Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Remain in Light/archive1

< 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, 20 October 2009 [1].

Remain in Light edit

Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Their magnum opus, my magnum opus. Greatest album of all time. Discuss. Not about whether it is (it is!), but about whether it fulfils the FA criteria. It should after a summery labour of love from yours truly and a detailed PR, including a thorough going over by the one and only Brianboulton. So, you should know that it's more than ready. Nitpicks welcome. Cheers. RB88 (T) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dabs to fix, all links working. I'll wait to hear what it's made of my ALT. ;) RB88 (T) 17:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


<talk page resolved discussion moved to talk page>

Comment RB88 I can see you put a lot of work into this, but I also have to ask you for your reasoning for this caliber of jump. It seems to me that the ranks of GA and A exist for a reason, and putting this up for FA now is skipping two levels of review. This can only hurt the article. If no consensus is reached on promoting this, concider nominating it for GA, then getting it to level A. Something in this article just strikes me wrong, and it's not the subject matter. I've never heard of the band and have no opinion on it, nor is it you, I can't remember crossing paths with you before. Thoughts on the FA jump? Nezzadar (speak) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA and even PR are not required for FA nomination. The article meets the criteria, yes or no? Your comments are very vague. I've now done 4 FA articles of the same kind, so my advice is either oppose and make clear which bit of the FA criteria it fails or withdraw the comments. Not sure what/how I can improve the article based on these sort of comments. RB88 (T) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Articles here are reviewed against the Featured article criteria; the number of hoops they have jumped through is irrelevant. I will post my own review comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I second Brian and RB88 - there is also some delay at WP:GAN currently, so there is nothing wrong with carrying through a nomination directly to here if the momentum is right and other folks have reviewed it and felt it worth it. My very initial read-through suggests this should pass this time round and that I'll be reduced to nit-picking, which I will do soon :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lyric writing process slowed Remain in Light's creation, but was finalised after Byrne drew inspiration from academic literature on Africa. - did it delay its creation or its progress? Also "finalised" reminds me of the conclusion of a contract rather than the completion of an album. I have been trying to think of a grander verb "concluded", "accomplished" or somesuch.
The band members realised that it was solely up to Byrne to bear.. - tense query. Should it be "had been solely up to Byrne (i.e. until that point)?
additional musicians, including extra percussionists - particularly extra percussionists?
Doubts began to surface about whether the album would be finalised. - I think "completed" sounds better here.

Otherwise all good - Support. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorted out all your nitpicks. Also simplified a couple of your tense edits. Hope you don't mind. RB88 (T) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Right, so as long as the nit picking gets done, it gets done. I would like to see FA articles go through plenty of nit-picking, but I don't have the time to do it, especially on something outside of my area of expertise. I will support this, albiet weakly. If I figure out what is bothering me so much about the article, I'll be sure to come back and bring it up. Nezzadar (speak) 01:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a quick look at the article per Rafablu's request. Overall it looks great, although it's not like I expected anything less from Rafablu. I'll do a more detailed review within the next week or so. Timmeh 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did some pretty thorough nit-picking at peer review. There is always more that can be done, but I'll leave that mainly to others. Just a few niggles that arose in my last read-through:-

  • Origin section: "...after the latter suggested that Byrne was in total control" doesn't sufficiently convey that Byrne's control was a problem issue. Perhaps "...after the latter suggested that Byrne's level of control was excessive."
  • Studio session: Try to avoid the "After ... after" repetition in the first sentence of this section's second paragraph. Also, in the following sentence the phrase "since the age of 17" does not need commas round it.
  • Accolades: I got a bit tied up with "...notably at number two behind The Clash's London Calling by Robert Christgau,[52] and at number six by NME." Something like "notably at number two (behind The Clash's London Calling) by The Village Voice,[52] and at number six by NME."
  • Accolades: I'm not sure about "during" in "...at number 88 during its 100 Greatest Albums countdown,..."

Otherwise the article maintains and extends the high standards which RB88 is setting for musical articles. Excellent stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Sorted out the remaining nitpicks. Kept the last one though, I'm sure it's used as an expression during TV countdowns. Plus it gives some variation from the rest of the section. RB88 (T) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and quibbles No major problems, but Additional musicians were frequently used. The lyric writing process slowed Remain in Light's creation... read oddly. The first sentence seems almost an afterthought, with no apparent rationale, and I agree with Casliber on the lack of clarity of the second Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed one of your nitpicks and the other in conjunction with Casliber's comment. RB88 (T) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but that first link is from the site itself so it's not very helpful (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's got an editorial list the bottom if you scroll down, including Steve Lamacq, Simon Frith, and people from other publications. The rest is just padding to grab the attention of snappy/snarky music lovers, basically me. RB88 (T) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus plus, the author, Julian Marszalek works for Xfm aussi. [2] RB88 (T) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "... Byrne's and Eno's attempt to claim sole credits ..."
    • If the above possessive is referring to each person's separate attempt to claim sole credits, "attempt" should be plural. If it's referring to their joint attempt, it should read "Byrne and Eno's attempt ...".
      • You're right. Joint attempt. RB88 (T) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask why three sources are used for the personnel? Do the album liner notes not include some of the personnel listed?
      • The Design credits are given as acronyms. I had to go, for the band and MIT staff, based on Bowman and, for the M&Co. staff, based on Kalman's autobiography. RB88 (T) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any particular reason "U.S." is used as an abbreviation instead of "US". I believe abbreviations without periods are preferred (and more common in British English).
      • Changed it. I'm sure both tend to be used but the Beeb always uses US I think. RB88 (T) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timmeh 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:RILback.jpg - Both of the CD covers list as part of the rationale that they are used as the "primary means of identification" for the album. Since only one can be primary, I would suggest rewording the rationale for the back cover to explain why the image of the artwork is necessary. Using some of the material from the article itself which discusses the back cover might be helpful.
  • File:Greatcurve.ogg - Instead of saying that the clip is "38 seconds from a much longer recording", it would be best to state the length of the recording so that it can be established that "The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track".

These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BOTH DONE. RB88 (T) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All media issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per responses to my concerns above. Timmeh 21:28, 16 October 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/Remain_in_Light/archive1&oldid=1216972588"