Talk:Soundgarden/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello! I've decided to review this article because it looked like a challenge. Here are the strong points and challenges in the Soundgarden article for everyone to work on:

Writing style[edit]

Y Strong introduction with minor grammatical flaws that can easily be adjusted.

Y Additional findings become apparent in the band's history section, where separate thoughts and ideas continue into lesser-related thoughts (in example, "...concerts with this line-up for about a year. The band's first recordings..."). Please see the English grammar article or a reliable handbook for help with paragraphs. This is a big issue throughout the article.

I'll do this later. You mean a copy-edit, right?--Canniba loki 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the help of user Drmies (talk · contribs).--Canniba loki 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Readability issues continue further as facts and new ideas are thrown at the reader. I like that there is information regarding tours supporting albums and feel as though the blocks of text can be broken up by giving the albums and tours that affected the Soungarden career their own subsections. Another example of possible subsections could be the band's signing to record labels. See this Wikipedia subsections guide for details on subsections and how they benefit articles. I find "Down on the Upside and break-up: 1996–1997" to be a sudden relief in its short description, which is much less foggy than previous subsections. The reader knows what to expect with this type of subsection title. As a result, the Soundgarden article may benefit more from using more descriptive subtitles rather than record names.

I changed the titles of the subsections, but I'm not sure if that's what you want me to do.--Canniba loki 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Marked as fixed. mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Wikipedia's blockquote guidelines cite that for quotes more than four lines - or more than one paragraph regardless of lines - blockquotes are to be used.

Added a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags.--Canniba loki 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as fixed. mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Question: I question whether ending the article on a quote non-intentionally implies bias with its wording. The article would do well to have an ending paragraph that is not a quotation.

So I have to revamp the legacy section?--Canniba loki 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like what the legacy section conveys, it just feels like a bias to end it with a positive quote from one of the band members rather than a third party or another authoritative figure. Switching paragraphs 2 and 3 could be an easy fix. mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easily fixed.--Canniba loki 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy and verifiability[edit]

YCitations are consistent throughout the article.

YSome references, such as those listed simply with URLs, need to be conformed to the Wikipedia reference style for embedded citations. Some items missing from cited web sources are page title, article title, or retrieval date.

All were removed. I rewrote the section that contained the URLs and added a new source.--Canniba loki 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as fixed. mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link check[edit]

Linkchecker has listed four redirects and one connection timeout in the citations.

I think I corrected all the redirects.--Canniba loki 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did. Linkchecker is displaying all links are alive.mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breadth of coverage[edit]

YThe breadth of coverage is very in-depth, but perhaps too much so. Are review details of albums necessary in an article about a band? The page length is affected by these details, which means a hard read for a potential newcomer to Soundgarden. It should be noted, however, that review details give the reader a sense of the album's style and weight within the grunge, alternative rock, or music in general. With an improved layout style, such reviews may even be kept in-tact with the rest of the article as examples of how the band's sound evolved.

Yes. I think the page length is not affected by these details.--Canniba loki 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would sound sample boxes be more effective in visually breaking up the article for better readability?

Yes.

Looking good! mheart (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards and nominations section can visually benefit from a summarizing table a la Alice in Chains.
- No.
  - I see what you did there! mheart (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the member listing, dates can be written using the <small> tag.
- Why? Don't looks good to me.--Canniba loki 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly, many GA-class articles I've been browsing lately do not list the members as part of the article, but in their infoboxes as Members or Former Members. Ie: Arctic Monkeys, Bloc Party, Sonic Youth. If you would like to keep the Members section, though, this format gives the list easier readability and a more clean appearance:

current style	proposed style
Chris Cornell – vocals, guitar (1984–1997, 2010–present)	Chris Cornell – vocals, guitar (1984–1997, 2010–present)
Kim Thayil – guitars (1984–1997, 2010–present)	Kim Thayil – guitars (1984–1997, 2010–present)
Matt Cameron – drums (1986–1997, 2010–present)	Matt Cameron – drums (1986–1997, 2010–present)
Ben Shepherd – bass (1990–1997, 2010–present)	Ben Shepherd – bass (1990–1997, 2010–present)

mheart (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I chose to remove the sections "members" and "awards and nominations". With this change in layout, readers will be almost "forced" to read the article. I think this kind of subsection distracts readers, and the awards and nominations that the band received throughout its career are [already] described in the history section.--Canniba loki 16:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Question: Should Skin Yard be listed as an associated act?

According to the instructions at Template:Infobox musical artist, no.--Canniba loki 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. mheart (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral voice[edit]

YArticle is apparent in multiple voices due to preferred writing styles, which may be solved with minor editing. Wikipedia has an article dedicated to words to avoid that may help editors in their collaboration. The Wikipedia Manual of Style will also be helpful in addressing this issue.

Be more specific please.--Canniba loki 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread the article many times since the review was posted and feel it's consistent with a neutral voice. mheart (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article stability[edit]

YThis article is stable. It has seen positive and progressive editing by a group of editors willing to work together.

Illustration[edit]

Y The infobox's band photograph has an issue on it's file page - it is a possibly unfree image. This needs to be addressed.

Deleted, copyright violation.--Canniba loki 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as fixed. mheart (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAside from the initial band photograph, there is only one other photograph on the article. I suggest adding photographs to improve the readability of the page by visually breaking up the blocks of text that currently make up the majority of the article. For help with adding images, see Adding Images.

Add pictures from? We do not have good images available on Wikimedia Commons.--Canniba loki 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a page for public domain image resources. It may also be able to contact photographers for unreleased photos, ie on Corbis, for permission to use them here. mheart (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it please. (images of musical groups + Wikipedia = 0)

--Canniba loki 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo, we need at least one main image. mheart (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think is possible to use a copyrighted image, like this one for example?--Canniba loki 00:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Non-free content states "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." Additionally, it seems that for example a magazine cover could serve to illustrate in the event that the magazine is a subject of discussion. Image use policy contains more information on adding images. mheart (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the party will end? You think I will bother a photographer asking for pictures? Dream. I am ending my replies here.--Canniba loki 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are part of the six essential good article criteria. Aside from direct photographer contact, other methods have been listed in detail with regards to non-free copyrighted images. It a simple matter of reviewing copyright statuses to ensure images are allowed on Wikipedia. mheart (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review status[edit]

Editors clearly did not want to resolve the issue regarding images on the article page. Images are a part of good article criteria. The lack of effort in this particular area is strange since much effort has been into this article otherwise. I was encouraged to skip this section of the six criteria.

Extensive dedication to the improvement of this article, however, has made it significantly improved since the nomination date. I therefore award this article with Good status.

Reviewer: mheart (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]