Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grunge music
Self nomination. I have researched this subject extensively and have fine-tuned this article into what I think is one of the best overviews of grunge out there. -- LGagnon 16:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Support тəzєті 16:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like a solid over-all summary of the genre. Support. Edeans 17:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not necessarily an objection, but… the article is a frequent magnet for dubious additions of non-notable bands. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Your concern is understood, but we have removed these bands from the article and we haven't had such additions in quite some time. -- LGagnon 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- minor object/comment - please change over to template based footnotes (for example autonumbered notes. This makes it easier to locate and update articles with footnotes in future. Mozzerati 21:10, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- I've changed them to reflect your suggestion. -- LGagnon 21:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Minor object, like I said in peer review, I would like to see some more info on the bands rather than just a list of names, as is, there is no indication of how grunge has endured, a basic table listing year of formation and year of break-up/last album (most of the bands have broken up) and biggest selling album can easily be compiled from the relevant band articles--nixie 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- I read your original suggestion, and I thought it was unneeded. If you want info on individual bands, you can check their articles. And info on which album sold best is not available in the individual articles, nor can we use chart places to determine it; for instance, both Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero were #1 on the charts. What you are asking for is more of a nicety than an actually required detail. -- LGagnon 14:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree, part of being a featured article is being comprehensive, a list is not comprehensive as it provides next to no information--nixie 05:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is supposed to be comprehensive on the subject matter, not on related subject matter. You are asking for relatively minor details to be added in, details which pertain not to grunge as a whole but to specific grunge bands. There is no need to review the careers of each grunge band for the article to be comprehensive. -- LGagnon 15:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree, part of being a featured article is being comprehensive, a list is not comprehensive as it provides next to no information--nixie 05:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- I read your original suggestion, and I thought it was unneeded. If you want info on individual bands, you can check their articles. And info on which album sold best is not available in the individual articles, nor can we use chart places to determine it; for instance, both Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero were #1 on the charts. What you are asking for is more of a nicety than an actually required detail. -- LGagnon 14:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting and apparently comprehensive. Minor quibble: is it not our convention to call the "Footnotes" section "Notes"? --Theo (Talk) 23:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have changed it to "Notes" now, though I personally think "Footnotes" is a better name for the section. -- LGagnon 00:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)