Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green Day/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Green Day[edit]

Recently between a couple other editors and myself we have tried to rework the article to meet the criteria of what a featured article should be and should represent in terms of Wikipedia's content. This article has also recently gone through a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Green Day/archive2. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As much as I adore Green Day, this article certainly does not meet featured article criteria. There is no coverage on the band's music, their influence in modern punk rock and pop music, and has too many choppy, bewilerding sentences; it needs to be copy-edited. I'd also recommend adding a couple of images. And why are the band's song titles italicized (Holiday, Basket Case)? The proper formatting is "Holiday", "Basket Case", which needs to be corrected. The article is certainly on the way to achieving featured status, but it has not reached its peak yet. —Hollow Wilerding 01:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the song and CD title names to double quotations (") as suggested and I also tried to rework part of it slightly. The reason why there are not many pictures is that a few images that used to be on the article had to be removed and why there are only a few images available now is that they were claimed as fairuse with no justification and it could not be determined whether they fell under fairuse guidelines or not. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Needs something under "discography", a list of studio albums and Top Ten singles or something. Why the random bolding? Italicize albums, magazines and movies, put songs in quotes. Most critically, I really don't like the idea of featuring this without a reference to something more substantial. They're a pretty major band and this article (judging from the references section) just uses a couple magazine articles and the like to write the whole article. What's there is fantastic, but it needs more critical commentary and a more scholarly approach to the band's impact and place in history. Tuf-Kat 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, for several reasons:
  1. The images used in the article lack rationales for fair use.
  2. Several sections are in need of copyediting. For instance, this run-on sentence was particularly clumsy: The band, at the moment, is touring, promoting the album with many dates, continuing the theatrics of the shows from the Warning and Shenanigans tours by featuring a horn section dressed as a pink rabbit and a bumblebee, Billie Joe donning a crown and silk cape for the song "King For A Day" and drawn-out performances of certain songs like "Hitchin' a Ride" and "Minority", where Billie Joe uses the instrumental sections to make popcorn with the crowd, a staple of Green Day's blue live performances.
  3. Some quotations are given sources in footnotes, but others have no source given at all. Additionally, there is a lot of speculative material, particularly on the meanings of various songs, that will need sources as well.
  4. The lead section mentions the band's influence on other bands, but there is no mention of this in the article itself. Green Day was one of the most — possibly even the most — influential modern punk bands; the article should have more content that addresses this.
  5. Nearly all of the article's content is in "History". The band's musical style, songwriting, etc., are barely mentioned. Some audio samples would not hurt, either. --keepsleeping say what 01:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - peer review was offered by a number of editors, and those sugestions which would have smoothed the passage of this article through FAC were not acted upon.--nixie 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give some examples, I may be wrong but I think that I acted on or answered reasonably every criticism and suggestion on the peer review. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I think the article is well on its way. However, the lead section simply lists the band members and their awards. Try to give a little bit of context→how did they emerge?, what's special (or not) about them: ie., give a succinct overview of their career. Secondly, please provide more critical receptions of their albums →a few quotes from some major critics (Rolling Stone, All Music Guide, Billboard Magazine etc) would be ideal. (Aslo, try to include more notes; theres only one). Thirdly, many of the paragraphs in the article are short/empty: try to give a little context, provide full and complete thoughts, don't just state sales (five or more sentences per paragraph would be good). Furthermore, too many fansites are listed, try to list a couple of their albums in the discography section, and try putting "Network" further up, and push "Lineup" to the bottom. Moreover, I noticed that a section requests sources; try finding them first→ Featured Articles should be complete. A good article nevertheless. Good job. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object No sources, extremely biased. Gold Stur 20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'm a little late... Yellow Element 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Green_Day/archive1&oldid=1138461915"