Wikipedia:Featured article review/Layla/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Layla

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Deltabeignet, Albums, and Songs. Sandy 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FAR because;

1) 1. c. isn't met - ALL direct quotations from the bandmembers etc. need inline citations. The "Recording", "Structure", "Beyond the original album" and "Acoustic recording" sections all need proper citations, especially reasons why the lyrics/music was written and critical comments upon them.

2) 1. a. isn't met - the "Beyond the original album" is very listy, and needs converting into cohesive paragraph prose which flows, tying the whole section together. The "Quotations" section is listy also, and I feel would be better served by merging them into the "Beyond the original album" section in proper paragraphs, and of course tying the whole section together. LuciferMorgan 12:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Inline citations aren't required, despite popular belief, when Harvard referencing or other forms of citation are used. As for the second issue, you are correct. Also, in general, the article in whole isn't sufficiently referenced. If someone were to work on it a bit, it wouldn't need to be taken off FA status.
On first glance, it appears to need more inline citation work: there are still broad patches of text with no source. Sandy 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, I am right on both accounts. Point 1 does indeed need to be addressed (especially direct quotes), otherwise my objection wouldn't be actionable. It is actionable though, and if the criteria concerns aren't addressed within the 4 week period, this'll lose its FA star. LuciferMorgan 09:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - First, let me thank LuciferMorgan. The article has for some time been lacking in several areas, and I think this review will be just the boost it needs. I have reworked the references and cited much material, along with a few new references. I have removed or rewritten most of the problematic text. In general, it's a better article today than it was yesterday. Deltabeignet 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for your compliment. Having said that, I have to say more inline citation work is needed, particularly regarding the origins of the song. LuciferMorgan 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Under the "Acoustic Recording" section, I'd like to read about some critiques by notable music reviewers. Right now the article makes a critique of this specific version, but without inline citations. This could be considered original research. I think this section could be expanded. LuciferMorgan 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Status? - Citation requests haven't been fulfilled, move to FARC. LuciferMorgan 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns inline citations (1c), prose and list sections (1a and 2). Marskell 08:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove if issues I raised in FAR aren't addressed. LuciferMorgan 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I may have finished the last of the work by merging and trimming the section on the "unplugged" version. Deltabeignet 06:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • More tags that need filling have been added. LuciferMorgan 21:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Deltabeignet 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks.. Can some other editors pitch in with a review of this article? I'm finding it difficult to see areas of improvement - the lead maybe? I'm unsure. I think the lead may need expansion, but find other reviewers opinions first. LuciferMorgan 10:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm traveling, and won't be able to review for a few more days. Sandy (Talk) 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If anyone can find criteria this article doesn't meet, can they inform the original FA nominator and give a time extension please? LuciferMorgan 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral The article is quite good but I'm not ready to certify it as a kept review.
    • "Clapton, having heard Allman's work on Wilson Pickett's "Hey Jude" cover, and finding himself in the same area as Allman, was introduced at an Allman Brothers concert by Tom Dowd." Should be rewritten. There's something I don't like but I can't put my finger exactly on what it is.
    • ...saying "There are my principles, in one form or another." Quote that should be sourced.
    • The caption of Image:Layla audacity.PNG is poor. Currently it states "Note the two clearly defined movements, the first tapering off into the second." The tone is unencyclopedic. It should be rewritten as "Visual acustic portrayal (I really do not know exactly what the image, visual acustic portrayal is just a noun I came up with to portray the sentence structure I deem more encyclopedic) of Layla portraying the two clearly defined movements, the first tapering off into the second."
    • Clapton played "Layla" as part of a three song set at Live Aid in 1985. This is a one-sentence paragraph. Either expand, merge or delete it.
    • Expand lead with information from beyond the original album. Joelito (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Once Joel's concerns are addressed, I'll be forced to withdraw my vote due to the fact I can't find much else at fault, unless someone else can? LuciferMorgan 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I've hammered out all his concerns. I'd like to see your opinion on the expanded lead, though. Deltabeignet 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Two more fact requests in there Delta, and then things are covered. Joel, are you comfortable with this now? Marskell 13:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. The lead has been expanded but now it does not flow properly. Also tyhe stubby paragraphs in the last section are still there. Joelito (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lead is much better now. Joelito (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)