Wikipedia:Featured article review/Frank Zappa/archive1


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

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

Frank Zappa

 * Notified: Frank Zappa

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it subverts several points in the criteria for featured articles (and because an attempt to address these issues was swiftly reverted)
 * Inappropriate structure Similar articles like Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson follow a logical structure which applies a division between "Biographical" and "Analytical" content. The bulk of the first sections ("Biographical") focuses on specific biographical detail, going from childhood to major career developments. The next sections ("Analytical") elaborate on the subject's personal beliefs, music style, legacy, etc. which are more general and apply to the subject's output, philosophy, and historical standing, not really the events of the subject's life.
 * Not only does Frank Zappa clutter these two aspects together in a very unfocused "oh by the way" fashion, it does so in spite of two already-existing "Personal views" and "Musical style" sections. Here are several excerpts that should be moved out to those sections:
 * (Religious views)
 * (Musical ethos)
 * Among reliable sources, there is so much detail regarding the themes, motifs, and idiosyncrasies of Zappa's work and philosophy that it would not be out of the question to have a separate article devoted to it, a la Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Although I'm not sure such action has to be taken, it should definitely be considered somewhere down the line.

Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent citations Article has a mixture of cite book, sfn and manual harv cites, which I believe should all be converted to sfn, per its superior functionality.
 * Improperly placed non-free media Too many arbitrary sound clips with unclear significance.
 * Length of section headers The way it assigns yearly periods within yearly periods is overkill. "1973–75: Top 10 album" should be simplified to "Top 10 album", or better yet, "Apostrophe (')", the name of that top 10 album.

Pinging members of the WikiProject and active users of the article's talk page. The FAR coordinators would appreciate more opinions on whether the article meets the featured article criteria. It would be useful for users to either declare "Move to FARC" if the article does not meet the criteria in their opinion or "Close without FARC" if it does, with a brief comment explaining their declaration. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Since there have been no further comments in the Review section, I have opened the FARC section. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

can you please give a thumbs up or thumbs down as to whether this article keeps its shiny star? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍 - DVdm (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍 - Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍 - Parcly   Taxel  03:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.