Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guns N' Roses/archiveone
Guns N' Roses[edit]
This is a partial self-nomination. This is one of the best articles of any band in all of Wikipedia, as well as one of the best sources of information on Guns N' Roses that can be found in the internet. The article spent more than a week in peer review and went through one extensive copy-edit. The original criticism on the article was the fact that it was "fannish" in language and content. That issue has been adressed. This definetively should be a featured article.Coburnpharr04 23:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I like it, but it would be nice if there were inline references, perhaps using footnotes. Tuf-Kat 18:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It's a little short, and subarticles would be nice, but support nevertheless. I had hoped to build up some music articles like this myself, but they got torn apart on grounds of "fancruft". Glad to see this one's in good shape. Everyking 19:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'd have to say object for now. It's nice, but it's still a bit fannish ("the band's defiant 1987 debut album", "...one of the most popular rock and roll bands ever"). If those were referenced with footnotes, as TUF-KaT suggested, then they can stay. Second, there should be, in place of a list of music videos, a list of singles with release years and chart positions (BTW, song titles should be in quotation marks,instead of italicized). Finally, the lead paragraph should be a little longer for an article of this size. --FuriousFreddy 17:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- object - at the moment the history section is skewed in favour of the recent reincarnation of the band. I'd say much more needs to be said about the early years, Appetite for Destruction and Use Your Illusion, which is what they're by far best known for. Also, there's very little about the lifestyle of the band, heavy drug intake, stories of debauched parties etc. There was an excellent documentary about them not long ago, on VH1 I think, and at the moment this article is not half as interesting as the documentary was. Also a couple of minor points - 'pseudonymous last names' in the history section: Rose is not a pseudonymous surname, not sure about Guns'; and "Guns n' Roses' is..." sounds very odd to me, are would be better in my opinion. Worldtraveller 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea of what you are talking about. The history section is actually longer than the "new gn'r" section. Also, the drug abuse reputation of the band is adressed in the legacy section. What else can be said? I don't think it is necessary to have full paragraphs explaining what drugs they were using or whatever, since that is part of the drug abuse article. Also, if you are refering to the "Behind the Music" documentary, it is obvious you know nothing of Gn'R. That documentary was heavily criticized in the media because it was biased in favor of the former members of the band. Axl Rose even threatned to sue VH1. Since wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, it would be inapropiate to follow the line of the documentary on the article. So far your argument against the article isn't because it does not follow the FA standards, but because it does not cover extremely minor details of the group's hey day. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- The history section on the revived group is larger than every other history section. That seems disproportionate. As for drug abuse, well, were they already heavy users when the band started? How did it affect the song writing, the band dynamic, live performances etc? Did it lead to disagreements and the eventual breakdown of the band? It's my understanding that the various habits led to quite some tension in the group. You seem to misunderstand my point about the documentary - I'm not saying follow its line in any way, I'm just saying it was a really enjoyable and interesting thing to watch. If it was heavily criticised and if Rose threatened to sue, then that could be mentioned in the article. This article currently is not as interesting and enjoyable - not very brilliant prose - and that's why I'm opposing. If you think I know nothing about the band, well, you should be writing the article with people like me in mind anyway. Worldtraveller 19:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea of what you are talking about. The history section is actually longer than the "new gn'r" section. Also, the drug abuse reputation of the band is adressed in the legacy section. What else can be said? I don't think it is necessary to have full paragraphs explaining what drugs they were using or whatever, since that is part of the drug abuse article. Also, if you are refering to the "Behind the Music" documentary, it is obvious you know nothing of Gn'R. That documentary was heavily criticized in the media because it was biased in favor of the former members of the band. Axl Rose even threatned to sue VH1. Since wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, it would be inapropiate to follow the line of the documentary on the article. So far your argument against the article isn't because it does not follow the FA standards, but because it does not cover extremely minor details of the group's hey day. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)