Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baroque/archive2

Baroque

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

This article should be removed. First of all it doesn't cite its sources. Second of all, some of the pictures may be copyvio. But the most important problem is shared by many other art "style" or "movement" articles: it fails to make clear the whole coherency of the movement, either intended or subconsciously done by the practicioners. For example the scentence: " It is an interesting question to what extent Baroque music shares aesthetic principles with the visual and literary arts of the Baroque period." If the music DOESNT share the same principles as the movement in architecture, then the whole article would have to be changed, such as the lead to be "baroque is defined as such and such features of art and architecture, and is also a term given to the music made during that era even though the music wasn't connected to the principles of the art and architecture movements". There needs to be a clear distinction between what was intended by the artists and musicians, and how later observers looked at it. This can all be fixed over a while, but please remove the featured status in the meantime. (unsigned nomination by 67.180.196.196. --Conti|&#9993; 10:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC))
 * The section on baroque literature is complete nonsense. It doesn't even read coherently.  I have a feeling no one has scrutinized the section because few people like to read early 17th century literature.68.118.61.219 04:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This was nominated here in November and that nomination failed. Propose striking this nomination. Filiocht 08:31, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Old discussion is at Featured article removal candidates/archive/November and December 2004. --Conti|&#9993; 10:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. It barely got any keep votes last time and a number of editors were waiting to vote remove or keep to see if it would improve soon. It has not improved significantly. - Taxman 13:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove And remove the labels on the Talk page too, please. --Wetman 05:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove, with regret. It is better than it was in November, but needs to TLC to bring it up to Featured standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)