Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Music of the United States

I've written and rewritten this article at least a half dozen times, and I think it's finally ready for FA. There's 90 cites and 20-some references, mostly to scholarly print sources. The Chase, Crawford and Malone books are probably the most respected sources in their topics. There's a lot of pics and sound samples, everything properly tagged (or they were, a couple months ago... I'll go doublecheck now). It's a grand total of 68 kb, and I think about 50 kb without the links and refs and stuff. Thanks Tuf-Kat 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And actually, I removed three pics for inadequate freeness or tagging. Tuf-Kat 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Further reading needs some expanding. Some info on chart system? Brand 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do on both. Anything specific you'd like to see in the further reading? Tuf-Kat 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing special. I've expanded the section a bit. Brand 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I've removed the Chase book from further reading, since it's already a reference. Tuf-Kat 16:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • And I've put a bit in about music charts in the industry section. Tuf-Kat 19:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I'm quite impressed by the thorough and well-distributed coverage of this very broad topic. I particularly enjoyed the audio files, but I would like to see the licensing tags updated to accurately explain the licensing of the files (a number of them are tagged with the obsolete {{pd}} tag). If that gets fixed, you have my full and enthusiastic support. Robth^Talk 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed most of the tags. Can't seem to find the copyright info for the Gordon Collection, if anybody wants to help. I've left a note on User talk:Tim Starling about his Image:Maple leaf rag.ogg. I think that's all of them that need better tagging. Tuf-Kat 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like you've got it pretty well covered--I couldnt find anything about the Gordon collection either, but I doubt that collection will be an issue. Robth^Talk 18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bravo! Andrew Levine 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Support now - There are two issues I'm concerned about. The first is merely a style thing... when images are available, there should be an image in the lead section, esspecially for a Featured Article, and esspecially if the subject is, well, subject to being put on the main page (which this one would be). It's nice to have an image up there. In fact, in the very first section of the article itself, there's a very nice labeled map of the united states that I think would do well in the lead. I tried moving it there myself, but there were issues with it aligning properly with the info box, and I don't know how to go about fixing those issues. So I'd ask if anyone can figure out how to get the image at the top of the page, pushing the infobox DOWN instead of the the LEFT (squashing the main text), that'd be greatly appreciated. The second issue is the length of the article. I understand that the scope of the article is GINORMOUS, but 68k is pushing it a little in my estimation. I'm highly impressed with how much you were able to follow summary style already, with all the branch articles and summaries, but it may be possible to squeeze things down even more. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this point, but anywhere you can trim would be useful. The daughter articles can provide more detailed information (they already do). Fieari 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I had originally made that music map specifically for that purpose, then moved it down because I thought the words were too small to read unless one clicked on the link, which didn't seem ideal for the lead pic. (The map didn't turn out as pretty as I had hoped either, but I'm a novice at image manipulation) I have a small monitor, though, I've made the switch and made the map as big as I could without squeezing the lead too much. I still can't read the words (I can make some of them out, but then, I know what they say). Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I agree that a lead pic is very nice, but only something generic like the map could be used without exerting a very strong POV.
  • On the size, AndyZ has just made some very good edits, removing a goodly number of words but not resulting in a decreased kb count. I'll try to give it another trim tomorrow, but I'd be surprised if that even gets it down to 67k. Tuf-Kat 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is a near-masterpiece of tight summarization. There's almost nothing in the present article that I would want stripped out just for the sake of shaving off one or one-and-a-half kilobytes. I should also point out that AIDS, which is a whopping 88 kb in size, just attained featured status today. Andrew Levine 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I now support. I like what I see. Fieari 03:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support the article length isn't that big of an issue for such a large topic and its already heavily summerized. There are various other FAs this size on similarly-lengthed topics. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-

1. some form of American popular music is listened to almost everywhere. Some forms makes more sense.
2. Elements of African, European and indigenous music mixed in varying amounts to form a wide array of diverse styles. Fragment...put in are btwn elements and of
3. Make John Warthen Struble a link.
4. "[These early amateur bands] combined the depth and drama of the classics with undemanding technique, eschewing complexity in favor of direct expression. If it was vocal music, the words would be in English, despite the snobs who declared English an unsingable language. In a way, it was part of the entire awakening of America that happened after the Civil War, a time in which American painters, writers and 'serious' composers addressed specifically American themes." Even though it is cited, you should still probably indicate in the article it was from Rolling Stone
5. gospel quartets, jackleg, singing preachers. Why are these in italics? The same goes for the numerous other italicized words in the article.
6. Armenian music in California, Italian and Ukrainian music in New York City. I think there should be an and bwtn California and Italian
7. Of these composers, Billings is by far the most well-remembered Maybe cut out the by far...the word most speaks for itself
8. These composers' style was untouched by "the influence of their sophisticated European contemporaries" It would be better if style was plural.
9. "known for bringing indigenous, or folk, themes and rhythms into music for the concert hall". Who said this?
10. others, however, used tunes from Ireland, Scotland or elsewhere, or did not utilize a familiar melody Should the last or be changed to and?
11. discrete Discreet? Or it just might be my American-ness getting in the way again...
12. Replace some like's with such as: it reads and sounds nicer
13. Maybe make a mention of reggaeton under Latin music, that's pretty influential

Aside from these minor points, this is a good article. --Osbus 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments

1. Fixed
2. Didn't understand, but agreed that that was a poor sentence. I reworded.
3. Done
4. done
5. Fixed
6. Fixed
7. Done
8. Done
9. No, I don't think so. Some did one but not the other, I believe.
10. I don't think it's a US/UK thing discrete is a distinct category, which is what is meant there, discreet is secretive or unobtrusive
11. I'll see what I can do on that.
12. Well, it's important, but not primarily in the mainland US -- it's a major part of Puerto Rican music, but starting to cover Puerto Rico would require a major expansion of the article. We can't just begin covering Puerto Rico in the 90s without historical context, so I don't think reggaeton. However, I notice the beginning of the Latin pop section was lacking, so I reworded it such that there is a mention of reggaeton. Tuf-Kat 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, *Support --Osbus

• Support; I agree that it is ready. Jkelly 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- Let me say first that this is very good work, and a credit to Wikipedia. I disagree that its length is problematic (given the scope of material). Its use of the summary form is exemplary, and from a non-specialist's view it appears comprehensive in its coverage of style. However, I think that it is, in effect, a list, with some explanatory text. To be a brilliant article on the topic, it needs to cover social context in much more detail. The article says nothing, for example, about music as a mechanism for propaganda in WW I and II, and very little (a single sentence) about music in the Vietnam-era protest movement (rock music against, country music for), or in the civil rights movement. It makes no reference to the business of music or its impact on the economy. I would support this article as a "Featured List", but it is incomplete given its name. -- Gnetwerker 06:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think any detailed coverage of social context belongs in music history of the United States and associated subarticles. It's too detailed for the main article. And there's three paragraphs on the music industry. Tuf-Kat 23:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Without this info, the the article name should be Musical Styles of the United States. And three paras on the nusic business, without any economic impact, is not comprehensive. -- Gnetwerker 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a lot more to this article than a description of musical styles. It covers foreign influences and impact, history, characteristics (of American music in general), the music business, education, national holidays and festivals, and social and historical context -- it covers the social context of many aspects of American music (Revolutionary War, Civil Rights), briefly. This article has to make room for all the other stuff too. Covering the topic the way you describe would make it redundant with the music history article and leave too little room for other topics. Tuf-Kat 01:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding economic impact, can you clarify? Do you mean hard numbers? (i.e. x number of dollars spent on live music vs recorded, number of professional/amateur musicians) Tuf-Kat
        • Yes, absolute revenues for recorded, live, etc, also trends over time and comparison to foreign. Who is making the most money? What do artists make? What % of the entertainment dollar goes to live music? To recorded? That kind of thing. -- Gnetwerker 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I found some good basic stuff, was going to look for more but what I've done so far alone was 2kb worth. Comments? Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object; this looks good, but a few things should be addressed. Online references should use {{cite web}}. The "Holidays and festivals" needs a citation or two, and the "Music education" section could use some more as well. I think that the article does a pretty good job of connecting the music with the culture , or at least considering the space available. However, as Gnetwerker noted, a little improvement is possible. Also, Gnetwerker's suggestion of hard numbers is interesting, and should probably be included (but not too much please!). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One more thing; should Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash be mentioned in the prose anywhere? Especially the latter, since there's a sound sample from him. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And what about composers like Irving Berlin and Henry Mancini? They even have their own postage stamps =). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, both were there in fairly recent drafts. I'll see about working something in. And I've had the damnedest time finding references for the holidays and education stuff. If anyone has any hints, I'd appreciate it. Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• object 68KB? I think some of this should be in subarticles. 140.32.75.175 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are longer FAs, and there are numerous important topics already not covered. Do you have anything specific you'd like to see removed? Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive: no mention of filk music.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • By that definition, this article could never possibly be comprehensive without becoming incredibly bloated. It can't cover everything, so it only covers the most important bits. Filk music would be woefully out of place. Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The 'less important' bits should be mentioned in at least one section. And who decides what is important? At 35k Google hits it is more known then mentioned in the article Cape Verdean music (23k hits), just to name one example.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good length, enough details and I leard lots of stuff reading this. Even looks and reads like an encyclopaedia entry. Lincher 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• It would benefit from the addition of a 'patriotic music' section (for which numerous samples already exist, e.g. The Star-Spangled Banner, Stars and Stripes Forever, Dixie, 'etc). Raul654 06:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nevermind - I did it myself. Support Raul654 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)