# Talk:Progressive soul

This review is transcluded from Talk:Progressive soul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) 21:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


### Preliminary review
From an initial read including spot checking of some of the sources, there may be very little to do here prior to passing. Gota love a genre that includes both Peter Gabriel & Janelle Monáe. Can't believe this gem has been left unreviewed for so long... I'll run some more checks, and if I don't find any issues I hope to promote to GA this weekend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


### Full review
An easy pass. All GA criteria are met, in some respects the article is close to FA class. Here's some suggested improvements that would help take it all the way to FA:
1) Re-write so there is less use of brackets. Its a matter of taste, but they can seem inelegant.
2) Content in the history section could use some re-ordering for coherence. The origins section sort of begins in the middle with 'By the 1970s...' Might be better to begin with the precursors in the 50s, then 60s.  The view that Sly Stone was the founder could go in the origins section. etc. 
3) The L3 History headings seem a bit disjointed re the gap from  peak success > both Origins & Revival. I'd suggest instead something like Origins, Mainstream success, Decline,  Revival.
4) For FA class you should have more L2 sections like other genre articles do, e.g. Characteristics. If it could be done without non-free issues, it would be nice to have some sound clips in that.
Thanks for writing such a nice article!  FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions. Thank you! isento (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @QuietHere:, is there a problem with the Ross/Billboard article I cited for progressive R&B? It seems to use the two interchangeably. Or did you overlook my citation? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.: I assume you're referring to the Google Books source, in which case the term does appear in there so it's worth something. I did miss it, that's my mistake. To be honest, I didn't even realise there were multiple sources in that first ref block, I'm not used to that format so I didn't read it carefully enough to catch that. But my complaints about that reference format are best saved for another day; in this case, you're fine and right to revert, and thank you for pointing out my error. QuietHere (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)