Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hail to the Thief/archive1

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hail to the Thief edit

Featured article candidates/Hail to the Thief/archive1

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. It is already a GA and has been expanded and restructured since.Popcornduff (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It's clear you've worked hard on this article, but there are errors—both minor and major. As you wrote on the article talkpage, you should get a fresh pair of eyes to look at the article (at peer review or the league of copyeditors):

Minor

There are several [citation needed] tags in the article (even apart from the ones I added).
References are occasionally incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted. There's a bare URL and I also see "NME, 3 May 2003, p.27." and "Q Magazine, June 2003" (author and article names?). I also see author's inconsistently listed as "Chuck Klosterman" and "Edwards, Gavin". I recommend a thorough re-do.
"But personally it's probably my least favourite of all the [Radiohead] albums"—most such [inclusions] in the quotes are unnecessary. The quotes are understandable without them.
Dead links.
It's not hard to imagine that EMI will keep reissuing the album every five years until the end of time, with new "deluxe/bonus/exclusive" material. IMO there's no need to list all that here. Only the original tracklist is important.

Major

By having a subsection for every song, the Music section is too long and stubby-looking. Also when you have a lyrics section, what is the point of discussing it again? I suggest scrapping the songwise sectioning, and moving the best info to augment the music and lyrics sections.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the feedback! Popcornduff (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question - you've put a citation needed on the claim that HTTT is Radiohead's longest album. I'm never sure how to go about citing this sort of thing. I presume it isn't enough to just state it as a self-evident truth that readers can verify by comparing running times? Is there such a thing as a self-evident truth on Wikipedia? What would be sufficient as a source for this claim? Popcornduff (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd say its length is self-evident, maybe even that it's the longest. But, if no other reliable source discusses this fact, how do you know that it is important enough (i.e. it's not just trivia) to include?—indopug (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included it because it always comes up in discussion of the album's criticisms, particularly from the band and Godrich - "it's too long", "not enough editing" etc. With that in mind, it might make sense to move it to that area, or just delete it. Popcornduff (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, move it there along with the criticisms.—indopug (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

The last paragraph of the Background section is a bit a of a cliffhanger. What worked and what didn't?
"a years-long process of recording and editing drummer Phil Selway described as 'manufacturing music in the studio' " Funky wording here. Perhaps insert "which" after "editing", or change "drummer Phil Selway described" to "described by drummer Phil Selway", unless I'm misreading this.
Regarding the last paragraph of Recording: Quotes are cool here, but unfortunately Yorke doesn't do a good job of actually explaining what the arguments were about. Any clues in the sources?
Why is the Music section subdivided by song? There's not nearly enough material on each song for separate subsections, so it does little more than clutter up the TOC.
Regarding the last paragraph of the intro to Promotion and release: This paragraph is very short, and discusses two ideas which are completely unrelated to one another, and neither is fully developed. If these snippets can't be expanded upon, I believe they should be deleted. Catch-all paragraphs are no good.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! All helpful. I definitely agree with both of you, now, that the Music section should't be divided by song; I only did that because I'd seen it on other FAs, but clearly it isn't justified in this case.

Question about your last point (regarding the last paragraph of Promotion and release): it seems to me that Com Lag, the b-sides collection, should at least be mentioned. Are you saying because there's nothing more to really expand on, other than to say it exists, it should be deleted? 08:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.