Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salsa music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Salsa music

Self-nom. I've been working on this article for awhile. It's difficult because the word salsa means different things to different people -- there's a section in the article explaining the history of the word (as a music genre). Until a few days ago, there was an anon inserting unencyclopedic comments about how this article was contradictory and such, but he's been quiet for awhile -- if you see something odd when evaluating the article, please check the history to see if he's come back. FTR, I think he's upset because the article explains that this term is used for Cuban-American dance music prior to the 60s/70s, which he feels diminishes the Puerto Rican contribution to modern salsa... (or something, I'm just guessing). Anyway, I didn't want this article to be rejected for being unstable, so I waited a week since his last edit, and I think it's fine now. Tuf-Kat 01:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Looks solid to me. Good lead, good organization, good references. Fieari 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support A good and solid article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - comprehensive article. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting read, I support. However, would it be possible to find a few more images, particularly for the history section. Secondly, I noticed there's no link to Salsa (dance). Surely there should be some connection between the two, don't you agree? Gflores ^Talk 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Link added to the lead (was there at one point, must've got accidentally cut). I'm looking through Flickr for more free images (that's how I found the Vives and salsa band pics), and I think it's pretty likely I'll eventually find some more... that might take a while though. Tuf-Kat 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Put a link in the infobox too. Tuf-Kat 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I may dislike salsa music, but this article is certainly one of the better ones on Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support A very well written and referenced article. -- Samir ∙ ^T _C 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's almost a pity that well written articles like this one don't get as much comment as the ones that need work... I almost feel like there should be a discussion on exactly what this article did RIGHT in order to balance all those other nominations where we talk about what those articles do wrong... heh. Ah well. I'm probably just being silly. Squeeky wheel gets the grease and all that. I just wish there was a better way of showing people what a featured article should look like than just pointing at the examples and regulations... Fieari 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well done, but why are there no "See also" or "external links"? 140.32.75.34 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything worth linking to is in the article, I think, hence no see alsos. In my research, no external links jumped out at me as being useful (aside from the 2 refs), so there are none. Feel free to add or suggest some. Tuf-Kat 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I was just curious. Rlevse 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely done. Rlevse 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. (I first tried to cast the vote during the "wikistorm" preceding the last database lock...) The "primary" in 2 sentences in a row in the beginning is a bit of an eyesore, but I don't have a neat rewording of the two sentences. Maybe move things about? --BACbKA 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point, I have changed one instance to "essentially", which is probably more informative in this context. Tuf-Kat 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's a good article and should eventually be featured, but there are a couple of factual errors which make me want to check a few more references first. The 70s and 80s paragraphs could be tightened slightly. Thematically, I think something could usefully be added about the resurgence of the tipico style in the 90s. I will try to correct the straight factual errors in the next 24 hours. James barton 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a difference between salsero and sonero (and sonera)? One of my source uses both, and one uses only the former. Thanks for your help. Tuf-Kat 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A sonero or sonera is a musician who produces Son music. A salsero is Salsa musician (or dancer). So the terms are similar but not synonomous. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm more used to seeing salsero refer to dancers than musicians, and sonero mean salsa singers, particularly those who can improvise. I will try to find a reference for this. James barton 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Google [1] agrees with both definitions. One of the articles it brought up led me to this [2] which only mentions the son connection in passing before talking about soneros as singers. James barton 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks good overall. Only thing I don't like is the location of those inline citations; seems inconsistent with the majority of FAs. A relatively minor issue though; good work on this. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I came across this article by chance, and in a very quick scan found factual errors right away. I would recommend a more rigorous search of the peer-reviewed literature for one thing.
  • If your only concerns are the ones presented on the talk page, I think I've fixed the issue. That paragraph is cited to the only source I have access to which covers the subject (90s Colombian salsa). If you have any further concerns, please mention them here or on the talk page. Tuf-Kat 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but (I'm sorry) that's not the only concern, and that section is not really fixed. Carlos Vives has nothing to do with salsa, period. He's not a salsa musician, and his music is not salsa-fused anything. Please do be careful when using Rough Guides as a source - they are (as the name aptly suggests) only rough guides and this one in particular does in fact get things wrong. Beyond the printed Rough Guides, their musical compilations get things wildly wrong - for example, their Puerto Rican "salsa" collection features mostly plenas and bombas. Anyway. Also in the same section, it's Sonora Carruseles (not Sonoro ...). Beyond that, I should point out that Puerto Ricans are not immigrants to the US - Puerto Ricans are US citizens, and it was Puerto Rican musicians in NYC who created and pioneered salsa, working with some traditional Cuban musical forms, and working with Cuban and other Latin American musicians. Beyond pioneering salsa, it was in Puerto Rican communities in the US and in Puerto Rico that salsa first became a hugely popular musical style. That's not really mentioned in this article, but it's really important to understanding the roots of the music, the musicians, and the cultural significance of salsa within Latino communities. You mention that an anonymous Puerto Rican had some earlier objections to your article - I haven't read them, but I would imagine that was a big part. I would agree with that person. Similarly, Spangineer (above) points out the correct definitions of salsero (=salsa musician / dancer) and sonero (=son musician). These terms are not synonymous. Google is not a definitive source here - anyone can make a mistake and post it on the web. That's all for now - I hope this is helpful. I wish you well.
• First of all, Puerto Ricans are just as capable of immigrating to New York or Miami as Cubans or Texans. Secondly, while you may not like Rough Guides, they are a published, verifiable source. Thirdly, this article says Vives fused salsa with vallenato and rock, which is a claim sourced to the person who made it (by an author who writes on Latin and Caribbean music for several magazines, and has had a book published on salsa). Lastly, I don't think the Puerto Rican influence is at all understated -- the article does say the culture was "primarily Puerto Rican", and in any case, all claims related to either Cubanness or Puerto Ricanness are sourced, and many widely-varying opinions are presented. If you can cite a reasonable source that gives a more prominent Puerto Rican emphasis, then that can be added too. Tuf-Kat 08:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've got another book now that I can look in, but since it's about Cuba primarily, I doubt it will be a source for what you're looking for on the Puerto Rico issue. But then, I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've put quite a bit in based on the new book, some of which has to do with Puerto Rico. Does this help with your concerns? Tuf-Kat 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive and I see no problem with your sources. Kafziel 18:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Interesting and seems thorough. I'm not a salsa expert, so I can't comment on the details. The reference titles sound comprehensive enough and reliable. I did have one significant style problem, to do with the explanation of lack of a clear, universal definition, which is covered in "The word salsa", and spills over into the next section, "Characteristics" (particularly the second para there, "The singer Rubén Blades once claimed..."). For me, there is too much equivocation and uncertainty for too long off the top, which sets up a little doubt about the rest of the article. I'd confine stuff like "are doubtful that the term salsa has any useful meaning at all" to the "word" section--the differing views are made plain there--and adopt a more direct, declarative tone in "Characteristics": "according to X...", "according to Y...", type of thing. --Tsavage 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've moved about one and a half paragraphs from "characteristics" to the "word" section and did quite a bit of reorganizing (wow, would've taken hours if not for the new citation system, and I probably still would've mucked up a few footnotes). "Characteristics" has a much tighter focus now, which I think has been a significant improvement. Tuf-Kat 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it now sounds a lot more authoritative to me! :) --Tsavage 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)