Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KMFDM/archive2

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 15:01, 19 August 2012 [1].

KMFDM edit

Nominator(s): —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on it for almost three years now. The first nomination a year and a half ago was definitely premature, but since then, I've taken it through two peer reviews, and followed all the advice given. I've also added a significant amount of new content. I think the article is well-sourced and complete now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source for "Other contributors" section?
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
FN7, 47, 100, 103, 104 and similar: publisher?
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? etc
Be consistent in how Allmusic refs are notated
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc
FN18, 27, 39, 51, 102 and similar: page(s)? Album ID/catalogue number?
Be consistent in how publishers are notated for newspapers/magazines
FN36: formatting
Use a consistent date format
FN89: page?
FN108: italicization
Given that iUniverse is a self-publishing company, what makes FN124 a reliable source?

Oppose pending significant referencing cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on fixing all the technical issues with punctuation and formatting, but I can address some of the reliable source questions.

Tastes Like Chicken, although rough looking/sounding, looks legit because of the information here, specifically the second to last paragraph.
Tim McMahon doesn't look good, but it's redundant, so I pulled it.
I believe Blogcritics has been the source of some debate here on Wikipedia, but the reliability is based on the author himself, Eric Olsen.
Lost in a Supermarket was replaced with MTV.
I'd thought Blabbermouth was part of the Roadrunner Records site, and it's a press release from the band, but I replaced the website sourcing it.

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe I've corrected, removed, and/or replaced all the problematic sources I hadn't already mentioned in the last comment. I also went through and fixed every problem with reference formatting I could find, and added references to the last section. There is only a problem with one CD booklet lacking pages, but someone else is going to be adding that later today. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pages for the remaining CD booklet reference were added. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some more source comments:

Still some inconsistencies in italicization and wikilinking - for example, is "Allmusic" italicized or not? Is "Rovi" wikilinked or not?
Still some inconsistencies in how publishers for newspapers/magazines are notated - should they use parentheses or not?
Publisher for FN43? 85? 101? 124?
Regen or ReGen Media?
Page(s) for FN92?
Page notation on albums doesn't match that used for other sources
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
FN108: article title?
Compare FNs 131 and 132. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a few remaining ref problems, but some responses:

Reflections of Darkness has a full editorial staff listed here, which should be sufficient to be a RS.
I'm not sure about the parenthesis issue, because I'm not adding them manually. It looks like the {{cite news}} template adds the parenthesis, while the others don't. I'm not sure how to get around that problem, other than change the type of cite templates.
What do you mean about the page notation being different for albums? I can't see a difference.
I thought having an editor-in-chief listed would be a sufficient display of editorial oversight for The Culture Shock.

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the Sonic Envelope reference. I'm glad to see that a good number of these weak sources are from before I worked on the article. :) I think I've also addressed all of the other issues above, and a few other minor problems. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Shock has an editor listed, but his bio (and the heading it's under - "meet the fuckers"?) doesn't really inspire confidence. Do we know what his background is? For the parentheses, how are you deciding which of the templates you're using? Right now it varies even for the same publication (and while I was checking...Billboard or Billboard Magazine?). For album pagination, compare "pp.2–3" with "pp. 138–139" - spacing's off. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Culture Shock ref was pulled/replaced. As for the pagination, it was a difference in the way the two cite templates were written. I changed the album-note template to match book, which I believe puts it in line with all other cite templates. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking into dealing with the inconsistent parentheses problem. Part of my confusion is in which cite template to use for Billboard in particular. Some of the information is from the actual website, and some is from the printed magazine, so I'm not sure I could use the same template for all citations. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all remaining citation issues have been addressed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, just a couple more quick things:

You don't need retrieval dates for Google Books, but if you want to include them you should do so consistently
FN86: should use endash, not hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs
- I notice right around the "Success in America" section, critics from Allmusic start getting heavily quoted about the band's style at this point. It feels like undue weight and over-reliance on a single source.
- Why is the etymology after the band's history? It'd probably be nice to have information about what's going on with that earlier, rather than later.
- Non-free content: I'm not entirely sold on the non-free cover File:What do you know deutschland.jpg; is there any more detail or description that goes into the band's relationship with this illustrator with specific visual cues? Basically, unless there's content that really needs the image to go alongside it, it could probably go.
  - Likewise, I don't see the defensibility of most of the music clips. Once again, a lot of the caption justification is through Allmusic sources. To me, File:More & Faster 243.ogg and File:Krank sample.ogg seem to have better viability as overall descriptions of their style, but a lot of the other ones aren't really elaborated on in the text in a way that needs an auditory addendum.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I have a few replies:
- I've replaced the album cover image with another about which I found a good amount of commentary. I also found some more details for the artwork section that I think lend more weight to the relationship.
- I pulled a couple audio samples ("Sucks" and "Superpwoer") and added more details to two of the others ("Power" and "Juke Joint Jezebel") that I've kept. The remaining sample ("What Do You Know?") in the musical style section I think is necessary as a good illustration of the band's politics. I feel like there should be at least one specific example of that.
- I pulled about half a dozen Allmusic quotes and replaced some of them with other sources.
I hope the changes addressed your concerns, and thanks again. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to reply to the other point. Do you think it would be best to put the Etymology section as the very first section, in front of the history? The other possibilities I can think of would be making it the first section after the history, or eliminating it as a separate section entirely and blending it into the history. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say blending it in makes the most sense. I'll take a look at the article again tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's still (by my count) six Allmusic critics referenced in the main body, and I really think they should be moved. The band article isn't really the place to get into the nitty-gritty of reception but I think a better idea would be to create a more verbose section that goes through a little more about their reception--is it different for later albums versus their early work, etc. I think ultimately that's a better place for the Allmusic quotes as how they're structured (at the end of paragraphs, etc.) you're essentially giving these critics "the last word". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I pulled them all and integrated them into the reception section, which I also rearranged quite a bit to improve the temporal flow. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better, but you really need to name critics. Just saying "it was called" makes it sound more definitive than just a collection of reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added the names back in, and did some minor rewriting to keep it coherent. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section looks good, but I'm still not convinced the five music clips are necessary. Non-free content is only used when its inclusion significant aids the article and its removal is deleterious to the article as a whole, but I don't think most of the clips meet that threshold. You'd be better off with a clip that shows multiple elements of their style (the lyrics, music, etc.) than spreading the elements out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two band FAs that I've been using as references for my work on this are The Beatles and Radiohead, which have six and five audio samples, respectively. From what I see in those articles, they don't necessarily have much beyond the type of commentary I've added for the samples in KMFDM. Specifically, look at "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Creep". Just to be clear, I'll lay out my reasoning for each of the current five samples:

"What Do You Know?" – shows political elements, specifically, the speech sampled is rearranged to mean almost precisely the opposite of its original intent. I feel like hearing the audio makes it clear why it's "scathing" commentary. Without the sample, that description isn't enough to understand what is going on.
"More & Faster" – Shows their humor and early style, considered the first classic, but you've already said you were okay with it.
"Juke Joint Jezebel" – The band's best selling and probably most notable song ever, it seems like a obvious choice for inclusion, and the audio box does have a number of quotes about it.
"Power" – As the band's most highly promoted song, with a good amount of commentary, specifically about the decisions behind how and why it was created the way it was, it seems justified.
"Krank" – From the most recent album, and described as illustrative of the overall current style of the band, this is the other one you've said you're okay with.

Of those five, are you saying three should be pulled? Or substituted with one new sample? I'm just wondering if it would be possible to add more to justify the inclusion of all of them, or if it's a non-starter. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a former fan of industrial music, so I have some knowledge. I never heard KMFDM, and I would like to know more about their lyrics. You state what they are opposing, but no information about what they are supporting, despite expressive album titles. Maybe you can find more information. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to address this issue. I feel like opposing violence, war, and a police state, along with the final quote of "think for yourself" explains what the band stands for pretty well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a quote from one of the band's songs to hopefully show a specific example of what they support. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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