Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arctic Monkeys/archive0

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Arctic Monkeys edit

(Partial self-nom - have done some work on article)

Having been improving steadily for at least a year (having become a Good Article), I feel that it is finally time to nominate this article. The article is : 1(a-e) Well written, neutral, stable etc. and extensively referenced, 2(a) has an appropriate intro, (b-c) well sectioned with a TOC, 3 all images have Fair Use rationale where appropriate, also includes at least one free image, under Creative Commons 2.0, 4 Not too long, with child articles where sections have grown too long. As a result, I feel that it is finally worth nominating this for Featured Arcticle (groan!) status. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the 2nd NME image per the rationale in my edit summary. One magazine cover scan is questionable, two just isn't cricket. --kingboyk 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; that is probably the better image anyway. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support that. Looks good to me. ♠PMC♠ 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article doesn't look bad, but there are issues:
  1. The actual music (style, influences, etc.) is not discussed enough
  2. The band's general image and popularity in the UK are not clearly addressed
I would still like to see a clearer statement about their popularity. The article states sales records, but also "Critics have said that they are one in a long line of largely overhyped "NME bands". So what's their general public image exactly?
  1. What to expect on live performances should probably be mentioned more thoroughly
And there are a lot of style problems:
  1. Quotes should not be italicised, per the WP:MoS
  2. Decide on a style for the dash (– or - or —)
Still a problem ("Emergence: 2002-2005", "Initial releases: October 2005 — January 2006", "Beneath the Boardwalk – a collection of the band's songs")
  1. All songtitels should be in italics without quotes ("Fake Tales of San Francisco", "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor", etc.)
  2. A lot of citations in the middle of sentences, most should probably go at the end
  3. Magazine titles must be in italics (NME)
  4. "General references:" should not be in small font -- EnemyOfTheState 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All songtitels should be in italics without quotes... Actually, this is not true. The proper style in English is quotes without italics. Andrew Levine 04:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case all song titles that are in italics have to be changed accordingly then. -- EnemyOfTheState 10:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any, or at least they've been fixed. Andrew Levine 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not is an album, not a song, so it is in italics. Songs however are not in italics. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the above with exceptions of the "live acts" issue. Could you clarify what you mean? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the band so I'm not sure if this applies, but if there is anything distinctive about a typical Arctic Monkeys concert then it should be mentioned in the article (e.g. there is an entire article about Pink Floyd live performances). -- EnemyOfTheState 14:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arctics don't really have very "whizzy" live shows; no pyrotechnics or giant pig-balloons here. The sing-along nature of the shows is addressed, however. Laïka 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. "Further criticism came when the band collected their award for Best British Band at the NME Awards 2006, when Turner said, directing his comments at the NME, "We did the triple, but in all honesty...who else was going to be the best British band at the moment, you know? You can't write about something that much and not give us best British band . . . know what I mean"" - This sentence is ended with a reference. However, the reference does not direct any criticism at the group, and nor does it even say there was criticism. The Independent article simply records what the Arctic Monkeys said. I'd like there to be a citation actually criticising them here, to support the claim.
  2. "On 2 September 2006 it was announced that the band will appear on Sky Sports' Saturday-morning football show Soccer AM the following week, marking what would have been their first ever live interview on British television." This is unclear. Did they actually do the interview, or just say they would and then not show up?—Abraham Lure 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to point 2, the next sentance clears this up ("However, the band won the 2006 Mercury Prize four days before appearing on Soccer AM, and gave their first live interview to Jo Whiley on BBC4."). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you're right about the first point. I've removed the quote as I can't find any direct criticism of the quote.
I'd lose the "it was announced that the band will appear on Sky Sports' Saturday-morning football show" quote. It's fancruft. Who cares that they were scheduled to appear on a football chat show? Whilst it's of interest to note their first actual radio television interview, prereports or cancelled appearances are not enyclopedic issues. Save it for the fanzine. --kingboyk 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Before some bright sparks points out that I've documented a cancelled appearance in The K Foundation burn a million quid :), that's a little more significant as the K Foundation did a runner and then announced "no more talking about this issue". Whether or not the Arctic Monkeys appeared on Soccer AM (!) is trivia. --kingboyk 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not bad article, but I'm also concerned by the fact that the style and the musical influences of the group are not discussed in detail. I think that for a FA of a band this is necessary. You could take some ideas from Rush (band), which is a phainomenal article for me. Without this further analysis (style, musical influences) through verifiable sources, I cannot support this article.--Yannismarou 09:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I've added a Musical style section. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some fixing witht the inline citations. It is not nice to have many inline citations within a propositions. It interrupts the flow of the article. Take care of that. Anyway... Although I must notice that I'm not an expert in this particular field, I give you my support and I hope that you will address the concerns of the other evaluators as well.--Yannismarou 13:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Band logo at the top needs a fair use rationale. Also, the reference for their "80s fascination" leads nowhere. Andrew Levine 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—The writing needs cleaning up throughout. A fine tooth-comb is required.
    • Second sentence; it's a list that should be consistently worded—"on" for all, and not "playing" for just one member.
    • "are generally considered part of the part of the"—two facing mirrors?
    • "Towards the end of 2004"—just "In late 2004".
    • Heading: 2002-May 2005. Give months for both or neither. Consider using an en dash instead of a squishy little hyphen. And elsewhere, I don't like the use of hyphens as punctuation in titles.
    • Common words linked; do we really need Internet linked (twice, one with upper-case I, one with lower-case i)?
    • "thousands of copies pre-ordered, . On ..." Tony 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've dealt with the above points. I do however think Internet should be linked once; WP:CONTEXT states "major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully" should be linked, which I believe Internet is, being a major part of their early career. Laïka 09:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Tony. Tony gave examples of problems which are pervasive throughout the text: cleaning up those few examples isn't enough. The article has prose problems throughout. Here's a sample sentence: "In late 2004, the band began to gain a reputation around an increasing part of the north of England,[14] receiving attention from BBC Radio 1 and the British tabloid press." Began to gain? Increasing part? Receiving attention? The entire article needs a thorough copyedit. The prose is not brilliant, the lead is not a concise and compelling summary of the article. Please have someone clear the images, as you seem to have too many claims of Fair Use. The bottom of the article suffers from sloppy visual presentation, with varying fonts, italics, etc. Sandy 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at copyeditting the article. I don't understand what you mean by "The bottom of the article suffers from sloppy visual presentation, with varying fonts, italics" though; there's only the one, standard font, and use of italics is that defined by the MOS (Magazine titles and album titles). Laïka 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arctic_Monkeys/archive0&oldid=1145607220"