Talk:Rock music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Rock music has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 13, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rock music:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Assess : Needs reassessment
  • Cleanup : Sections for subgenres should not be longer than their respective article's infoboxes (WP:DETAIL).
  • Copyedit : Remove namedrops/self-sourcing examples. We should not have anything in the article that resembles this sentence:
    "Bands in California that adopted country rock included Hearts and Flowers, Poco, New Riders of the Purple Sage,[137] the Beau Brummels,[137] and the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band.[138]"
  • NPOV : Remove WP:WEASEL phrases ("has been seen", "some saw", "it has been argued" ...)
  • Verify : References need to be checked for WP:SYNTH
  • Model / End goal : Something close to Pop music, but just a little more comprehensive.

History note[edit]

Synthesis, weasel words, and level of detail[edit]

(A bot removed my last attempt to start discussion on this article's issues)

To explain why I placed each cleanup tag.

  • The article simply has too much detail for its own good. We can't devote this amount of space to every subcategory of rock music ever conceived. The article should be modeled after Pop music, which is straightforward and provides a brief, general overview of the genre's most important points. Too many WP:NAMEDROPS, too much WP:COATRACK.
  • The sources hardly ever corroborate the text. There is also a great number of WP:WEASEL phrases like "has been seen", "some saw", "it has been argued", etc.

I added a {{to do}} list for my other thoughts. Hopefully we can get some additional opinions before the bot archives this section.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Does Not Reflect the Standard Definition of Rock and Roll[edit]

Rock music and Rock and Roll are the same thing. The article is somewhat racist as well.....either no mention or just a blurb about acts like James Brown, Otis Redding, and Sam and Dave. Rock according to this article is just white boys banging on guitars. Rock and Roll is generally accepted as a broader term. All the major encyclopedias (except this one) begin the story in the 1940's and include the above mentioned African American acts in the story. All major rock critics, Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame use the term Rock and Roll and include African American acts in the definition. The article needs a good soul/rock section and it needs to cut down on the heavy we really need a list of every metal band that sold 100,000? The result is an article that doesn't mention James Brown (the man that topped Mick Jagger on the stage), but it mentions Iced Earth.

Finally the artists themselves......Kiss, Nirvana, AC/DC, Metallica, Green Day, The Clash, the Stones etc. etc.-- all call it Rock and Roll and most have acknowledged the enormous influence of African American acts.

Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing? Fdog9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fdog9: Two points: First, please stop the racism accusations. Racism is an attitude more than anything else. And there is no evidence that anyone here excluded or included any information based solely on race. I get very, very tired of the knee-jerk reaction of calling everything someone disagrees with that happens to involve different racial or ethnic groups "racist". If you disagree, please give us clear evidence of racist intent in the editing of this article, not just which artists or which type of music is included.
Secondly, Fdog9, did you edit your comments while signed out? If you didn't then someone changed your comments, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Please clarify whether all or part of the above is your writing, and if it's only partly yours, which parts? Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

First....I don't think the article is racist in the sense that a klansman is racist...but yes, I stand by my opinion that there is a soft racism to this article. Every major rock publication and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have a much broader definition of what rock music is and it always includes the enormous contribution of African Americans to the music. There should be at the very least a soul section in the late 1960's.....Otis Redding was most definitely rock and roll. Until the article accepts the standard definition of rock and roll, I will stand by my opinion. Second....the statement is entirely mine. I must of done a few changes after logging apologies if that violates any rules. Finally if you suggest I take it upon myself to make this correction, I and others have already tried.....just to have the sections removed.....unless it's angry white guys banging guitars---the people who watch over the article do not want it included. Fdog9 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For Otis Redding, how about these sources: [1], [2].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Classic Rock vs. Classical Rock[edit]

Search Wikipedia for Classic Rock and you get: "For the music genre associated with this format, see Rock music. For other uses, see Classic Rock (disambiguation)." Would someone who knows the definition of both, please add them to the article. Classic Rock is another term for "Rock" (or perhaps "Progressive Rock") of the 60s and 70s whereas Classical Rock is Rock and Pop music played by a symphonic orchestra. Thanks  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Community reassessment[edit]

Rock music[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article deserves a GA Reassessment because:

  • of the number of maintenance templates the article now has - including citation needed, too long, too much detail, original research, malformed references/examples.
  • the sheer length of the article. I just did a print check on it and this thing clocks out at 49 pages...49. The Page size tool gives the following stats: File size: 642 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 199 kB, References (including all HTML code): 23 kB, Wiki text: 206 kB, Prose size (text only): 96 kB (15886 words) "readable prose size", and References (text only): 2647 B. WP:SIZERULE says that an article with a readable prose size of 100kB should almost always be split. Well, if this article is deemed to be too large then the descendant articles will have to be judged on their own merits as being GAs or not.
  • References have gone dead, including #82 & #202.
At the present time, this article seems to fail the following GA criteria:
  • 1B: Per MOS:LEAD Lead is too long and overly-detailed. It includes a "golden age' phrase that is never mentioned within the main text (and one "dubious-discuss" maintenance template).
  • 2B & C: References, no original research
  • 3B: Stays focussed on the topic without going into to much detail.

I think the article could definitely benefit from some community editing and reassessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: An article of 100KB+ is often okay in cases where there are a lot of tables or the article is heavy in references. This article, with 405 references, is definitely one of those cases. But there still is excessive, undue coverage in here - 210k indicates the problem is more than just reference coding. I would say that the article isn't totally fouled on 2b/c, since it's only two. 3B seems to be the biggest one here, and I seriously doubt that one can be fixed. I'm going to say delist. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)