Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of Maryland

Music of Maryland
I've been working on this for awhile now, hoping to get an idea of where the U.S. state "music ofs" could go. I think it turned out pretty well, better than I had thought since Maryland has not really had any significant local scenes (i.e. there's never been a "Baltimore sound"). Still, I was able to find a bit of info on local music history, folk, classical and popular music. I know some more pictures would be nice -- I've been trying to find a photo of the Peabody or something like that, but haven't found anything usable yet. Tuf-Kat 05:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Please try to make all the red links blue, and more pictures would indeed be nice, as you said. That said, this is a meticulously researched article and definitely an example for the other US state music articles to follow. Well done! Brisvegas 10:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I'd like to see more pictures as well, but as it stands, it's quite nice. Anville 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Several sections read like a list turned into prose.  There ought to be citations to printed works and not merely those on-line.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is one citation to a printed work, but this seems like an unfair objection anyway. There's nothing wrong with the references used, and I don't see why the format they come in should matter.  I will see if I can work on the list-cum-prose problem. Tuf-Kat 19:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did some copyediting. Is that the kind of changes you were looking for?  Are there any other sections I should look at? Tuf-Kat 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, but with a few comments. The very first sentence is a little abrupt.  I think that the lead can afford a gentler beginning to an overview.  That said, I wasn't able to write it.  I'm a little unclear what is going on with this article's division between references and notes.  Lastly, I think the article could afford a little more on hip-hop... perhaps an extra line about the huge impact of Tupac.  That said, I can support the article as it is.  Jkelly 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lead redone, can't find anything significant about Maryland hip hop, but I expanded a bit on Tupac. I will fix the ref/notes section. Tuf-Kat


 * Object. Support. Objections addressed; thank you! It looks good to me. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't make heads or tails out of the references/footnotes scheme. At least one footnote (#8 in the text) is broken. If there are 44 footnotes in the text, I expect to see a list of Notes, 1 to 44. Getting there. Still some broken footnotes: non-working links in one or the other direction, or links that jump to a non-corresponding number. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed two links at the end of the article. The rest appear to work fine, unless I'm missing something. Tuf-Kat 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * They are all working now. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The first couple of sentences in the lead are, as mentioned, a mess. "The most famous contribution from the music of Maryland is perhaps Francis Scott Key..." Mr. Key is a contribution from the music? Erk. That's now fixed, but now he lead sentence doesn't contain the article title, Music of Maryland, which I view as a requirement. I admit this is a tough nut to crack. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A little too heavy on the red links.
 * &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've filled in or removed all red links. Tuf-Kat 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lead redone, can't find anything significant about Maryland hip hop, but I expanded a bit on Tupac. I will fix the ref/notes section. Some red links removed or filled, will try and do more. Tuf-Kat
 * Okay, I made all the notes in the text link to a specific reference with a backlink. I don't want to extend the references section for most notes, since they don't need anything more explanatory than a link to the reference.  Is this better? I added the title to the lead as well. Tuf-Kat 08:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

*Object, huge amount of redlinks need to be turned blue or removed. Could also use an additional photo or two to break things up halfway down, it's tough going on the eyes. Only two paragraphs on the modern Maryland music scene. Proto t c 16:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, I have adjusted the notes that the numbered notes in the text correspond with the note and references list (It doesn't make sense to have numbered notes in the text that don't correspond to the list). There are two missing- numbers 6 and 9. The text reads well and covers the subject comprehensively.--nixie 12:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I've fixed the last two notes. Tuf-Kat 16:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's two paragraphs on modern popular music. The second paragraph of "folk music" is all about modern Maryland music; the five paragraphs under "music institutions" and "music venues" are also basically about the modern scene.  I think this is an appropriate amount of coverage -- Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and all that, and should not be extensively covering current local music scenes.  I've been looking for more pics with little success, but I will try and fill in some red links. Tuf-Kat 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've filled in or removed all red links. Tuf-Kat 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, a mix up in terminology. When I say modern music, I'm thinking hiphop, R&B, punk, rock, pop, metal, and so on and so forth, not folk music that is being produced today, or classical music being produced today. Which is why I didn't consider concert halls for classical music as being 'modern'.  Nevertheless, assuming no more information on the 'modern' music scene can't be located, I will strike out my objections, and weakly support.  If a few pictures are added to break it up, I'll support with no namby pamby disclaimers. Proto t c 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)