Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghosts I–IV/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 21:30, 27 September 2009 [1].

Ghosts I–IV edit

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is the second attempt with this article here at FAC. If I may summarize the previous FAC's comments on the article, the concerns that doomed its previous nom seemed to focus on the quality of the prose and the relative proximity of the nomination to the album's release not allowing sufficient time for proper perspective. I believe both of these problems have since been addressed; the article was copyedited shortly after the previous FAC failed and has since been re-copyedited and cleaned up by myself more recently, and the extended time has allowed for additions of some additional content that would not have been possible so closely after its release. All comments are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, added alt text to all four images. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tweaked the syntax to get it to work; you can check this sort of thing by clicking "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Comment-The article is in very good condition, and I support the FA nominee, but I would like to ask a question, is the image seen on the left really needed? It doesn't really add any more info to the article that isn't already there. And I think people reading it, would be fine without it KMFDM FAN (talk!) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not majorly ultra-important, but I would argue it helps verify and illustrate the numbering system of the LE edition, as well as fill some empty space to the right of the list of release versions. And it's a free-use, Creative Commons image, so it's on good terms legally and all that. Drewcifer (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's like having a picture of an Elephant just ot show that they're gray, but okay. I was just thinking it takes up space, and could have been repleaced with a better image. (i was thinking an image of the Ultra-Deluxe editio)KMFDM FAN (talk!) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with KFKDM FAN. I feel having that picture is of interest to NIN fans, but isn't very enlightening to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the offending image. Sigh. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPR has cited it (link), and they've released an album for charity, which as been covered by PopMatters link.
  • I'm sure you can find a more notable music press reviewer than that. It's a notable website, but certainly not the top echelon of music reviews, especially given such a major act as this has probably been reviewed by every major music publication. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what to say about this one. It's Creative Commons. Besides, all of the times it's cited is about CC-type stuff, so I'd assume Creative Commons would be the expert on Creative Commons.
Well, it is a primary source, which we generally should avoid due to POV concerns. The post cited is pretty self-congratulatory. Can you find a secondary source that covers the information? Also, I'm not too keen on Amazon.com listing (this is one retailer out of many; why not list rankings for other retailers?) and feel you definitely should take out the Last.fm rankings (these are not notable in of themselves; if you can find a secondary source that covers this, then I would be more inclined to keep it). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped two of the three. The last one is the one pointing out the fact that it's the only CC-licensed music to be nominated for a Grammy. That info isn't available anywhere else as far as I can tell, so there's no way around that one. Drewcifer (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All About Jazz was named the best Web-Site Concentrating On Jazz by the Jazz Journalist Association. It's also been cited by Examiner.com (link). And it's being used to cite an interview, not investigative reporting or anything like that, so I'm sourcing the interviewee, Adrian Belew, not All About Jazz. Drewcifer (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm generally not a fan of "Release history" sections (mainly because they are generally unnecessary and uncited) but in this case it might be a good place to move the "Release versions" section so you don't have a bulleted list smack dab in the middle of prose sections. Alternatively, you might want to convert the section into prose. Pick which of those solutions works best for you. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't use "#" signs and write out all numbers below ten. Thus "#2" should be written out as "number two". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the pound sign thing. Working on the releases. Drewcifer (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redid the release section section a bit. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link to disambiguation Fixed. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's looking pretty good. I made some changes to address easy problems, but some other issues follow:
    • Lead: "licensed under a ... license" Gotta do some about this, but unsure what.
    • "The music arose improvisationally" This statement lacks clarity. How precisely does music "arise", and what do we mean by "music"? The written music? The recorded music?
    • "Viglione, who contributed percussions" ?
    • "National Public Radio and Rolling Stone's reviews also compared the album to Brian Eno" Requires clarity—I'm sure they didn't compare the album to Eno himself?
    • "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license, in effect allowing anyone to use or rework the material for any non-profit purpose, as long as credit is provided and the resulting work is released under an identical license." You've sourced this to a press release of some kind, but we really also need a secondary source for your interpretation of this particular license type.
      • Added another source, explaining what the license means, which pretty much echo what is described in the article. Drewcifer (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ghosts material was performed in this manner most notably during the "Lights in the Sky" tour in 2008, immediately after the album's release." Why "most notably"? Which of the two sources given backs up that statement?
    • "During these segments, the music was largely acoustic" When is music not acoustic? If you're trying to express that the instruments used were acoustic rather than electric, revision is needed. Also, the "among others" is kind of hanging out there, not doing much. You've already said "included", indicating there would be more.
    • "Subsequently, on the NINJA and Wave Goodbye Tours, the Ghosts section has since been scrapped" The "subsequently" is redundant to the "since"; pick one.
    • "charted on ... charts"
    • Please check for MoS issues, per WP:LQ. If I found a complete sentence quoted with the period on the outside, I moved it in. For partial quotations that seem to end in a period, you are handling it inconsistently. Either always put them inside or always put them outside.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checked every quotation, fixed more than I care to admit. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think it is ready. I've checked several of the sources and verified that they support what they're attached to. Everything in the lead is represented and cited in the text. On an image note - I see that you have a CC-licensed promo photo, and it looks like there are others on Flickr with appropriate licenses. Is there anything else we can grab that would add anything to the article? I see there are several production photos but unfortunately they are non-commercial. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awesome, thanks for your help and your support. I've scoured the NIN Flickr account as well, and there's not much there that isn't non-commercial, unfortunately. And non-NIN-created content is pretty scarce too; the above image which I removed was the only one I could find that fit. So I guess it is what it is. Drewcifer (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to tackle the prose later today. I was going to do it sooner, but then my internet cut out for two days. Ahem. Anyway, hopefully when I'm done I can register a support. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great read. One issue though: would the artwork image not look better on the left side of the page so the images in the "Production" section went left-right-left? Is there a way to position it so it doesn't break the next line down at the top of the "Release" section? -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the first part of your statement if it wasn't for the second part of your statement. It would be nice to have it go left right left, but then that would mean that the 3rd image would make the section header immediately after it float into the middle of the page. I could create a line break type thing with {{clr}}, but given the size of the artwork section, it would create alot of empty space. So I don't think it's an option unfortunately. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DIFF Drewcifer (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It looks far better as it is. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just started reviewing the prose. Can you include something about the sound of the album in the lead? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Drewcifer (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, cut down on the sheer number of inline cites in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, you are summarizing the entire article, and shouldn't need footnotes. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also also, I see a lot of passive voice in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finished my basic prose review. Looks pretty good so far. However, there are some strucural issues in some spots, and there are a few items where it's not quite clear why they are important or relevant. Also, the "music" section seems piddling. It's too reliant on reviews instead of behind-the-scenes info (you should be using investigative journalism, not critical commentary for reference here), and doesn't say much about composition or musical techniques, as such a section should. If it can't be expanded, I suggest outright merging it with the "Recording" section. I will expand on my concerns later, after I take care of some off-wiki business. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing my best to address these issues, but running out of time in the real world. U-passived about 5 or 6 sentences, I'll take another sweep through soon. As for the music section: I'd be happy to merge it into a larger section, but I'm not sure there's much room for expansion. Though many other FAs have a substantially larger music section, but alot of the the more common content in those sections just doesn't apply here. Lyrics are usually discussed, but obviously that does not apply here. I've also noticed alot of FAs with a plot-summary of sorts ("Track X is like this, then track Y is kinda like this.") But in this case there are just too many tracks to cover the over all ebb and flow of the album. And I'd argue as well that since most of the album is improvisational, there's not alot of structural design beyond each track. Drewcifer (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the music and recording sections into one. Removed all citations from the lead. Also did a little more tweaking about the passive voice thing. Drewcifer (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - (Note: I did not review the sources.) In general, this article reads well and covers what I would expect for an album. However, I was wondering whether the "Music" section could be expanded. The article seemed to be a little thin on the explanation of the actual music. I look forward to supporting once this question is answered and the media issue is cleared up. Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3: File:33 Ghosts IV.ogg - This clip needs a better purpose of use - what specific musical element is it demonstrating? Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The clip is demonstrating Cortini's contributions; in this track he was credited with "electronics". Does this need to be made clearer? Drewcifer (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a sentence about Cortini's contributions specifically? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully fixed this. Didn't add a sentence, just adjusted what was already there. Drewcifer (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clearer - the fair use rationale on the clip itself needs a better description than "It is used to demonstrate musical characteristics of the album where no other source other than the music itself would adequately provide similar commentary." Awadewit (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well my adjustments in-article didn't hurt any. I've redone the FUR on the audio clip's page, so check it out and let me know if you think it's satisfactory. Drewcifer (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just not seeing a real purpose for this clip, unfortunately. This particular track is not discussed in the article, as far as I can tell, nor is anything said in particular about Cortini's style that would necessitate hearing it. There is no specific discussion of Cortini's electronic style, for example, in the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, I've removed the offending audio sample for now, until I figure out something better. Drewcifer (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2009 (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/Ghosts_I–IV/archive2&oldid=1138461553"