Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magnetic Rag/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009.

Magnetic Rag

 * Nominator(s): Magnetic Rag (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Several of us Wikipedians have contributed much time and research to this article. (Special thanks to Stepheng3, Melodia, Binksternet, and Major Bloodnok.) I believe that it meets the FA criteria, or is close! I'm not a super-frequent contributor, and have never done this sort of thing before. If there's anything I'm leaving out, please let me know. Also, I'm pretty busy these days, so if I do not respond to concerns or suggestions immediately, it's not intentional. I will attend to them as soon as I am able. Or, perhaps the previously mentioned regular contributors may be contacted. Magnetic Rag (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Using the external links tool to the right, I found that four Google Book URLs had gone dead in the year since the GA review. I also saw that a bunch of the books in the bibliography required the |accessdate= parameter to meet FA standards. I updated the dead URLs and I added the access dates, but I'm on the fence with all of that... I don't like the look of the accessdates on each book. What do editors think? Should the URLs for google books go AWAY so that no accessdates are littering the bibliography? Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, Google Books URLs should not occur in Wikipedia articles, as they do not work reliably. For example, when I use Google from a location where my IP address is shared among many other users, I typically get a message saying something like "sorry, your quota is exceeded". Also, there are some privacy concerns with those URLs, as they let Google track the editor who originally added the URL. Instead, please give the ISBN or OCLC for the book. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooh, that means I have about a year and a half of google books references to remove! Ouch. Anyway, I've removed the ones from this article, along with the accessdate parameter for those URLs. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Image needs alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it still needs a bit of work. First, the phrase "the original 1914 edition" is not verifiable merely by looking at the image, and as per WP:ALT it shouldn't be in the alt text. Second, I suggest putting all of that image's text into the alt text, as there isn't that much text, and this will be a service to the visually-impaired reader. Something like 'Sheet music cover reading "..."' where the "..." is the text in question. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Magnetic Rag (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good. Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The article has reached FA status, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://www.basinstreet.com/articles/rag.htm#MAGNETIC%20RAG%20-%201914%20-%20Scott%20Joplin a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth: I see from your user page that you have visited our great state. It is not surprising, then, that you would have such great insight into the article!

Anyhow, I looked more scrutinizingly at that link, and yes, you are right to call its reliability into question. I would be prepared to dismiss it outright; however, it appears (but it is not certain) that the website material was written by a Dr. Karl Koenig, who has published several books on the topics of early jazz and ragtime. Perhaps this reference should be allowed under WP:RS, but that might be a stretch. Let's see what the you and the others have to say about it. If necessary, we can easily delete the one sentence in the article which refers to that site. Magnetic Rag (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having the Karl "Dr. K" Koenig website in there, but all we are using him for is to say that Magnetic Rag has been compared to twelve-bar blues, a statement which Edward A. Berlin supports at the end of the paragraph. I'd like to keep him, but if the consensus is to kick out Dr. K, then I see no need to delete the sentence about twelve-bar blues. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Source analysis - after looking through the sources, I realized that I found a few more for you. King of ragtime: Scott Joplin and his era, Dancing to a black man's tune (info on the "seriousness" of the work), Jazz: new perspectives on the history of jazz (comparisons of the work with other rags), and Is language a music? (discussion of repetition on p. 34). Those are just examples, and more can be found here. As reader, I would like the Background section to be doubled in size. There are a few biographies and I am sure you could pull out a full paragraph or two of information for the page. As a reader, the "strain" headings are too small. Either condense into one section or try to make each section at least 6 sentences long. If you can expand the page with some of the above, I will check back in and give a more thorough analysis. Good luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per structure and prose style. My first thought on viewing this article is: "So short!" But I know that's not a viable reason to oppose an FAC. I am concerned by the number of possibilities Ottava has found. Of course I don't know what exactly is available, but it seems like this article is missing some elements that would make it truly comprehensive. (I only wish I could indicate that those elements might be.)

However, that's nothing I can comment on. But I am opposed to the short, choppy sectioning in this article — do we really need all those single-paragraph sections for the various strains? How about one larger section instead?

My other concern is with the Analysis section. It's mostly a big collection of quotes. None of these stand out as a result, which (in my view) is what a blockquote is supposed to do. I'd prefer to see more summary and maybe 2-3 quotes max in a section. Scartol •  Tok  02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.