but I feel like there should be something. Since a vague feeling/desire for more information isn't exactly actionable, I'll switch to Neutral, as above. Fieari 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, meets all FAC criteria. But I too would like to see the history split into subsections.--Fallout boy 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I split the History section into several subsections now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the history needed to be split into subsections, but I'm fine with that. I'd support but now there's no content directly under "History". Put a paragraph or two summary there and I'll support. Tuf-Kat 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
After having another look at other featured band articles, I decided to reverse the split again, as the whole History section is about the length of individual subsections for other bands that were around longer (see Duran Duran, Marilyn Manson, Nirvana; The Beatles also has a very long History section without subsections) and a summary on top of the section probably wouldn't differ much from the lead. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of what I thought too. Support. Tuf-Kat 18:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive, well written, well structured. The length is appropriate - the band had a short life and they didn't change the world, so what more needs to be said about them? The article covers everything important in appropriate depth. It should be judged for its completeness, not for the number of words used to create it because, let's face it, there are way too many articles on Wikipedia that are bloated from too much unnecessary padding. This article has no padding - great! That should be the aim. I'd love to see another sound sample or two added though, simply because "You Get What You Give" is so well known that it would be interesting to hear something that's not quite so recognisable. Rossrs 11:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A few minor points:
    1. I don't like The concept behind the band was a revolving door... - seems a potentially confusing statement, and the link seems pretty useless.
    2. Do all the session musicians mentioned really need a red link?
    3. In the history section, the paraphrasing seems a bit clumsy, could this be reworded so there doesn't need to be any [he] or [him] business?
    4. ...Alexander would often use promotional interviews to talk about these topics, complaining about—among other things—corrupt, greedy politicians and corporate officers, credit card interest, the poor American social security system and lack of education. - can you provide a reference for this bit
    5. In the legacy section, Even after their breakup, the New Radicals' songs were still used... seems unnecessarily emphatic. How about, Since their breakup, the New Radicals' songs have been used...
otherwise, pretty impressive stuff. Flowerparty■ 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I rewrote the sentence and removed the link. Hope it's clearer now.
  2. I removed most of the redlinks now.
  3. I think it reads more fluent this way, than having to use direct speech or chop up the quotes.
  4. done.
  5. done.
Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, it gets my support. Flowerparty■ 12:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bit on the short side, also consider a band box right at the bottom of the page, similar to the FA Iron Maiden --PopUpPirate 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Those boxes are really only useful where there are several articles related to the band. Since this band is essentially one bloke and he only released one record there's probably not much point. Flowerparty■ 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support assuming one minor fix; there's currently a mix of date formats using both MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM//YYYY formats. You should standardize all of them to the US format, as they're an American band (eg. February 22, 2006). - dharmabum 08:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. (I didn't notice this before as I use Wiki's date preferences, and they all looked the same to me) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great article. --Karrmann
  • Support although the article did need some proof-reading. Cedars 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)