Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Arthur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeJoseph Arthur was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Genre

[edit]

Someone needs to update the Genre section.  Done --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisent

[edit]

Really??? I just read through it and although it is obvious a fan wrote this, as is the case with most articles I assume, I don't feel that it is an advertisment for Joseph Arthur. It use a couple of superlatives that could be removed (and i shall after writing this) but the only other thing i can think of is the line in the opening paragraph refering to his album being well received by critics. One glance at metacritic shall verify this. Johnny-Carmello 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I changed the format of the song appearances to clean it up and moved the bit about "In The Sun" out of the introduction. Think it is pretty okay now. Johnny-Carmello 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lonely Astronauts"

[edit]

Any possible relevence to: "The Lonely Astronaut" ? http://www.twistedmojo.com/la.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoalaMeatPie (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Arthur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Atlantictire (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Atlantictire Good Article Rubric

To ensure this process is objective and transparent I have created a rubric for evaluating GA nominees based wholly on the Wikipedia Good Article guidelines.

In order to achieve GA status, the article must satisfy all the criteria listed below. If any are not met, I will post explanations and links to the article sections needing work. Editors will have the opportunity to improve the article before a final determination is made.

Be forewarned: I am unlikely to approve an article for GA status if it is not a balanced treatment of the subject or if it reads like it was written by a fan. This means no:

  • Hyperbolic statements about the significance of an artist or his or her work. (ex: "a highly influential rapper", “one of the most influential songwriters in music today” or “one of the most innovative albums of the last decade”). If the article is on a subject whose influence and impact is long established, such as a Bob Dylan or a Chuck D, then these sorts of pronouncements may be appropriate. With newer artists, I will that ask that superlatives be toned down.
  • Attempts to present the opinions of one music critic or musician as consensus opinion.
  • Resistance to including negative opinions about an artist or album.
  • Non-neutral descriptions of the artist’s music. It’s ok to talk about instrumentation, effects, lyrics and other compositional elements but no evaluative words like “gorgeous”, “thrilling”, “lush” or “brilliant”.

Because verifying sources is such a time-intensive process, I ask that significant problems with content, style and mechanics be fixed before I tackle citations.

Thanks everyone for your hard work!

Current status
Last review update 04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Green tickY = satisfies this criteria
☒N = needs improvement


Lead section = ☒N

Defines topic without being overly specific = Green tickY although as I state later, there's more information about his interest in visual arts in the lead than there is in the article body.
If known, gives full name of subject = Green tickY
Establishes reason for notability early in lead= ☒N reason for notability (i.e. critical acclaim, popularity, how he achieved these things--i.e. the constant touring, artistic innovations) should be established in the second sentence. Had Arthur been a musical hack whose career had gone nowhere, the fact that Peter Gabriel supported him wouldn't be enough to establish noteworthiness. The lead should read as follows:
  • sentence 1: name, DOB, profession, origin
  • sentence 2: reasons for notability
  • sentence 3: major works
Briefly summarizes article’s important points = Green tickY
Topic placed in context familiar to readers = Green tickY
Avoids specialized terminology and symbols = Green tickY
Information in lead also covered by article = ☒N the information about Arthur's interests and accomplishments in the visual arts is more detailed in the lead than it is in the article body. Most of that information should go here: Joseph Arthur#The Museum of Modern Arthur, and the information in the lead should be replaced by a general summary of his non-musical projects. The title of that subsection should be changed to encompass all his visual art activities. "He staged his first art exhibition in 2006 at the Vertigo Gallery in London from February 10 to February 12.[1]" can go in a visual art section as well.
Appropriate length = Green tickY
Fewer than 15,000 characters = one or two paragraphs
15,000–30,000 characters = two or three paragraphs
More than 30,000 characters = three or four paragraphs


Layout = Green tickY

Disambiguation links (dablinks) = Green tickY
No maintenance tags = Green tickY
Infoboxes = Green tickY
Images = Green tickY
Navigational boxes (navigational templates) = Green tickY
Introductory text =Green tickY
Table of contents = Green tickY
Appropriate use of lists = Green tickY


Style and mechanics = Green tickY

Prose is clear and concise = Green tickY I usually fix this as I read. However, please be mindful of these issues:
Redundancy avoided = Green tickY
Complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style = Green tickY however, check MoS for how to format citations. The Sonic Youth article, for all its flaws, has beautifully formatted citations.
The article is largely absent of words to watch = Green tickY
  • Joseph Arthur#2004–2006: Early life and Big City Secrets "the night was a success" is editorializing. Just the facts. What happened.
  • "long and successful tour during which performances were, to a large extent, recorded and sold immediately after the last note had been played" = editorializing, imprecise time referents.
Spelling and grammar are correct = Green tickY


Content = ☒N

Addresses main aspects of topic = ☒N Over-reliance on quotations. Generally quotes are only used if they're of the memorable, Bartlett's Quotations variety; if they resolved a controversy or longstanding mystery; or if they influenced notable events (i.e. "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."). Facts never go in quotations. In the following sections, replace quotations with factual summaries and, if necessary, briefly paraphrase the sentiments expressed in the quotes:
  • Since the information on his personal life is scant, that section should come after sections on live performances and visual arts. It's very typical in Wikipedia for personal information about an artist or musician to be the last section. If you can reference information about marriages or children, you should probably include that.
Stays focused on topic without going into unnecessary detail = Green tickY Nice information about Arthur's relationships with other musicians.
Sufficient exposition of topic and facts = ☒N you'll need to fix some sections where the meaning is unclear:
  • There should be more information about critical reception and Arthur's musical style and artistic process. Brief mentions of reviews from sites like Pitchfork (i.e. "Let's Just Be received a favorable 7.3 out of 10 rating from Pitchfork"). Information about how Arthur writes songs and why he writes so many, his influences, his sound, and his lyrics is essential. What distinguishes him musically, other than the extensive touring?


Sourcing = will address when issues with content, style and mechanics are fixed.

Provides reliable references to all sources of information =
Follows the scientific citation guidelines (science-based article only) =
Contains no original research =


Neutral: Represents viewpoints fairly and without bias = Green tickY


Stable: Does not change significantly because of edit war, content dispute = Green tickY


Illustrations = will address when issues with content, style and mechanics are fixed.

Images tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationales for non-free content =
Images relevant to the topic and have suitable captions =

--Atlantictire (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Joseph Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Joseph Arthur Readies Three New Albums (article February 8, 2006)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Arthur&oldid=1198417494"