Aerosmith was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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 Date Process Result April 16, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed May 17, 2008 Good article reassessment Listed November 6, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Rock music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Aerosmith (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aerosmith, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AerosmithWikipedia:WikiProject AerosmithTemplate:WikiProject AerosmithAerosmith Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal United States: Massachusetts / Boston Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as Mid-importance).

I removed the sentence that said:

Aerosmith commenced recording a new album on Armed Forces Day 2006.^[1]

While the cited source does indeed say that the band began recording a new album on "Armed Forces Day 1986", that's doubly uninformative. Armed Forces Day is not a major event in the United States, and I suspect that many Americans don't even know what month it falls in. None of the band members appear to have been military veterans, and their closest connection to any armed forces seems to be that their fan base is called the Blue Army. And besides that, it's not even clear what album is being referred to; the next album mentioned that the band released was a compilation album consisting mostly of previously released material (Devil's Got a New Disguise: The Very Best of Aerosmith). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new Rolling Stone list of the 500 greatest songs clearly states Dream On was the band's "breakthrough hit" (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-songs-of-all-time-1224767/david-bowie-changes-2-1225138/). Why does this article's lead not convey that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalAnalysis (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section summarizes the information found in the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD. If there's a failure to convey information, it seems like it's in the body. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28 § Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour until a consensus is reached. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:34F4:792E:B1E7:2AB0 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone started with the template for articles for bands, and instead of deleting the touring members subsection they added a couple of examples to maintain the template's format. It makes sense they probably just got the subsection started, and reasonably expected other editors would come along and continue fleshing the subsection out from there?

I'm really glad they did that because it resolved the talk question that led me here (a talk question on an unrelated band's article asking why touring members are frequently being added and deleted...the template format's parenthetical "dates active" used here clears up that question and demonstrates that except where information is just factually incorrect, deletions are inappropriate)

Considering Aerosmith's been touring for dang near a century I thought the Aerosmith article's touring members section would be a good one for comparison - I wasn't expecting it to be so incomplete. I traded the problem that led me here - for its solution and a new, unrelated "problem" ...and so it goes wandering down rabbit holes right back into the Wikipedean labyrinth of Oz.

So. I'm adding Russ Irwin, who toured with Aerosmith for 17 years. I'm sure there must be countless others? Hopefully a more ambitious editor will come along whose more interested in fleshing the subsection in this article out further.

Pimprncess (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the intent of that section was "current touring members." Creating a section of all musicians that performed with Aerosmith throughout their history seems challenging, would be hard to find reliable sources, and probably doesn't add much value to the article. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see that now - the two listed in the main article's parenthetical are both (start year - present). I also noticed after you replied - there's a whole separate linked article to "members of Aerosmith" with an impressive table listing touring members over the years. So I found what I was looking for, when I looked in the right place for it

)

Thank you so much for your reply. This article's recognition as a top-rated "good music article example" is well-deserved! Pimprncess (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the bands calling it a day next year, should it be 1970-2024? 146.199.187.32 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they haven't been active in 2024 yet. That field describes the current state, not what we believe will happen going forward, if that makes sense. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going back-and-forth since the band's announcement. It has only announced a retirement *from touring*, not a disbandment, so surely the band and its members must still be considered active until the band communicates otherwise?

Joe Perry also stated this week that new music is a possibility, so there's every chance they could remain active outside of touring (much like the Beatles in their latter years).

There ought to be a proper rule on this to prevent the constant back-and-forth. 86.29.207.75 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just removed the hidden note.

Can it be put back in? 76.179.17.77 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 76.179.17.77 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When this article went through GA review, I believe these were the musical genres that were settled upon in the infobox: hard rock, blues rock, heavy metal. These are all sourced within the article.

Over the past four months, there's been a lot of good-faith editing, deletion, and restoring of additional musical genres, including genres as diverse as alternative rock to rhythm and blues, with dubious sourcing. There are currently nine genres in the list.

Infobox guidelines recommends two to four in the list.

I propose reverting back to the three genres. Let's stick to what is sourced and the band is primarily known for. Let's not using the genre list to exhaustively describe all of the genres of music that some of their songs may have aligned with.

Also, per MOS:MUSICCAPS, the vast majority of genres are not proper nouns. The genres in the list should be lowercase, except that the first word in the list should be capitalized. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this article may not meet the good article criteria due to the article's length. At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG says that it probably should be trimmed. After a quick skim, I think there are several sections that are too long and could be trimmed, including the third paragraph of the lead. Is anyone willing to do this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A typo was introduced on December 2 when the introduction was revised: in the list of band members, Steven Tyler is the vocalist, not "vocalsit." As this article is semi-protected, it would be helpful if a registered user could fix this. 71.30.78.171 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 11:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]