Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rock music/1

Rock music

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Rock_music/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted; no objections to delisting this after over a month, and there still are concerns with excessive details even after some trimming has taken place Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This article deserves a GA Reassessment because:
 * of the number of maintenance templates the article now has - including citation needed, too long, too much detail, original research, malformed references/examples.
 * the sheer length of the article. I just did a print check on it and this thing clocks out at 49 pages...49.  The Page size tool gives the following stats: File size: 642 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 199 kB, References (including all HTML code): 23 kB, Wiki text: 206 kB, Prose size (text only): 96 kB (15886 words) "readable prose size", and References (text only): 2647 B.  WP:SIZERULE says that an article with a readable prose size of 100kB should almost always be split.  Well, if this article is deemed to be too large then the descendant articles will have to be judged on their own merits as being GAs or not.
 * References have gone dead, including #82 & #202.
 * At the present time, this article seems to fail the following GA criteria:
 * 1B: Per MOS:LEAD Lead is too long and overly-detailed. It includes a "golden age' phrase that is never mentioned within the main text (and one "dubious-discuss" maintenance template).
 * 2B & C: References, no original research
 * 3B: Stays focussed on the topic without going into to much detail.

I think the article could definitely benefit from some community editing and reassessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: An article of 100KB+ is often okay in cases where there are a lot of tables or the article is heavy in references. This article, with 405 references, is definitely one of those cases. But there still is excessive, undue coverage in here - 210k indicates the problem is more than just reference coding. I would say that the article isn't totally fouled on 2b/c, since it's only two. 3B seems to be the biggest one here, and I seriously doubt that one can be fixed. I'm going to say delist.  danny music editor  Speak up! 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Delist – Huge WP:COATRACK and WP:DETAIL issues abound. In most cases, if a section is meant to summarize another article, then it shouldn't be longer than that article's lead. The only exceptions are for aspects that significantly impact the main topic. This impacted all rock music:

Most of this has nothing to do with rock music as a whole, they're just enumerations of metal subgenres.

Replace with:

It should also be noted that huge chunks of this article are just copy-and-pastes of Punk rock, Alternative rock and Heavy metal music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)