Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spiderland

< 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 13:59, 22 December 2007.

Spiderland

edit

Self nomination This article, about a 1991 album by indie rock band Slint, is currently a Good Article and has been recently peer reviewed. I am confident that it satisfies all Featured Article Criterion and is well-referenced, well-written, and comprehensive. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've used British dating throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All dates now reflect American formatting. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support For a cult album like this, it's nice to see virtually every reliable source that exists referenced. Some things that need fixing before I go all the way:
  • I had to change some collective noun usage in regards to the band itself. Double-check that "Slint" is always treated as a singular noun.
  • I don't think it's necessary to mention that PJ Harvey and a member of Pavement are fans of the album in the lead. Possibly rework and combine with previous sentence if you want to keep it there.
  • "Another source wrote . . ." Might as well name the source in the prose, or rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "'Good Morning Captain' has been compared to Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' by David Peschek of The Guardian, 'if it's possible to imagine Stairway to Heaven bleached of all bombast.'" is awkward. The meaning became clearer on the second reading, but it could be further clarified.
  • Ref 24 (Robert Christgau) needs to list the publication.
  • The statement "The album has now sold over 50,000 copies" should be more definite and less timely. Write something along the lines of "has sold this many copies as of this date" or at least remove the "Now".
  • It's confusing when you refer to Pitchfork and mean the music festival the site put on. At least, it is to me (probably not to anyone else). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good times. Support. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all issues addressed. Comment, nice, thorough about details, but could use being more explicit about why this album is important. Will probably support if the following issues can be fixed.
    • Slint broke up shortly after Spiderland's release. - That sentence in the lead implies that the album had something to do with the breakup, which would be important to write about in the article body, but I don't see that in the article body. Is the implication unjustified, or am I missing the text that gives the connection?
      • The article does mention Slint's break-up as it relates to the album in the first few sentences of the "Legacy" section, but I removed the sentence from the lead anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, am I missing the part that says that Spiderland is really the album that made the band? The lead just says it was their second album, which is nice, but hardly impressive. The Slint article, on the other hand, says "Slint's first album Tweez was recorded by Steve Albini in 1987 and released in obscurity on the Jennifer Hartman Records label in 1989. It was followed two years later by the critically acclaimed Spiderland, released on Touch and Go Records and recorded by Brian Paulson[1]. Considered a seminal work, Spiderland is an album characterized by dark, syncopated rhythms, sparse guitar lines and haunting subject matter. The record's impact was such that some have suggested it is the first true post-rock album ..." Shouldn't some of that high praise, especially in comparison with Tweez, be here too? Otherwise it's not so clear why Spiderland was such a big deal. If you can't think of anything better just drop those sentences in the Context section directly.
      • I think that the "Legacy" section sufficiently notes the album's importance and influence. Some of the Slint article delves into hyperbole, and it's virtually unreferenced, so I'd prefer not to model after it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "theory that band members had to be periodically institutionalized during the completion of the album."; The recording was completed in four days. - Er... how's that? How can multiple people be periodically institutionalized during a period of 4 days? Were the periods measured in hours or something? Are you sure the first quote isn't a joke?
      • It does sound a bit odd that members of Slint could have become crazy and were checked into an institution during a four day recording. It seems highly unlikely if not impossible, but the rumors that these events occurred certainly exists. I don't believe that the article presents these rumors as true, but does acknowledge that they exist. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, - can you link to something explaining what an angular guitar rhythm is? The link to dynamic goes to a disambiguation page, can you make it more clear?
      • I fixed the dynamics link, but unfortunately "angular guitar" is a specific term that doesn't link anywhere. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Spiderland received minimal attention from major publications upon its release. " OK, so when did it get the major attention that made it a seminal work, etc.?
    • Robert Christgau ... criticizing the album's lyrics - I was going to ask what, specifically, he criticized about them, but thought I should go to the reference and see ... and I still couldn't figure it out! What is he saying about the lyrics? I can't even honestly tell that it is criticism of the lyrics, it's so short. Explain or strike, please. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Christgau is notorious for giving really short reviews. I interpreted his statement "And if you promise not to mention their lyrics they promise to keep the volume down" as criticism, as he is implying that Spiderland's lyrics are so bad that the band members themselves don't want to talk about them. Should I include this quote in the body of the article? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. You addressed several points, but the leadoff to the "Legacy" section bothers me, especially since it seems to be the album's claim to fame, so arguably the most important section in the article. Its first two sentences are about the band breaking up. If the breakup had nothing to do with the album, how is it a legacy of the album, or especially something to lead off the section about the legacy of the album. Can they be moved down into "Reunion" or something? It at least makes more sense that the breakup be important to having a reunion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat unsure oppose. Well-referenced, well-written for the most part... I had never heard of this band or this album - thanks for the introduction
    "the album contains dark, narrative lyrics that emphasize alienation." - word choice - "dark" is not very descriptive - do you mean depressing? morbid? evil? sad? suicidal? despairing?- using "dark" is not very encyclopedic...
    It's kinda short - definitely so the lead - is it proper length? - I thought it might be because the article on Slint was longer- but very not the case...
    --Keerllston 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the term "dark" from the lead altogether, which I also expanded a bit. I believe that the article's length is appropriate given the subject matter and the amount of information available. Also, the length of the Slint article in relation to the length of the article on this album is irrelevant. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • well... see - you say it's "irrelevant" and I do respect your opinion - but in another review of a candidateship (that of constantine II of scotland) - the reviewer noted that it is valid - because wikipedia is not about repeating things many times - but also because context and how things fit into a bigger picture is important.
        regarding length - I was expecting bigger if I didn't make myself clear- by "information available" do you mean that information is hard to get? In my experience in FAC - I have found saying "information is hard to get" and similar are often - later proven untrue - and information is finally found - finally bettering the article in terms of comprehensibility
        --Keerllston 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The length of the Slint article is irrelevant to the length of this article because only this article is being reviewed to be featured. Secondly, by "information available" I didn't mean that I had only drawn from a small portion of all the information on this album; rather, I meant that I have drawn from all information about this album, but that the total information is limited because of the small relative mainstream attention given to this album. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must reiterate that I do believe that it is an appropriate length. It is only slightly shorter than the recently featured album article, Loveless (album). If there was any amount of unused information left about the album I would add it to the article, but there is none. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments/suggestions:
    • The infobox has "Touch & Go" and the intro says "Touch & Go Records", but both should probably be "Touch and Go Records", if only to be consistent, as well as to maintain encyclopedic formality, but also to reflect the full name of the label. Touch & Go is also mentioned as such in the Legacy section.
      •  Done
    • Chicago in the infobox should be changed to to Chicago, USA, to avoid any US-centrism.
      •  Done
    • The first paragraph of the first section seems unnecessary. Context is one thing, but the information provided seems to have nothing to do with Spiderland except in the sense that it happened before. The section would probably be stronger if you just started talking about the album as soon as possible.
      • I do believe that this paragraph is relevant. It serves as a basic introduction to the band and its members, and notes the change in style from Tweez to Slint to Spiderland. Other featured articles (Fuck the Millennium) use similar styles of summarization. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going off the previous point (and assuming you take my suggestions to remove the first paragraph), I'm not sure "Context" is the correct title for the section.
    • Not sure about the wikilink of traumatic, especially since it links to psychological trauma, which infers additional information from the quote. It could've been physical trauma, for all we know, so best leave the quote to explain itself.
      •  Done
    • I'm not sure what a "live in-studio recording style" is. Might be good to explain.
      •  Done
    • Saying "The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, etc, etc..." is a bit of a broad semi-POV statement. To a foreigner the instruments used might define it. To a feminist the fact that it was created by all men might define it. I guess my point is that it's poor word choice.
      •  Done
    • A few of the descriptions in the same section are a bit iffy, and generally not backed up by the souce (ie "jagged, thick guitar")
    • "the song's lyric" I think this should be "lyrics"?
      •  Done
    • Not so sure about the wikilink for "treading water".
      •  Done
    • The Steve Albini review quote is a bit lengthy, especially since it is so overwhelmingly positive.
      • Unfortunately, the Albini review is the only contemporary review of Spiderland, but it is also one of the most notable reviews of the album (it is often mentioned in articles about the band or the album). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why aren't the reviews mentioned in the Reception section mentioned in the infobox?
      • All of them were, except for the Rolling Stone one, which I added.
    • "Spiderland's sales have gradually increased through time." Isn't this a really obvious statement? I understand what you mean, but it sounds like "Spiderland has sold more copies has time has past." Furthermore, this implies sales data, which begs for a citation.
      •  Done
    • "Spiderland has become a landmark indie rock album and is considered, along with Talk Talk's Laughing Stock, to have been the primary catalyst of the post-rock and math rock genres." is a very broad statement to make, especially since it's only backed up with a single source.
      •  Done backed up with a second source.
    • "In spite of plans" I think you mean "Despite"?
      •  Done
    • Why is the Jim DeRogatis quote split up into two quotes?
      •  Done
    • I'm not sure what "(*) designates unordered lists." refers to.
      •  Done Got rid of it, unnecessary.

I hope the above doesn't sound too daunting. Overall my comments are relatively minor: the article is generally very informative and well-conceived. If you can take care of the above notes, I'd be happy to lend my support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work! Definitely FA quality. Though I still have reservations about the context section and the glowing Albini quote, a difference of opinion shouldn't hold the article back. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not opposing, but there are a few things to fix. I copy-edited the opening (hope some of those statements are referenced further down!).
    • Where a quote is wound into a larger WP sentence, put the period after the closing q marks. (MOS)
      •  Done
    • See MOS on final period in captions that are not full sentences—here, all of them.
      •  Done
    • Text in sample boxes goes beyond the right side of my window—perhaps it's my Safari browser? Doesn't happen in other articles. Info on sampled songs in the main text is excellent.
      • I'm not sure what this is caused by. I checked on Safari (I typically browse in FireFox) and the error didn't appear. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why link that little-known country the US? And I see further linking of obscure countries in the table at the bottom. Save us the untidy blue splotches, and leave the high-value links undiluted for our readers, yes?
      •  Done
    • I think MOS says to prefer three normal periods for ellipsis dots. And when they come after a period, use four dots unspaced. Tony (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
Notes: In addition to the MOS items mentioned by Tony, MOS:CAPS#All caps, Frere-Jones, Sasha. "YOU THOUGHT I WAS BACKING OUT". sfj.abstractdynamics.org, July 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 11, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Spiderland&oldid=1078806897"