Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Maryland/archive1

Music of Maryland[edit]

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 Nikkimaria at 12:11, 21 June 2014

Featured article candidates/Music of Maryland

Featured article review/Music of Maryland/archive1

Notified: Only major editor has not edited since 2009, WP American Music, WP Maryland, WP Regional and national music

Review commentary[edit]

This article, which was promoted to FA in 2005, has not kept up with standards and needs significant work. Overall, referencing is lacking, especially in the Popular music section, where numerous paragraphs are completely lacking references, and where there are numerous unsourced opinion statements ("popular", "thriving", etc.). Existing referencing also needs attention, with books lacking page numbers, some references lacking identifying information (What is Ref #19? It is just identified as "The Urbanite"?) and dead links (#21, for instance). I am concerned that one reference is used to source the entirety of the Early independence and Early 20th century sections, especially as the source gives no pointers as to why the authors of the "essay" should be considered experts (it says they "specialize", but gives no published works - books, journal articles, etc.). It appears that other possible sources have been overlooked; for instance, see:

This book on music in Colonial and Revolutionary America, with a section on Music in Maryland, which I found in just a quick Google books search.

Also, there seem to be numerous books on Maryland in general that mention music. A notification on the talk page late last fall has produced no improvements to the article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per poor comprehensiveness and frequent unsourced yet potentially controversial statements. I'd also like a main image, but I guess that isn't a requirement. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tezero, and thanks for the comments. In general, keep/delist votes should wait until the article is moved to the FARC section below. The FAR section gives editors a chance to comment on the article without voting and (hopefully!) lets us find someone who is interested in bringing the article back up to featured quality. Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I virtually never come here, so I wasn't sure about the difference. Tezero (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section primarily concern referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, absolutely nothing has happened other than my removal of the weird Urbanist non-citation. There are still too few references and choppy prose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no improvements since FAR process started and not up to current standards. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.