Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spiritual Machines/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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [1].

Spiritual Machines

edit
Nominator(s): Publichall (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because It has become a Good Article and I have improved upon it since then. As a subject, this album plays a pivotal role in this band's evolution and is considered one of their best. I believe it is up to par with all the FA standards but please check the prose carefully as the introduction may need tweaking. More than enough sources are cited including professional reviews and industry journals. Also refer to the archived discussion of its GA nomination if you need. Thank you. Publichall (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments addressing prose. I am not a OLP fan, my tastes stretch to certain other Canadian bands but not this one ...

Lede:
  • "frequently used for the recording of the album." I don't think you mean frequently. The album was recorded once, albeit over a long period. Suggest rephrase.
Done. Changed to "Utilized throughout the recording" Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: muddled timeline. It obviously wasn't recorded while they were on tour, perhaps "touring" would be a substitute for "on tour". You also use "completed" or "completion" in different ways in consecutive sentences, one referring to post-production and the other just to finishing the album.
Done. re-worded Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph: Should this be in the lede at all? The lede is supposed to be, more or less, a summary of what's in the article. The article does not expand on this.
Done. removed by another user. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Album history
  • "band-members", "back-log" Odd hyphenations, I'd probably say "band members" and "backlog", especially since Maida uses the word backlog without a hyphen later on. This is a long paragraph too, I'd split it.
Done. Can't remember about first paragraph, whether it's been split or not already. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph. The Molly thing makes no sense to the casual reader. That a fictional character would evolve in the way its author predicted would strike most people as commonplace (the opposite would be much more interesting). Also, 2099 should not be linked. Perhaps say she is a character from the book, used by Kurzweil to demonstrate his evolutionary theory?
Done. moved to music & lyrics section by another user. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
  • "Unlike previous efforts". Assumes too much, suggest "Unlike the band's previous albums,"
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not refer to the same person by both first and last names. I find it is bad practice to refer to someone older than, say, 18, by a first name only unless there is confusion with identical last names.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "says" "states". I would use past tense. Also, I tend to avoid "says" or "said" as a little too informal.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also unlike on their previous albums," rephrase
  • "Our Lady peace" Ahem.
  • "were in demo form and ready to be recorded by August 2000 while on the road" I imagine this means that the demos were recorded on the road? As it is, it is hard to tell.
Done. Removed the "Ready to be recorded" part. Wasn't necessary fact. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rest were completed with Arnold Lanni" You should say what role Lanni played, especially since shortly after you mention The Smashing Pumpkins' frontman.
Done. He produced them in Toronto. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure that the article tracks the lede as far as the written and recorded in 2 months parts goes. It isn't obvious to me.
Done. Added two months part Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll complete this tomorrow. But from what I've seen, I am suspecting that someone is going to ask you to work over the prose. There are a number of things that should have been caught before FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-source commentsOppose on sources Right, I've done a bit of work on it and this is the stuff that needs work before I do a complete source review. Use Silent Alarm as a template.

  • The reviews need to be placed in the Reception section and not in the infobox as per the new guideline.
  • In Charts, include a box for the singles and their placings too.
Done This was deemed unnecessary due to the lack of chart placings. The mentions in the singles section will do.Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, source the CD codes in Release history. However, don't use places like Discogs or MusicBrainz.
Done. Sourced different versions from personal collectionPublichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long for an article this size. Trim and condense it a little bit, probably around three chunky paragraphs. Remember it is meant to be a general summation and not include a lot of specific detail. That means removing all the citations, too.
Done. Ratafabul or something took care of that. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been me. ;) RB88 (T) 01:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at the reflist and ensure that all print publishers are in italics and web ones not. Ensure that all refs of the same type follow the same notation order, e.g. author, title, etc.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. See below.

RB88 (T) 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes these reliable?

  • The references' style need a complete revamp. There's a mixture of template or different order of citation within the same template. Just pick a simple {{cite web}} and ((cite news)) and stick to it. (I don't understand why you add "–" before each publisher.)
  • Dates have also been mixed up. There's different types and month are even abbreviated. Also stop using dates like 01 Dec or 09 Oct (remove the 0).
  • Refs 1,2,3,8,18,19,20,24,26,32,33,48,52,55 used Chartattack in italics. Now that is the website for Chart magazine and does not merit italics, unless you choose to cite Chart.
  • Remove the location on ref 10 for uniformity.
  • No italics on the publishers of refs 11,12,44,50 (Sputnikmusic is also one word).
  • I'm frankly puzzled by ref 13.
  • Ref 14's publisher is What? Magazine with a question mark.
  • Some online refs like ref 16 do not have a link. Check all the refs for such a problem.
  • Unabbreviate CRIA in ref 22.
  • Ref 25 is dead.
  • Refs 28,42 need italics.
  • Ref 43's publisher is The Daily Collegian (Penn State).

RB88 (T) 02:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued comments

Music and lyrics:
  • "The songs for Spiritual Machines were written and partially recorded during a year of nonstop touring across Canada." Not what the source says, it says they were also touring the US and Europe. And even though the source says "nonstop touring", bands do not continuously tour, you know. I suggest "... during a year in which the band was doing extensive touring of Canada, the United States, and Europe." Also, it is usual to note, when full text is not available unless you pay for it (fee for article) right before the </ref>.
Done per your suggestion Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of first paragraph: needs a ref.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph may not mean much to the reader unless he's familiar with Kurzweil's theories. A couple of sentences of summary might be helpful there. I have my guesses, from the Molly references above, but I don't know and I'm studiously refusing to look at the Kurzweil article so that I'm reading it like an uninformed reader.
  • This whole section seems rather random. Just whatever you could find out about the songs, without very much structure to it. I'd even ask you to consider merging it with the preceding section.
Done. Mostly fixed up and bulked up a bit. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote about the brother should probably be cut down a lot. If you don't feel you can, suggest breaking it into a blockquote.
Done. Paraphrased the beginning part. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Packaging
  • Do we really need to know that the artist lived a few blocks from the recording studio? Suggest that it isn't needed for summary style reasons.
Done cut. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which he was director for both" Bad grammar.
Done. Changed to "both of which he directed" Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is too small. Suggest you set a larger image size. You might also want to get advice from someone better versed in non free image content as to whether it is appropriate to have an image of the liner notes, which also contain copyrighted lyrics.
Done Image just removed, replaced with alternate cover. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'd merge this subsection elsewhere as it is so short. One idea might be to merge music and lyrics with packaging.
Done Another user did it. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo-shoot. I've sometimes seen this as one word "photoshoot" or, I think more commonly "photo shoot". Suggest you ascertain most common usage.
Done. Used the two word one. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "listening party". I've never heard of the term being applied to anything other than a physical gathering of fans, but maybe that is just me. Perhaps add the word "virtual" before the term? I don't feel strongly about this, just a suggestion.
Done. It's a virtual listening party. Re-worded the sentence a bit. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the CD being released several months later in the US as was common practice is sourced to an article which seems to be discussing a broken wrist and a summer 2001 tour for OLP. Suggest that a more thorough reference check might be in order.
Done Connected to Allmusic reference with U.S. date. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • March 13, 2001. This is a Canadian band and you've already used UK/Canada usages such as "favourite". Shouldn't this be in day month year format?
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are going to need a cite for the statement that SM was one of OLP's least successful commercially.
Done Removed the statement (that I didn't write). Compared its success to earlier albums. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has also been suggested" Grammar problems. Also, by whom?
Done Proclaimed? Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usual to put the name of periodicals in italics. Since sometimes the city name is italicized and sometimes it isn't, advise that you check the article on the periodical here and see how they do it.
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Singles
  • "while reaching #1" I think that you're going to find that some reviewers believe that "while" should not be use except to designate contemporaneous events. Suggest "though".
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"their fan club". Suggest "the band's fan club"
Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this up later tonight. I'm not convinced it is quite ready for prime time, but it is possible it could be fixed up with a good copyeditor during the time you have at the FAC page. Suggest you at least wait for other opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles
  • "ultimately fell of the charts shortly after its November 15, 2000 release" "ultimately" is a word which implies to me the passage of a long time. It doesn't seem justified here.
Done "quickly fell off.." Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tour
  • Summer, Fall. Usually not capitalized. We also try to avoid using seasons since they differ based on which hemisphere, north or south, you're in.
Done Change to months Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around May of 2001" I would not use the word "Around" as too informal. Does the release of a non-album track have anything to do with an album anyway?
Done "during may" and I think so. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raine". First name again, too informal.
  • "a full length album with Rock." If they did, I would name it.
Done and Done Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: I don't know enough about album FAs to say how close you are overall, but the prose definitely needs polish. I would suggest having someone go over it closely. I am uncertain if it can be fixed during the limited time you have at FAC, but I don't see any immeiate need to withdraw it before hearing from a few other folks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finished. Unless I'm missing something, I think all bases have now been covered. Publichall (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi, we usually proceed by answering each query or point with a comment underneath it, much like I've done here. That way the reviewer knows if and how their point of contention has been tackled. So, my comments above still stand until you respond to each point with what you've done about it. I know it may be a bit of a drag, but it streamlines the process. I'm sure Wehwalt would appreciate it too. If an editor doesn't respond within a reasonable amount of time, then you can message them to revisit. I look forward to your responses. RB88 (T) 00:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, it wasn't so hard. Except that I somehow forgot to save my changes the first time and had to do it over. I hope these clarify everything. Publichall (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Three images:

  • File:Spiritualmachines.jpg: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image. No problem with inclusion. Rationale is decent, but the rationale provided for the following image, identifying it as a main infobox image, would actually be more suitable here.
  • File:Spiritual Machines alt.jpg: Alternative album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image. Acceptable, if moved and with improved rationale and main text description. The content of the image is very different from that of the lead image, and both sources cited in the main text passage providing critical commentary on the limited edition for which it was used do actually regard this alternative cover as worthy of coverage. However, this cover art does not belong in the main infobox, which illustrates and summarizes the central elements of the album's release. Its significance is tied to the limited release version, and it should be placed so as to accompany the critical commentary on that item. In addition, both of the sources cited there need to be cited in the rationale as well, in order to firmly establish the significance of the image. Finally, the description in the main text is incorrect—this cover is obviously not "completely black".
  • File:Liner.jpg: Liner notes with art (fair use), used in main text Packaging section. (I missed this at first, because default sizing makes it too small, given its narrowness.) This strikes me as unacceptable usage, though feel free to solicit other opinions. The art is by the same painter who created the cover, so the quote concerning his artistic style does not require a second image for illustration. Furthermore, none of the cited sources discuss the visual content of these liner notes.—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, is everything finished? I'm not sure. Let me know soon. 71.112.4.84 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost. The rationales still need to be addressed. We need the main infobox rationale for the main infobox image, and we need sources cited in the rationale for the alternative cover image.—DCGeist (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for the limited edition release cover still employed main infobox boilerplate in the purpose of use field. I rewrote it to address its actual use and purpose. All good with images now.—DCGeist (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT and the documentation for {{Infobox album}}. Eubulides (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copy-editing—You use the word "album" too many times. If you use Firefox, Ctrl+F for "album", and hit the 'highlight all' button; you'll see what I mean. I suggest replacing the word with "record" and "Spiritual Machines" every now and then. Check for repetitive wording: "Unlike the band's previous albums . . . unlike on their previous albums". "#1, #30" should be "number one, number 30" per our manual of style. The short charts section is redundant to the prose in the release section; you can remove it. Tweets are not reliable sources of information.—indopug (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look over the article again, but I've been rather busy. I will do so if I can by the weekend, unless it is archived before then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, stalled until after Karanacs did promotion and archiving for the weekend. Anyway, I can't support. There are still quite a number of goofs (like referring to an adult by his first name, or calling the band "Our Lady peace". It really needs a good going over by an outside copyeditor, and what I would suggest (I see there are no supports, so I would imagine this will be archived in the near future) is take it to Peer Review and get some more input. I think there is a FA somewhere here, it seems comprehensive, uses as good sources as you are going to be able to find. But there are just too many glitches in the writing. I am sympathetic and hope this passes in due course. However, since my main work here at Wikipedia is writing Featured Articles, I'm too jealous of the term to let an article that isn't ready yet go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 28 December 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/Spiritual_Machines/archive1&oldid=1138471940"