Wikipedia:Featured article review/Motörhead/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 delisted by Casliber 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Motörhead

 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal

Review section
This article passed FAC over 7 years ago, with support arguments extending no further than "great job, almost every sentence is referenced" and the principal contributor, has retired. While that's not in itself a reason to send an article to FAR, it's usually indicative that, unless somebody else with a good knowledge of the band is on hand to caretake things, the article will naturally deteriorate by well meaning but sub-FA quality edits. And that's where we are now. Unfortunately I'm just not enough of an expert on the band and have no good sources to improve it back up to FA level, so the only real option is to send it here and hope somebody else comes foward. Like Rush (band), I'm not holding my breath though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, comparing today's FA standards to then's, they seem like different universes. I'll read the article these days and correct what I can. I believe Lewismaster would be interested in helping as well.--Retrohead (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is messy, largely unreferenced, too lenghty for Joe Petagno's art, too short on musical style and influences and I think too bloody detailed on dating every tour and TV appearance. Moreover, many references are off-line and should be accurately verified. It's a long work which should be made for many FA articles (Metallica's article is in a similar shape, for example.) I can do something in my spare time, but I don't have all the books for such a work. Lewismaster (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As Ozzy is a well known fan of Motörhead, maybe can help? I've started trimming out some recentism (2010 onwards is particularly bad) but it's like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It was on the front page not too long ago, I thought--but "not too long ago" for me could have been in the 1990s. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it was on the main page in 2009 apparently... not too long ago, then, compared with the age of the universe anyway :) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review&mdash;spotchecks not done.
 * Italicization of the names of online publications is inconsistent. Either they all should be italicized or none of them.
 * Italicization of the names of magazine is inconsistent. Either they all should be italicized or none of them.
 * According to Checklinks, there are quite a few problematic links, some of which are dead, while others yield connection errors.
 * I managed to fix three links, but I can't find the links from Motorhead's website, and can't figure out why and how the author combined all those links in ref 30, all of which are dead.


 * Representation of the names of online publications is largely inconsistent. One example includes the capitalization of "m" in "Allmusic"/"AllMusic" and another is whether we cite the Motorhead website as "imotorhead.com" or "Motorhead official website".
 * Wikilinking of works and publishers is inconsistent. Either link only in first occurrence, never, or always.
 * FN 4 includes a quotation from the source, while other AllMusic references do not. We need consistency.
 * Done.


 * FN 6 is surely "Ace Records" and not just "Ace".
 * Done.


 * White Line Fever should be in the bibliography, not in further reading, since it is referenced.
 * Done.


 * Names of films and albums need to be italicized in the reference titles always.
 * FN 14 is missing information (eg. work or publisher, date of publication) and a period/full stop, and the archive link does not work.
 * FN 15: this needs to be moved to the bibliography with specific citations with page numbers in the footnotes. And is FN 17 citing this book?
 * Some refs are missing information: FN 16 is missing a retrieval date, for example, and FN 81 is missing the work or publisher.
 * Regardless of whether it is a reliable source, Blabbermouth.net is certainly not a high quality reliable source. I have similar reservations about Rock on the Net, Playlouder, Internet Movie Database, Eil.com, Lincolnshire Bombers' news forum, Spinner, Amplified.tv, Classic rock revisited, Ear Candy Magazine, bandcamp.com and Ultimate Guitar Archive.
 * Wikipedian Penguin, I agree that Blabbermouth is not the best option for FAs, but it is a website whose information is cited by Billboard, Loudwire, Rolling Stone, and others. So far, I haven't noticed a false information on Blabbermouth.


 * FN 68, 74: avoid SHOUTING in references.
 * Done.


 * FN 80 needs to be more specific, with authors, titles, publishers, page numbers, etc.
 * Done.


 * FN 84 uses the ISO date format, inconsistent with the other footnotes.
 * Why is all of the Peter Buckley reference in italics?
 * Evidently, there is no single citation format used for the entire article. This is an important aspect of maintaining FA standards.
 * "Motörhead are typically classified as heavy metal, and their fusion of punk rock into the genre helped to pioneer speed metal and thrash metal."&mdash;this is (supposedly) already sourced in the body of the article, so it does not need to be sourced in the lead.
 * Done.


 * Several pieces of information in the biography are uncited, like this one, "On 19 October, having played 10 gigs, they became the supporting act to Blue Öyster Cult at the Hammersmith Odeon," and this, "In 1996, the band began touring the States in early January and played thirty venues up to 15 February; a seven-date tour of Europe in June and July was followed by two engagements in South America during August." The article needs to be thoroughly checked for similar unsourced statements before it can have any hope of passing FAR. Making a comprehensive list would be exhausting.
 * Partially done.

I don't want to jump the gun, but there may be more to do than can be done within the timeframe of this FAR. Still, let's see what others, including those involved with this article, think. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I'll be doing the source corrections in the following two weeks. I'll strike the notes I'm done with, if that's ok.--Retrohead (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking this on, Retrohead. I would prefer striking them on my own to verify the edits, so if you could reply to my comments instead, that would be terrific. Would you prefer if we moved this to the FAR's talk page to keep the main FAR page tidy? The Wikipedian Penguin 15:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with whatever suits you.--Retrohead (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Retrohead has done some points, but the refs are still far from meeting FA standards. I'll wait for his input. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I give up. There's a great amount of work that needs to be done (not just the references) which requires more knowledge on the topic. I can't say I fully understand the author's modus operandi on the refs. I believe it is better to start writing the article from scratch rather than trying to fix it. It will save me more time and nerves.--Retrohead (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I began to rewrite the Music style section, which is missing much info and full of copyvios. It will take some time to be completed, so I support Retrohead's idea. Lewismaster (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're going to have to go to a delist vote. If you are sure there are copyvios in the current article, they should be addressed ASAP either by removing them or copyediting so they are no longer close paraphrasing, and that should be done ASAP. Elsewhere, it seems the article sees regular traffic from well meaning but misguided IPs who end up making it worse. :-( Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  15:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, besides being decidedly incomplete, more than half of the the section is made of lengthy citations from different sources taken on the web. Some citations are not indicated as such ('Motörhead, Lemmy states, have more in common aesthetically with The Damned than Black Sabbath, and nothing whatsoever in common with Judas Priest') and some others are not referenced ('The NME stated that their brief solos were just long enough "... to open another bottle of beer"). I'm not completely sure if this is just bad writing or an infringement of Copyright problems. Maybe you could take a look at it. Lewismaster (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So are we doing FARC? I agree that this article needs an overhaul that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Concerns raised in the review section included copyright and sourcing. DrKiernan (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist per everything I've said above. I don't like doing this but the original FA review would raise suspicion for a GA review these days, the original editors' work is confusing, we think there might be copyvios but aren't sure, and all the time we're battling against IPs who don't care about the FA criteria. It's a net loss, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist - The article is focused on the band's history going into minutiae and excessive detail, but overlooks and ignore other encyclopedic content like music style, influences and legacy. It appears unbalanced toward band members' opinions against critics and writers. It has a lenghty section about cover art, which should not be here but in the artist Joe Petagno's article or in the articles of each album. Said sections rely heavily on citations from copyrighted material of other websites and lack references. I would not have the article promoted to GA with all these unresolved issues! Lewismaster (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist&mdash;as supported by the several issues I've enumerated above, in addition to copyright violations and issues with balance in coverage. This article will need a rewrite from top to bottom before it can be reconsidered for FA status. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist article should've never passed FAC in the first place.—indopug (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist not well referenced enough, and the "Supporters" section is completely unnecessary <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.