Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Achtung Baby/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [1].

Achtung Baby

edit

Achtung Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4, Merbabu 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC),[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Merbabu and I have worked extremely hard on this article in the 6 months since the previous FA nomination. I believe we have fixed all major issues and that the article now meets all the criteria of a FA. It is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-written, and neutral. It covers one of the most extensively-covered and highly-regarded albums in rock history, and it is a topic very close to me. I believe it is one of the best articles available on a musical subject, and it reflects the hard work that the newly revived WikiProject U2 has put in. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

  • Citations: There are numerous anomalies in the formatting:-. I am not sure that I have caught all of them
    • General: What is your rationale for adding retrieval dates to some refs but not others (e.g. 67 but not 35, 129 but not 123 etc)? Whatever your approach is, there must be consistency.
    • No. 12 and others: it would be clearer if "Q" was identified as "Q (magazine)"
  • *No. 34: same point, really, with Details, i.e. Details (magazine). Perhaps in this case the magazine's publisher should also be given?
    • Nos. 37 and 38 and 60: The note "subscription required" needs to be separated from the title
    • No, 63: What is the nature of this source, and why is the quote included?
    • No. 83: If "Live Nation" is the publisher, it's not necessary to give the website name as well. (Other possible instances of this)
    • No. 92: Allmusic should not be italicised. There are further instances of this. Italics are reserved for printed sources. Anything which is not a printed source (magazine, journal, newspaper etc) should not be Italicised. There are many other instances within this list - check it out, especially from around 130 onwards.
    • No. 97: Publisher should be given
    • No. 100: If "Hung Medien" is the publisher, it's not necessary to give the website name as well. (Other possible instances of this)
  • References
    • General: This section should be listed "Bibliography", not "References". Why are some cite books listed here, but not others?
    • McGee book lacks publisher location
    • de la Parra book lacks publisher location
    • The format of the McCormick book doesn't look quite right, as per author→date→title→location→publisher→isbn. And "HarperCollins" shouldn't have "Publisher" tacked on.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my initial responses:
  • General - 123 is not an online ref, so it doesn't need a retrieval date. In some cases, the citation details were for a print reference, but a convenience link was given and I didn't feel a retrieval date was necessary. If you think any reference with a URL should have a retrieval date, I will add them.
  • Sorry about 123 (now 124 I note). In general, this is a question of being consistent. Some editors give retrieval dates for all online sources, while others do not do so when the source is also available in print form. So for print sources it should be all or none. My personal preference is for all, but it's down to you provided the result is consistent.
  • Refs no. 34, 37, 38, and 60 are fixed.
  • Ref no. 63 is an hour-long TV program about U2. The quote is given to specifically prove the point, since there is a lot said during the program about the band's history.
  • Ref no. 92 was fixed. Most of the similar instances after ref 130 are international music industry organizations being italicized. The rationale for this is that since they existed years before the web came about, they have presumably released things in print (e.g. charting info, press releases) and thus, are not a web-only work/publisher.
  • Books were listed in the "References" section when multiple footnotes were used to reference that book. If a book was only used as a source once, it was included in "Footnotes".
  • Yes, but calling this limited list "References" is misleading. Any reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia terminology would be unaware that this was only a list of some of the references, and that many more had been used in compiling the article. If you were to change the heading to "Bibliography" and then list all the cited books, this would at least be logical. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGee and de la Parra fixed.
  • Trying to credit McCormick's U2 by U2 book is odd - Neil McCormick and U2 are interchangeably (and often together) given author credits, depending on where you check (isbndb.com, WorldCat). However, all of the words in the book are U2's own. Their names are the only ones on the cover. McCormick doesn't supply any of his own writing. The title page says the names of the band members, followed by "with Neil McCormick". It seems to be consensus by our Wikiproject that McCormick is an editor, in which case, the format of the citation you are looking at is valid (editors are not placed in the same position as authors). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and I have different interpretations of how the {{cite web}} template should be used. It was my understanding that if the website was self published, the website is the publisher and thus, should be entered in the "publisher" parameter, but if the website is published by some institution (e.g. U2.com is published and operated by Live Nation), then the website title goes under "work" and the publishing company is the "publisher". The guideline listed on the template page states to use the "publisher" parameter: if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work). Per this guideline, I don't believe changes you recommended for the web references are needed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re Bibliography vs. References, I've always used "references" across a broad range of topics and I cannot recall it ever being challenged, and while I have not done a survey and am happy to be corrected, I'm sure that References is more common. Further, I am not aware of any policy/guideline that stipulates Bibliography. Personally, I think it's a bit trivial, and I could agree to just change it for the sake of earning FA but that seems a bit trite. Meh (in a good way). But, happy to hear if there is more to it. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. I don't object to a "References" heading if it is a full list of references. I do object when the heading covers a partial list of books. I believe that the advice in WP:CITE is somewhat confused, and probably neds a thorough rethink. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put all references under the "References" heading and listed any and all books under a "Bibliography" sub-heading. I've also added retrieval dates to any references with URLs, and I've de-italicized the music industry organizations where appropriate (e.g. in cases excluding the web references having "works" and "publishers", and excluding RPM, since was actually a magazine). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is the reason to add "(magazine)" after the name of some periodicals? There aren't any other periodicals of the same name to distinguish between. Is it just because of the length of the name? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for humouring me with regard to the References and Bibliography matter. On this, my issue is not really with you, but with the MOS advice which I do not believe is particularly helpful to editors at present. I hope in due course to raise this in an appropriate forum. As to the adding of "magazine", I suggested this because the single letter "Q" does not immediately suggest a magazine name and I thought some clarification might be helpful. Likewise, "Details" doesn't sound like a magazine. However, these were suggestions which you are entitled to disregard if you wish. I don't believe there are any other outstanding sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support You can consider my full support once the following issues have been addressed: — Indopug (05:02, June 12, 2010), — (continues after insertion below.)

I do not know whose support this is: please search the history and add {{interrupt}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scare quotes: Too many sentences feature a word or two quoted, giving undue importance to those words. Either expand the quotes, or use the words without quotes. For eg, the following sentences don't need any words to be in quotes:
  • they wanted the new album to be "forward-looking" and a "complete about turn", but they did not know how to achieve this - reword to remove the rather generic quotes.
  • "oblique" strategies - how about just 'Oblique Strategies' (without quotes) as the article you link to capitalises?
  • The band found their East Berlin hotel "bleak" and the winter "inhospitable", while the run-down condition of Hansa Studios and its location in a SS ballroom added to the "bad vibe" - this sentence is the biggest culprit. The first two needn't be quoted, and the third should be expanded to include more words in the quote.
  • and so on, especially in the Recording section.
  • You use "listening to _______ music helped" twice in the same sentence.
  • The Legacy section: this is my only real major concern.
  • I'd prefer to see all those accolades in the second para (which, coming one by one, make for tedious reading) in a table.
  • Further, certifications and sales figures should be in the Release section, where you had talked about charting and sales info.
  • The Rolling Stone lists are barely notable; they certainly aren't the Grammys, and don't merit significant mention at all (especially not the category names).
  • I like the quotes you have used, and would like to see the entire section better-structured around them. The section should explain a) what AB's success meant for U2 at the time, b) how it shaped their future work, and c) how it influenced other bands/rock music in general.
  • The section and, hence, the article end rather abruptly; it needs a better closing sentence.
Responses to Indopug:
  • I will work on the scare quotes today.
  • "listening to __ music" sentence fixed.
  • I had the accolades in a table last time and was told to convert them into prose by WesleyDodds. So, I'm not really sure what to do here.
  • My rationale for separating the lifetime accolades and sales from the "Release" section is that the "Release" section should discuss the album's initial commercial performance (e.g. year or two after its release), and the "Legacy" section should summarize accumulated sales throughout the album's lifetime. Do you not agree with that reasoning?
  • Hmmm, let me think about this.
  • Are you sure you mean Rolling Stone? This may be one of the most notable music publications that there is. Can you clarify what you mean by "category names"?)
  • Thing is, they are readers polls, not opinions of critics or scholars working for RS. By category names, I meant "winning honours for "Best Single" ("One"), "Best Band" . . . "Comeback of the Year"" should definitely go. Also, this definitely doesn't belong in the Legacy section, as it happened just after the album's release. Put it next to the Grammy sentences instead.
  • I understand what you are saying. The point of stating the readers poll results is to help illustrate that the band won back their favour with fans and once again became one of the most popular bands in the world, after the dismissive reception to Rattle and Hum. I considered this part of the band's "Legacy", but I can try and work it in the "Release" section if you think it's better suited there. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagreed a bit on which of these reader poll results were most relevant to this album article, but I've trimmed it down a bit and moved it to the "Critical reception" section (now titled "Reception"). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oblique" strategies - I'm afraid that if I just link to the Oblique Strategies article with the suggested captialization, it will give the impression that the band actually used Eno's cards, when there is no indication that they did. All we know is that Eno and Lanois influenced the band with some of these strategies.
  • But by linking to that article you are already giving the impression that the band used them cards...
  • There is already a note underneath the songs (not singles, not all those songs are singles) chart to indicate the dash means no charting.
  • Ah, silly me.
Let me know when issues have been resolved. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One question - is there a reason for unlinking some of the locations in the infobox, but not others (e.g. Berlin, vs. Dublin/Dalkey)? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use an automated delinking script that delinked Berlin but not the other two.—indopug (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to improving the prose in the "Legacy" section, so far I've reorganized paragraphs so the lifetime sales and certifications come first, and the information on the album's fitting into the alt-rock movement has been moved to the end of the section. I also elaborated on one of the points made by Flanagan in this section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I wanted to bring up on this page is the genre field in the infobox. For some time, it remained stable at "Rock, alternative rock", and during his initial review, Indopug removed the "alternative rock" genre on the grounds of redundancy. I totally understand his reasoning for this. However, this provoked some discussion about whether the genre should be the generic "Rock" or the more specific (but not agreed-upon "Alternative rock"). For that discussion, you can refer to Merbabu's talk page. My question is whether it would be acceptable to keep both genres in the infobox to prevent any edit warring. Hopefully, more people besides myself and Merbabu can weigh in on this. Thank you. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is for just Rock. Although they were extensively inspired by alt-rock, and this record came out during that time, U2 aren't an 'alternative' band. Not in the traditional sense anyway--having underground roots, belonging to an indie label etc. They were a arena rock act at the time of Baby's release, and arena rock acts can't suddenly go 'alternative'.—indopug (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Re-reading the entire article just now, I think it is very good, especially the Recording section. I did a minor copy-edit, and I think a few more wouldn't hurt; I have seen User:Casliber offer his services in these areas, have you tried contacting him? I have a few quibbles remaining, which should be easily taken care of:

  • You use the word 'album' too many times in Release, Reception and Legacy (use the Highlight you are on Firefox).
  • "The 49th entry in the 33 1⁄3 series of books..." - this sentence is more about the book than the record, I don't see the point of having it here.
  • The Allmusic review is in retrospect, so it shouldn't be grouped with the other contemporary reviews.
  • I don't see why Christgau review needs to be in the infobox or the prose, when it's just a symbol with no further elaboration. It is particularly strange that you quote his Zooropa review over here. (surely there are other contemporary reviews to source)
  • "["One"] has since become regarded as one of the greatest of all-time" - well yeah, it's alright, but it isn't "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Stairway to Heaven"; this sentence makes it seem like it does.
  • I suggest flipping the second and third paragraphs of Legacy. I think it'd read better.—indopug (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Indopug
  • We did a similar exercise previously to balance the usage of "album" and "record", but I believe Merbabu was hesistant because of the potential ambiguity of the word "record" in some places, so he went with "album" consistently throughout the article. I will go back and make sure that if I do replace "album" anywhere, there would not be any potential ambiguity.
  • WesleyDodds brought up this book in the previous FAC - from what I can tell, the book is more about religion that it is the album, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since it is a notable series of books, and an entry was written for this album.
  • Sure, in that case you might want to rewrite a bit, because "The 49th entry in the 33 1⁄3 series of books..." is very unclear upon first-reading. Remember that most people don't know what the 33.33 series is.
  • I'm unsure of when the AMG/Allmusic reviews were/are written, but I didn't think it mattered, since it's still a review of the album nonetheless and I didn't see any guidelines about Allmusic on the {{Album ratings}}. If this is a sticking point, I can replace it with something else.
  • It is fine in the infobox, but my problem is that in the prose you are mixing a retrospective review with contemporary reviews, without labelling it as such.—indopug (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a whole long discussion about the Christgau review on the talk page - I've been against its inclusion, mainly on the basis that his review of the album consists entirely of his "dud" icon. The reason for the Zooropa review is that is the first time he actually describes Achtung Baby. Rather than dredge up edit wars again, I've left the review, since he is a notable critic.
  • "One" was named the greatest song of all-time by Q, and the 36th best ever by Rolling Stone (see The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time). So I certainly think it merits the highly esteemed prose in the article.
  • Flipped these paragraphs.
Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much for your time and attention. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. One last thing, if you can find a spot, add random pic(s) of the band/band member(s). If we have pics of the band from that era, even better.—indopug (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have some photos of the band, but most are from concerts and make them look pretty tiny. The best one of them is probably the image that we use in the U2 infobox. I have some good images of Bono/The Edge that I can upload, possibly with a caption that reads "In Berlin, Bono and The Edge worked more closely without the other band members." I haven't contacted Casliber about copyediting since he helped us copyedit and then reviewed the article for GA Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict arose within the band over their musical direction and the quality of their material. - why not just "The band argued over their musical direction and the quality of their material." ? Do we lose meaning? It is simpler....
They wrote "God Part II" from Rattle and Hum after realising they had pursued the "retro nature of songwriting" and nostalgia to excess. - to me the two objects in the second clause are synonymous more or less, why not "They wrote "God Part II" from Rattle and Hum after realising they often overdone nostalgia." or "relied too heavily on nostalgia" (?? or somesuch??)
In response to your concerns:
  • "Conflict arose" sentence - we could write "The band argued" in this sentence, which would necessitate a revision to the following sentence to avoid saying "argue" again.
  • I'll find a suitable revision to the "nostalgia" sentence"
Thanks for giving it another look! I appreciate the prose tweaking. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Five images.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Very good.
  • License: GFDL (1.2 or any later) and CC-BY-SA-3.0/2.5/2.0/1.0. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
  • Quality: Fine.
  • License: CC-BY-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Fine.
  • License: GFDL (1.2 or any later) and CC-BY-SA-2.0. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
  • Quality: Good.

*File:Zoo stage.jpg: Photograph of elaborate stage set (fair use).

  • Usage: Not acceptable. Sorry. It does serve an encyclopedic purpose—the image is rich in visual information and substantially explicates sourced critical commentary—but it doesn't pass the bar of NFC criterion 2: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." This is a professional photograph taken in 1993 owned by the photographer and his agency, whose commercial rights as a stock/historical photo are managed by Getty Images. The image itself is not famous, and its use as a standalone photo (that is, not as part of an album or magazine cover or the like) to accompany discussion of the Zoo TV tour directly impacts the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • Rationale: Irrelevant—see above. I discovered the photo's status as a consequence of the rationale identifying the "author" as "U2", which didn't seem very likely. Ten seconds of Google Image searching brought me to Getty Images, which gives the full and accurate authorship and copyright information.
  • License: GFDL (1.2 or any later) and CC-BY-3.0. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
  • Quality: Acceptable.

Three audio samples:

  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and the unique effect of its introductory passage, sampled here.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Usage: Good; could be improved. Well-chosen sample of third of album's five singles, with critical commentary on compositional process, musical structure, lyrics, and critical acclaim. I note that the rationale states, "It is used to demonstrate the balance in musical styles on the record. Although the record was a reinvention for the artist, many songs, including 'One', follow a more conventional style in line with previous recordings by the artist." I don't see that this point is made in the article—it would be helpful if it was.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of first of album's five singles, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and how its specific sound prompted its choice as the album's lead single.
  • Rationale. Good.—DCGeist (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Zoo TV Tour image with a free (albeit far inferior) alternative. I've also tweaked the rationale for the "One" sample to improve the existing wording and remove the line in question, and I've added one more sentence to the "listen" box in the article. Please let me know what you think. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good now. It is a shame about the Zoo TV image, but disseminating that sort of usage (not on Wikipedia itself per se, as we never pay for media any circumstance, but downstream from us) really can affect the income opportunities for an individual creator.—DCGeist (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've come across some photos on Wikipedia that were obtained with permission to use from the original authors - mostly from Flickr, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a formal process to follow to do this? I've seen a few photos on Flickr that would make suitable replacements in the long-term. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did as well. (I looked at Flickr to see if there was a free substitute I could propose—no such luck. But, yes, they are several good possibilities there under copyright.) I wouldn't call the permission request process "formal", but here are a couple pages that show how to go about it: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.—DCGeist (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments - looks good on first glance. I'll go through it in detail, and come back with a further response. PL290 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some interim comments, mostly minor, but one structural concern and a suggestion about resolving it:

  • Possible slight overlinking: demos, engineer
  • With a few musical ideas already written, the band wanted the new album to completely deviate from their past work - it's unclear what the first part specifically means, or what its connection is to the second
  • In a retrospective review, Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic gave Achtung Baby a perfect score of five stars - we just had a "perfect" review from the LA Times; apart from the repetition, the word seems a little unencyclopedic, to me at least; perhaps consider other terms in both cases to refer to ratings
  • praising the band's musical reinvention as "thorough", "effective", and "endlessly inventive" - the impact of "endlessly inventive" is diminished by the fact that we introduce the quote using the word "reinvention" ourselves; perhaps use "transformation" or somesuch this time?
  • he appeared as this alter-ego for the band's subsequent public appearances - similarly, appeared/appearances
  • Through the end of May, final lyrics and vocal takes had yet to be completed, - unclear what "through" means here
  • The Composition section is confusing: the previous section title already includes the word "writing", which is synonymous, and most of the first two paragraphs of Composition' are in fact about guitar sounds and the mix. Since the rest of Composition is about lyrics, my first thought is that those two paragraphs belong in the earlier section, and Composition should be retitled Lyrics or similar.

I'll read the rest tomorrow and comment further after that. PL290 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • An audio engineer seems like a role that would be unfamiliar to many who aren't part of the recording process, so I would be inclined to keep it. I can delink "demo", and any other examples you may suggest.
  • Allmusic review fixed
  • "Praising the band's musical reinvention" fixed
  • "appeared as this alter-ego" fixed
  • As far as "through the end of May" goes, since we're discussing the recording of the album chronologically, I wanted to say that as of May, the lyrics and mixes were not yet finished, but Lanois already thought the songs would be hits. I've just replaced "through" with "at".
  • "The "Writing, recording, and production" section is meant to summarize how the album was created. The "Composition" section discusses the finished contents of the album (the definition of "composition" is "manner of being composed; structure; makeup; constitution).
I'll look into addressing the comment about the "with a few musical ideas already written" sentence tomorrow. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support - nice work. I've listed my remaining comments below. Most are minor, although I remain concerned about the one structural point mentioned and have elaborated further below.

  • "Religious interpretations of the album are the subject of the book Meditations on Love in the Shadow of the Fall—the 49th entry in the 33 1⁄3 series of books dedicated to music records." - the title of the work would suffice.
  • "The sleeve artwork for Achtung Baby was designed by Steve Averill, who had done the majority of U2's albums." - "done the albums" is colloquial here
  • "Clayton's privates are censored with a black "X""- "privates" even more so
  • "Other possible titles included Fear of Women and Cruise Down Main Street, in reference to The Rolling Stones' record Exile on Main St. and the cruise missiles launched on Baghdad during the Gulf War." - needs a punctuation or other tweak to avoid applying everything to Fear of Women.
  • Within the Release section, you have a lone subsection, Video. I share the author of that manual's dislike of these, but believe the MoS is silent on the matter, so I will leave it with you to decide whether to do anything about it; if so, the choices appear to be (a) make Video a bolded heading (which would exclude it from the TOC), (b) add one or more initial subsection headings to Release, or (c) just drop the Video heading. I suspect you want it to appear in the TOC. As I say, I'll leave it with you to take any or no action on this point, but I personally discourage lone subsections as a structural anomaly.
  • The structural point about the Composition section: while "composition" can indeed have the connotation you cite in your response above (structure; makeup), the more obvious one in the context is "the act of writing, and what went into it". And that is in fact exactly what this section's about ("avoided political and social statements", "more personal and introspective", "examining love, sexuality, spirituality, faith, and betrayal", "lyrics ... examine troubled personal relationships", "more personal themes", "Bono's lyrical contributions"). Nearly all paragraphs talk about lyrics. Which is fine. Having now read the whole article, I think the word "writing" is a red herring in the earlier section title (Writing, recording, and production). While the writing must indeed have happened at the earlier point, it's not a focus of that section. I suggest dropping the word, making it simply Recording and production. There remains the question of the first two paragraphs of Composition. I take your point about the intended use of the word, but the bulk of the section doesn't support that meaning and I don't think we can really hedge our bets about the meaning of a section title by using it both ways at once. From a criterion 2b perspective, the first two paragraphs don't really fit in this section. Consider relocating them, perhaps to Recording and production since that's their subject matter (and the subject matter of the quote box alongside them).

I look forward to supporting once the remaining points are addressed. PL290 (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the remaining issues you have - please review the changes I've made and let me know what you think. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that structure tweak does enough to remove my concern. The Composition section is still somewhat dual-purpose, but the introduction of the new subsections makes it clearer what's going on, so it's not a showstopper. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this and the other points I raised; I'm happy to support. PL290 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your assistance in this nomination. I appreciate it. I've actually made a few other additions to the "Composition" section that I would like to get comment on. If you could look at my most recent edit and let me know if everything looks kosher, that would be great. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latest changes are the icing on the cake for the Composition section, bringing all the details to life in the right context. Terrific work! PL290 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Achtung_Baby/archive2&oldid=1078785483"