Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of blues standards/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of blues standards

[edit]

List of blues standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since a major restructuring in 2014, this list has been steadily expanded and refined. It is extensively referenced, follows the applicable MOS guidelines, and is stable. I hope you find it informative and user-friendly. Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass

[edit]

Comments from TRM

[edit]

Opening question, perhaps I'm tired, but where are the inclusion criteria for this list defined? Who or what "decides" that a particular song is a "blues standard"? I have other comments to add but getting my head round this would be helpful... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The selection criteria is stated near the end of the lead: "Each song listed has been identified by five or more music writers as a blues standard." The citations in the "Refs" column show the sources used. Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being too nit-picky here, but that brings me to another question, that is there any other song which is "identified by five or more music writers as a blues standard", but not included here? And why five music writers, why not 3 or 7? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a last thorough search to see if any more came up, which led to two more songs being added recently. As new books are published, more may be identified, but I only found the additional two since the last search in 2018. After some trial and error, five seemed to eliminate some songs that were briefly popular, but didn't last, yet not leave out some of the more important ones. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I think it would be justified to add {{incomplete list}} tag. Rest seems fine to me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ojorojo thanks, I guess I'm too tired! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • American folk is overlinked in the lead.
Removed second link. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link record charts.
Linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "main charts" which charts were these, out of interest? Mainly in the US?
Mostly U.S. Billboards's Race/R&B/Soul/Black singles charts, but also its Hot 100. The UK Singles Charts and the Australian singles charts were also used for a few entries. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added efns to clarify the charts and moved all citations to them to the Refs column. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weren't the Yardbirds called "the Yardbirds" not just "Yardbirds"?
  • Same for the Stones?
Not much space savings, so I changed them to their official names (the Animals too). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that is about it for me, nothing much more to add. I guess there could be justification for a {{incomplete list}} tag here as we're not certain we've covered everything in this "definition"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template wording would be misleading. As it stands, the list is not "missing items" – it includes all the standards that meet the selection criteria, based on thorough searches. WP:FLCR #3(a) includes "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". New books may describe additional songs as blues standards or may not; requiring five sources sets the bar fairly high. Many WP articles would need to be expanded based on future published sources and wouldn't be considered incomplete or missing information for this reason.
An idea: would it be of interest to readers to include a sentence in the lead about who was the first to record the most standards (Robert Johnson and Tampa Red, 4 each; Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf 3 each) or most charting standards (B.B. King and Muddy Waters, 5 each; Little Walter, Bobby Bland 4 each)? Value added or too much peripheral detail?
—Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your idea is a good one. People are certainly going to be interested in who has more of these standards. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added, but kept it simple. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "One half" should not have a hyphen
Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bo Diddley's version of "I'm A Man" was also a hit, as Billboard listed the relevant single as a double-sided hit for 11 of its weeks on chart (see here). It's also listed in Joel Whitburn's R&B charts book (page 118)
I was uncertain of Whitburn's (used for most of the chart info) entry as "Best Seller flip" and "Juke Box flip", but without positions. Now that I see the actual Billboard entry, I'll add it. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kavyansh.Singh

[edit]
  • Source review – The (exhaustive) list of sources is well-formatted throughout. I was going to ask whether the Ron Levy book could be replaced, as it is a self-published source, but given what the linked article reveals I think a decent case can be made that Levy is an expert in the subject of blues. While I wouldn't be inclined to hold up promotion over it, it might be worth a quick look to see if another good secondary source exists. Otherwise, the rest of the sourcing seems sufficiently strong, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Levy would be considered an expert, but it was easy to replace him with an unquestionably reliable (academic) source. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. With that I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
  • Would it be helpful to add a link for urban blues? It is a redirect to the blues article, but it goes to a specific section that may be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with this topic. However, since the blues article may change in the future, I could understand why this kind of redirect is less than ideal and could create future issues. I still wanted to raise this to your attention.
It contains some useful info, so linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be beneficial to separate the sources listed in the Bibliography section into two columns? It is a rather long list, and I was curious if the columns would make it more accessible to readers and less imposing.
Making it user friendly is important, so I added {{refbegin|20em}} and it now matches the columns in "References". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping into this FLC very late. I only have two quick and very minor notes. You have done a very good job with clearly defining the qualifications for this list. I researched a few potential additions, like "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean", but I could not find any other song that fits the criteria. I know relatively little about blues, but I keep meaning to learn more and I believe this list would be useful for readers like myself. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring five or more refs sets the bar fairly high, but I keep looking. Thanks for your comments, better late than never! —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a high bar is a good thing. It is good to have very clear criteria, as I would imagine that plenty of other songs are described as a blues standard by one or two sources, but that is not really the same as having it confirmed by multiple sources. I support the FLC for promotion. I hope my support will give this FLC the final push it needs to reach promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. Best of luck with this FLC and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_blues_standards/archive1&oldid=1056469265"