Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Weekend in the City/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fox (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 12 September 2009 (→A Weekend in the City: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Weekend in the City

Nominator(s): Rafablu88 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

For all the talk about nominators having to be polite, welcome to the most imperfect process in the history of mankind. This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all. Also, don't oppose and leave it hanging forever even though your improvements have been made. I'm sick and tired of that happening. Rafablu88 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<conversation unrelated to article moved to talk page>

Update Fixed 1 disam. link, all ref links working, alt text good. Rafablu88 19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: You're lucky I'm not put off by your rudeness and disregard for an important process. My issues:
    • I'm definitely not disregarding an important process. The fact that I work tirelessly to get stuff here should tell you all you need to know. Just generally not happy with filibustering and negligence. You obviously are neither especially as you took the time to comment even though you had similar issues as the users above. For that, thanks. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. It's just I would consider the "nomination rationale" you left slightly… flame-bait-ish? I would have gone about nominating in a different way than yourself, even if I had the same reservations, tis all.
    • "Despite missing their hometown of London" seems slightly inappropriate. Hometown, to me, refers to somewhere that the reader is likely to not have heard of, usually because of its size.
      • I don't fully understand the issue here. It's merely pointing out that London is Bloc Party's hometown and the info is integral to what is explained later about the album. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My issue is simply that hometown seems an odd little word for such a well-known and large place as London. I can't think of an alternative, and it's not a big deal anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
"Hometown" is strictly US English, when the article should clearly be in UK English - "native city" is what you need. This is a problem in various places. I suggest you don't strike through comments when you think you have dealt with them. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's always the commentator who strikes his own comments. Secondly, I see your point, but what if there's no BrEng equivalent? I don't believe "native city" is an option as it would inadvertently imply that they were all born there, which is not the case. I've used "home city". RB88 (T) 06:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes" would something more specific such as "Band member" or "Backing singer" be more appropriate? "Multi-instrumentalist" makes it feel as if he's giving outside commentary (until the quote is read).
    • "high-profile producers like Jacknife Lee" low-profile enough to not have a wikilink?
    • "delivery of their staccato indie rock" would assume "indie rock" or a derivative thereof needs to be wikilinked, considering other music types (dance music) are.
      • The above two points: Both are linked in the lead (which I usually treat as the rest of the article) and I don't link things again unless it's songs in the track list, charts, or equipment (all done for user ease). Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? I've never understood why wikilinking terms repeated in the lead and main text isn't enforced. Are we all under the illusion that people are going to read the entire article? They're almost certainly not; many people will probably just use the TOC to navigate to a section of their interest/need. Hence why I'd consider wikilinking those terms. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
          • Linked them but I still think it's unnecessary because I'm sure everyone reads the lead before the rest and so has seen the links regardless of the section they click. Also going under that assumption would mean linking every term the was new in every section regardless if it's been linked before just because A. Billy ADHD can't be bothered to try being fully enlightened. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is DONE btw. Rafablu88 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The title comes as a tangent to the central theme of the album, "the living noise of a metropolis"." is it usual for the title of an album not to be discussed until the Promotion and Release? I thought this would have gone in Origins.
    • "First single". This occurs a number of times (one of which I fixed). I honestly can't see why they aren't prefixed with "The". Surely if you have "The next single" then you ought to have "The [number] single"?
  • More comments:
    • Jacknife Lee needs to be "Garret "Jacknife" Lee".
    • This article refers to Bloc Party as an Indie rock band, whilst the article on the band itself gives them as simply a rock band.
      • WP:OTHERSTUFF, but anyway that article's infobox clearly gives their genres and I'm sure you can allow a band to change their musical style drastically in a given album.
        • As far as I can tell the place that link took me to had no relevance to my issue. The infobox gives the genres of the album, not of the band. It's not a case of me allowing a band to change musical style, a lot of bands and musicians do that. My point is: we can't change the band's genre to whatever album we're detailing. And you shouldn't change the genre of the band on their article without reaching a consensus either… (I noticed) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Studio Sessions" image. Can "(L-R)" be expanded, I haven't ever seen an article where it's been abbreviated. Also "Tong's drum kit is surrounded by a booth and each component has its own miking set-up" resembles the Alt text, and isn't what I'd consider an appropriate caption.
      • I reworded it slightly. I don't know what the problem is if both alt and real are the same especially when real has to explain what is seen in the photo (booth and miking setup which are written in the text too) in the same vein as alt. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Okereke's lyrics juxtapose the apparent meaningless monotony with the seemingly epic experiences in a city environment, from waiting for a train, struggles with racial identity, terrorist attacks, and desperation on a dancefloor." it sounds so pretentious. Do there need to be 13 words to describe how someone is showing that there can be great and meaningless experiences in a city? The second section should be "from waiting for a train, struggling with racial identity and terrorist attacks, to desperation on a dancefloor". On that note, what is "desperation on a dancefloor about?".MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, mainly on prose grounds.Comments: A few general points first:

**"A low-quality rip of A Weekend in the City leaked in November..." It presumably didn't leak itself, so "was leaked". Who leaked it?

    • "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, which was confirmed by Okereke." What exactly did Okereke confirm?
      • DONE. The contents. Rafablu88 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • Your text reads "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, whose contents were confirmed by Okereke." Contents are not a "who". And it's still not clear, for either of these leaks, who did the leaking. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
          • Rephrased it. And if I'd known who leaked it I would have written it. The source mentions noone as is the case with internet leaks. I don't think "leaked by deranged internet pirates" would be encyclopaedic or verifiable. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My point was that sometimes people leak things themselves, as a form of test-marketing.

**"released in the rest of the world" seems an odd way of describing the general release of a album. "Released worldwide" might be a more orthodox expression.

  • I have spot-checked a few citations: "Bloc Party wanted to expand their sonic palette without losing the cathartic delivery of their staccato indie rock.[15]" What part of ref [15] are you saying supports this statement?
    • It's number 16 and it says: "We've retained some of that jerkiness [from Silent Alarm] but we didn't want to do anything that we've already done. There's a lot of gentle stuff, but we don't want to have a gentle record. Moakes says some of the cuts the group have come up with sound not far from the edgy, dream-rock..." Rafablu88 16:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • POV warning: "The highly honest approach..." Whose words are "highly honest"? If they are from the source, they should be in quotes and attributed. If they are POV they should be withdrawn.
    • The polar citations used to prove the statement are:
    • Allmusic: "A Weekend in the City, an unashamedly ambitious, emotional album", "On A Weekend in the City, Bloc Party is sadder, wiser, and more heart-on-sleeve than ever -- almost embarrassingly so", "He's become a striking lyricist, conveying ambivalence and yearning in remarkably direct terms"
    • The Guardian: "Unfortunately, grand statements are not earnest frontman Kele Okereke's forte", "There's barely a song that isn't kneecapped by one of Okereke's lyrical clangers. Just one reference to "crosswords and sudoku" kills Waiting for the 7.18 stone dead, while Hunting for Witches, about fear of terrorism, is so gauche that you might find yourself feeling kindly towards John Reid"
    • Rafablu88 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Please contact me when you think you have addressed these points. The list is not comprehensive, and should be used as a basis for identifying other problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • Your "God forbid" response, above, is a little worrying, if it implies that you would place poetic licence above accuracy or encyclopedic style. I trust this is not the case.
  • I'm a bit concerned that you have 15 separate citations to a single page of the Murphy article, and 12 to another page. The 15 citations to page 36 seem to cover a lot of information. Can you confirm that all the information cited to these pages is found there?
    • Yes. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you confirm that this is the Murphy article you are using as a source? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but seems to be a bit truncated for the internet, not just image wise. The one I have in the magazine is a longer spread. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you fix citations [13] and [18] (Murphy - see reflist) Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Way ahead of you Brian. ;) Rafablu88 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would you look at ref [18b]? The sentence cited reads: "The band members were largely disillusioned with the evolution of contemporary guitar music and aimed to re-create the atmosphere of neo-classical music coupled with the highly stylised production values of R&B and hip-hop records." The actual source statement is "I don't think we set out to make a neo-classical record [laughs], but I do think we relied on that kind of atmosphere."”This is saying something different from your sentence; perhaps you should rephrase?
                • First of all thanks for the edits, but mainly for the detailed comments which I like as they keep me on my toes.
                • Right, the sentence reads: The band members were largely disillusioned with the evolution of contemporary guitar music and aimed to re-create the highly stylised production values of R&B and hip-hop records,[19] while relying on an atmosphere similar to neo-classical music.[18] The first half is another source. The second half above is based on "I do think we relied on that kind of atmosphere", i.e. neo-classical music. I don't see how I'm saying something different but maybe I've become desensitised to the text. Any advice? RB88 (T) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This revised version of the sentence is OK. 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I said earlier that my main concern was the standard of the prose. I have now read through (fairly quickly) the remainder of the article and have found numerous further problems. If you have got there first, and fixed any of them, I apologise:-
These prose concerns reinforce my view that the article needs to be copyedited thoroughly, by someone other than you, to help bring the prose to the standard required for featured articles. I will be happy to look at the article again, when that has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God bless vague assertions. I'll ask around. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the question of vague assertions, quote "This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all." Without really trying, I have found a dozen or so prose faults. The article has improved considerably as a result of this review process, but would clearly benefit from another pair of eyes than yours, and that is what I am requesting. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just yanking your chain Brian. You're a good sport. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on title: The page title for this article is rendered in italics. I've not seen this style on any featured article relating to a song, album, film or fictional work. I've not checked MOS but this may be an issue, i.e. should the main title be A Weekend in the City, not A Weekend in the City? Brianboulton (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some debate about this recently. The technical ability is there. But bear with me, I'll have a look and a few discussions and will come back to say what the stance is. RB88 (T) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No mandate for or against it". IMO, it's truer and more professional. RB88 (T) 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for context, there was an RfC on this and there wasn't really a "consensus" as such but it seemed be erring on the side not using italic names, except maybe for species/genera. I hope this is fair, unbiased assemesment but for full disclosure I !voted against it at the time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd been looking for that. Ultimately, I think it's not a massive deal. If MOS is changed in the future, then I can just delete it. It'll only take a couple of seconds. Personally, I still think however that if something is in italics in the body, then surely it has to be as such in the title. RB88 (T) 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No mandate for or against" doesn't represent actual practice, and it might be prudent to follow the style adopted by all similar articles which have reached FA. Even ship names, which are invariably italicized in text, are not italicized when they appear as or in titles. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All similar articles which have reached FA" seems a bit of a cop-out other-stuff-exists argument to me. If MOS doesn't specify anything either way then why should I adhere to what everyone else is doing? The majority is not always right. I said above that it seems more professional and truer to me to add title italics if something is in italics in the text. You obviously have another opinion. But we're going round in circles now in the same way as the RFC no consensus. And also, making a mountain out of a molehill. It can be very easily deleted in the future if need be after a sturdy MOS decision against it. RB88 (T) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I find the table-y and list-y sections at the bottom half of the article rather overwhelming, especially the track listing. Only the original track-listing (and that global one with the extra song, in this particular case) is ever really notable. Considering that these days albums are sold by different retailers with all sorts of bonus tracks and variations, I don't think it is particularly notable or necessary to list down all of these various formats. The track-listing for the additional remixes/live-DVD doesn't belong either.

  • Yep, summarised DVD stuff. Bonus tracks are needed though as they were created during the same studio sessions (i.e. the "30 sound checks" mentioned in Origins). Two of them even made the preliminary track list. Rafablu88 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the release history section. How is a collection of release dates and catalogue dates of any interest to the general reader? Remember WP:NOTCATALOG, Wikipedia is not a "complete exposition of all possible details." All important record labels and dates have been already covered in the prose anyway.

  • No, see Wikipedia:Albums#Release_history. Plus, I'm sure the reader would appreciate all the info compacted to a table for such a staggered album release-wise. Rafablu88 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Release history" sections are in no way mandatory (most album FAs do not have and do not need them), and you're better off conveying that information in prose, anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, I never said it was mandatory. It's up to editors' discretion and I took the decision that it was so staggered release wise in terms of dates, labels, types, catalog no.s that the table was clearly beneficial. Not all the information can be contained in the prose without sounding forced and superficial. Sorry if it's making other FAs look deficient, but maybe they should have one too, especially the older ones who have had a re-release in the 21st century. Rafablu88 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CHART: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." indopug (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further—
  • Within a paragraph, a citation is assumed to reference all the text preceding it (apart from quotes). So you don't need to use the same ref over and over again in adjacent sentences. I just you remove all of these instances of over-referencing to enhance readability. [ Sample edit].
  • Is that non-free image of the recording process really necessary? It isn't very clear either, with the drums and the mikes around them tiny in the background. Besides, I don't think there isn't anything particularly unique about this recording setup to warrant a fair-use pic.
    • Well, it's not clear because a) it's a screenshot and b) it has to be small for fair-use. It's not just about the drums miking either, it's the booth as well. I think overall it's unconventional and unique enough to warrant inclusion, especially with what is said in the adjacent text. Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a couple of discussions, I have now uploaded a clearer, slightly larger shot and reinforced the free use rationale, too. RB88 (T) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiohead are not a post-rock band, and Snow Patrol are not world-renowned. Not as much as U2 anyway (which is what the sentence inadvertently implies).
  • I'm surprised that you don't choose to include the most reputed music magazines' reviews in the infobox and in the Reception section? While notable, why use Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Rockfeedback wand Stylus, when you can have Spin, Mojo, Q and a major newspaper like the Times instead? I doubt it will be difficult to find these reviews online.
    • It's all subjective isn't it? You say tomaytoe, I say tomatoh. I always proceed through Metacritic's picks, the aggregate score (to show a correct rating spread), and Ealdgyth's notability guidelines. Plus now in the 21st century post-print times, people like Spin, Mojo, Q etc are behind in terms of review quality, length, and perception. Most of their writing is just stubs, whereas Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Stylus, and Rockfeedback actually still write essays on albums like the good old times mainly because they can space-wise but also because they focus more on less mainstream music. I'm sure the reader would appreciate quality and depth rather than a two sentence paragraph with an arbitrary editorial rating. I know I do. Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact of the matter is that the long-standing print publications have greater critical weight. Drowned in Sound and the like should be relied on only if you can't find anything by the likes of Rolling Stone, NME, and SPIN, because they are considered the leading voices in music journalism (and they do have web presences; Rolling Stone in particular has an online version of pretty much everything that has ever been printed by it). Review length has nothing to do with it (I am reminded of a rather cutting four-word Bauhaus review by Melody Maker from the early 80s. A rather tossed-off review that i don't agree with, but it got its point across). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, m'lord. Replaced Stylus with EW since they're now defunct. Replaced Rockfeedback with the A.V. Club. The only other Metacritic established review was Blender but that was written by Dorian Lynskey who wrote The Guardian one and it wouldn't have been appropriate. Everything else was print media which I don't have and even if I did I wouldn't budge on PopMatters (see Wikipedia:Albums#Review_sites) and Drowned in Sound, who without a look in nostalgia lane, are currently probably more thorough and eminent than the Spins and Qs of this world, especially in the UK. Rafablu88 12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list of equipment used is highly unorthodox, in that most of our articles don't have them. I don't see the point too, I doubt a casual reader would grasp the significance of any of the items on the list; it would only interests the musos. As an analogy, would you like to read a list of all the equipment in shooting a film in a film article? indopug (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; File:BPGLodge.jpg is used in violation of WP:NFCC#1 as the scene shown can be adequately described by text. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NFCC#1 actually states "No free equivalent." The fair use rationale reads: "The work is copyrighted, thus no free alternative is available. It was recorded in desolate, rural Ireland with no photographers, press etc. The promo video is absolutely the only piece of work that includes such studio sessions material." The questions are:
      1. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" ANSWER: NO
      2. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" I assume this is what you're referring to. My answer would still be: NO
    • The text does explain booth and miking scheme, yes, but the probabilities of ALL the readers comprehending and visualising exactly what this unorthodox set-up looked like are quite low. A booth could mean anything in terms of its erection, composite materials, and relative position. And while miking scheme is easier to visualise, their position relative to specific drum kit parts may not. I believe it satisfies criterion 1. RB88 (T) 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't find anything wrong other than the issues brought up here, and they've been resolved. Timmeh (review me) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My (extensive) concerns, now resolved, are here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as significant contributor - hoped to find more time to help Rafa out with this but evidently school and, now, work have prevented me. Obviously worth the star and has withstood some heavy criticism here. Excellent work if I do say so myself.  GARDEN  19:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/A_Weekend_in_the_City/archive1&oldid=313424591"