Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rock Steady (album)

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 17:28, 8 December 2007.

Rock Steady (album) edit

Currently a GA. It's loosely modeled on the articles for Supernature (Goldfrapp album), Ruby Blue (album), and Love. Angel. Music. Baby. I'd like to have been able to make the Sales and impact section longer, but there's not much information online about sales from six years ago, so instead I've put some information about it's impact on other artists. 17Drew 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support :A nice article. Indianescence 12:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References look good. I can't see any problems with the writing. It doesn't seem as if there's much more to say about the album. Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Odd writing style. Here are examples. Don't just fix these, please.
- "Making the album began with writing and recording sessions" ... um, the news is where this was done, if that is important enough to put right at the top. The grammar downplays that part of the clause. "Making" is a bit loose.
- "The band then went to London and Jamaica to work with other performers, songwriters, and producers. Collaborators ranged from Sly & Robbie to The Neptunes to William Orbit." "then" and "went" are loose/informal; so is "other" and "ranged from ... to" (use "included").
- "touches on many musical styles. It focuses the New Wave, pop, and reggae influences present in the band's earlier work while incorporating dub, ragga, and dance styles." Touches on, focuses, incorporates ... so many to choose from.
- "Limerance"—many readers will be irritated at having to hit the link to find out what on earth it means (on a page that has a lacking-verification tag at the top).
- "2000's Return of Saturn."—Ownership for a year? Don't do that.
- Read MOS on punctuation and quotation marks.
- Audio box protrudes beyond the left margin. The fair-use justification would be stronger if something educational were said in the main text or the caption about the musical style or lyrics of the excerpts, beyond the superficial comments about the general lyrics topic and descriptions such as "electronica song". Tony (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked WesleyDodds‎ if he could do a copyedit, since he's helped with that before. Though I'm not sure that the copyediting is as big of an issue. Limerence is probably the most accurate term since love does not apply to several of the songs, and the only synonym I've heard of is the colloquial crush, which would be an awkward one to use. Whether or not the Limerence article has enough references is irrelevant since the first two sentences clearly establish the word's meaning, which is unlikely to be disputed. From what I can tell, the punctuation and quotation marks are correct since the MoS says to put quotation marks before punctuation when the punctuation isn't part of the quotation (in the case of this article, it's mostly song titles) and after when it is part. You'll need to explain what the problem is with the audio box. From what I can see, it uses the standard formatting for audio boxes. And although the fair use justification would be stronger with more commentary, that would go against the summary style. There's no question that they significantly contribute to the article and the reader's understanding of the Composition and Songs sections, so editorial concerns should be coming ahead of trying to strengthen an already strong fair use justification. 17Drew (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm halfway through copyediting the article. I've worked on the lead, "Critical reception", and "Sales and impact". I'll need to review some of the sources in order to adequately copyedit the rest, so it might take me a few more days. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed work on the "Background and production" section. I'll work on "Composition" and "Songs" as soon as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please let us know when it's ready; ask the director for more time if necessary. Tony (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can with the article. Hopefully it reads better for others now. I feel that "Composition" and "songs" repeat some of the same information, and could possibly be combined into one section with an additional subsection. The organization of those sections is what is keeping me from a support, aside from possible further tweaking of the lead. Also, the chart information about the singles seems out of place. Maybe that can be moved to "Sales and impact"?

Other points:

It says in the lead that the band started work on the album in San Francisco in addition to LA, but I don't see SF mentioned in the body (I'm assuming this is referring to Dumont's apartment).
I'm not sure the sentence containing "Rock Steady was part of the decade nostalgia of the 1980s retro movement" should be the first sentence in the "Composition" section. Personally I'd start off with how the album was written differently than past records (Basically move the information conveyed in the lines "The band members often did not play their standard instruments when working on the songs.[11] As a result, the album's instrumentation contains less guitar and bass guitar than the band's previous work" to the top of the section, and rearrange accordingly).
I'm not sure there's a need for a track-by-track runthrough of the album. If there is one, explain what the intro track sounds like.
What's the bonus CD?
Some references need to be combined into "ref name=" tags.

The article's close to FA standard, so let me know how you progress on these points. WesleyDodds 12:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work as usual from 17Drew. All my concerns have been addressed adequately and promptly. Great article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the (see 2001 in music) in the first paragraph really necessary? Does the link's inclusion add to the article? CloudNine 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTARD recommends linking to the years in music articles after relevant release dates. 17Drew 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why 2001 can't be linked in the release date December 11, 2001, as opposed to saying "See..." in brackets. LuciferMorgan 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says not to do that since the link is unintuitive for readers. 17Drew 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the 2001 in music link adds to the article. I'd advise on removing it. CloudNine (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Improper Nomination~~ talk moved to talk page [under Allegations of "Improper Nomination"--Keerllston 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)].--Keerllston 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedent found--Keerllston 10:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.