Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Make-Up/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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

The Make-Up

edit

After a fairly easy GA nomination, I'd like to see how far this article can go. I feel it's a pretty solid article, and am open to any comments and concerns.

  • Self-nomination Drewcifer3000 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence uses "The Make-Up was..." while the second uses "The Make-Up were..." You should probably pick one and stick with it throughout the article. 69.202.41.119 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good catch. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Reception section. But I'm not sure whether band articles need Reception sections, so this is a comment, not oppose. --Kaypoh 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that would be more relevant to album/song articles rather than the band's page, since the reception could change dramatically between releases. But that's just my opinion. Drewcifer 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, very well written and comprehensive. However, there were a few things that should be fixed or improved that I noticed:
  • The third paragraph of the lead sounds choppy: What's there could be shortened to a sentence or two. You may want to beef it up with more information about the band's legacy, influence, or anything else related to the band's post-career.
 Not done I understand what you mean, but I just can't imagine how to improve it. If I combine sentences it'll become a huge run-on sentence. And there really isn't anything else important to add - anything else would be unnecessary fluff. Any specific suggestions? Drewcifer 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After trying to reword the sentence myself, I found that every way I tried it sounded awkwardly phrased. Consider this one scratched through. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We had to determine our next move and this (the forming of Make-Up) is it." the parentheses should be brackets.
 Done Drewcifer 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Drewcifer 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it needs to be explained why Blue is Beautiful 7".jpg is relevant to the article - album artwork is usually left out of a band article unless the artwork itself is mentioned in the article, and in this case it isn't.
 Not done Done It was their first release. That's explained in the prose and in the caption. Do you think more explanation is necessary?
It may have been their first release, and mention of their first release is certainly relevant to the article, but is the artwork of their first release relevant to the article? You will probably need to explain the relevance of the single's cover design itself. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. I added a bit of text about the design. It's a little awkward, but it's definitely an improvement.Drewcifer 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Musical ideology" and "Style" section should be merged.
 Done Drewcifer 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There definitely needs to be some kind of summary of why the musical samples are relevant to the article
 Done Drewcifer 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This attempt to co-opt the vitality of the 90s dance scene was typical of the Make-Up." sentence needs clarification/citation/at the very least rephrasing because the wording is awkward.
 Done That was a stupid sentence. Drewcifer 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the article looks very good. --Brandt Luke Zorn 09:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support One issue left, but otherwise this is a great article worthy of featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and I took care of that last lingering issue!Drewcifer 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Can the decision be held off for half a week? There are a number of problems.
    • The lead is inadequate in length and scope, and includes two paragraph stubs. There are stubby paragraphs throughout, which makes it a choppy, disjointed read (for example, why not merge the second and third paras in "Politics"?).
 Done Expanded the intro a bit and merged the two paragraphs. Oddly enough, the previous GA review suggested I downsize the introduction. Hopefully the way it is now strikes a nice balance. Drewcifer 04:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are simple decades ("50s", etc) linked? MOS says should be four-digits.
 Done Fixed. Drewcifer 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP's non-free content policy requires "fair-use" audio clips to be educational: there's no comment whatsoever on the two clips in the main text. The infopage justification says "It is used to demonstrate musical characteristics of the band, where no scholarly print source could be found on the topic." Yours doesn't have to be "scholarly", but what are the musical characteristics you say it demonstrates. Use the clip to educate the readers, or it doesn't pass the NFC criteria. Second, how do you know it doesn't harm the copyright owner? Justification text not good enough—see WP:NFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneI tightened up both sound file's fair use rationales, as well as mentioned both in the prose.Drewcifer 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I've tidied it up a bit, but:
    • What is "stomp"? No explanation, no wikilink.
 Done Took it out. It wasn't especialy important in the first place. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too many short paragraphs. In fact, the article's kind of short in general.
As far as I know, length is not a factor in an article's FA nomination, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the FA criteria. The only thing similar mentioned in the criteria is breadth, and the number of sections in this article cover that criteria quite well, in my opinion. That said, this is easily the longest/biggest/most exhaustive source of information on the Make-Up anywhere: I have exhausted all relevant possibilities for information, trust me. As for the paragraphs, there's only one paragraph that's less than three sentences, so I'm not sure if I follow you on that point. Granted you did help me out on that with your edit to the article, so thanks for that. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does the second sound clip (of "They Live By Night") add to the article? It's probable not fair use (I don't see it being discussed - not mentioned, discussed - anywhere in the article).
The clip is mentioned in the prose in the last sentence of Musical ideology and style section. However, I did expand the setnence a bit to add further clarification. Drewcifer 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • References should all be first name-last name or last name-first name.
 Done I presume you meant reference #5? I fixed it. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect uses of dashes in the references (should be em dashes - such as "Make Up - A Biography", this should be "Make Up—A Biography".
 Done? I think I fixed them all. Let me know if I missed anything. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "dedicated themselves to expanding the workforce of music" - what?
 Done Reworded the sentence a bit. I admit, it was probably a little bit confusing. Drewcifer 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the upside, it's an interesting read. Neil ☎ 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the compliment! I hope I addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if there's more I can do. And thanks for giving some attention to this FAC. Drewcifer 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine now - support! Neil ☎ 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is pretty well written, but in some places it seems a little choppy. That I could live with, but I think two major things are lacking. The first is there seems to be very little criticism (positive and negative) of the band. In other words, what did people think about them? what was the public reaction? What was their impact? The vast majority of quotes are from band members; surely others have quotable things to say about the band. In a larger sense, the article seems very introspective. The other main concern is the history section, it seems very thin. I also think the article is a little hard to follow. Jeff Dahl 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the long delay in addressing your concerns. I've finally had a chance to do a little editing, and I think I've addressed some of your concerns. Specifically, I've added a few outside quotes to even things out a bit. As for the "very little criticism" part, an unfortunate fact of writing about an obscure band is that there is very few instance of critical analysis to quote. That said, the vast majority of reviews I have read have generally been very positive, so if I were to quote a bunch of these reviews it might come across as POV and overly positive. I've found that Save Yourself was the band's best reviewed album overall, so there is a mention (and quote) from a positive review of the album. As for anything else (like general criticsms), I'm afraid there's not alot out there other than flowery language about how cool they were.Drewcifer 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better with respect to the prose; no major problems there. The big issue is still content and coverage. Quoted in the article, band leader Svenonius says "It was becoming redundant and people were copying us" Ah! So Svenonius is giving us a clue that others were copycatting the band's style, and presumably the band had some influence on the music scene. Why not tell us about that? If this is all that is published about the band, it may not be possible to write a Featured quality article on them. If readers are left wondering about one thing or another, how many other things are left unsaid? There is just not the coverage here I would expect in a featured article about a band. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Learnedo 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe great improvements has been made since the self-nomination; however, the article is currently in GA status. I would strongly encourage that the article reach A status and be featured on the "Today's featured article" as requirements before an article even considers trying to become a FA. The GA nomination may have been 'fairly easy' but FA status is in a league of its own, and it should not come easy. Keep up the great work! Leranedo
  • (FYI) in order to be Today's featured article, the article has to be promoted to FA here first. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I had the impression that if this article passed, then it would be on the main featured article page. In this case, I won't have such high-standards.
"Politics" I think the section title should be change to more reflect what that section is one (it's far too vague), like how the Musical ideology and style gives the reader a good idea of what's coming next.
How does "Political stylings" strike you? After all, their politics really was more of a style thing than anything else. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Political tendencies? Political beliefs? Political actions? etc. etc. In the world of politics, we don't typically refer to it as a style. Learnedo 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly my point: the have something to say politicaly, but they're not "in the world of politics." They say and do these political things as more of an aesthetic choice, not as a point of view per se. I just think Political stylings would most accurately describe the band's odd form of political idealism. Drewcifer 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add revenue and how much the band grossed.
Revenue?! Seriously? Not only is that information not available, is there actually any other FA article ever that has a band's revenue??Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't they really ought to start doing it, it would be immensely interesting. I'm sure it's available, the record companies just usually don't divulge this type of information. They have something to hide. Learnedo 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put what record label they started with near the beginning of the lead.
 Done Good call, added a few notable record labels to the lead. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Focus the article more on the cultural impact or whatever other impact of the band if any.
I think you pointed out the problem with that: "if any." They're a pretty obscure band, so such information really isn't available, especially from reputable sources. I've heard that (International) Noise Conspiracy was heavily influenced by the Make-Up, but have been unable to find a good source for that info, so I've hesitated to put it in. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on what the critical, commercial, and public reception if any.
Same thing as above. Take a look at the reviews of all the albums. Maybe 8 at most, and they are all very specific to the albums, not the band itself. Besides, critical reception is more appropriate for album pages, in my opinion. Critical perceptions could (and do) change all the time, depending on particular phases, critic's tastes, particularly strong/weak releases, etc. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps expand on the Musical ideology and style section as that's a key section.
That's already the longest section, complete with music samples and direct quotes. There really isn't that much more to say, honest. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add more images if possible.
For an article of this size, I'd say there's a good amount of images. Especially since most images of them are fair-use, which is a policy which pretty much enforces the opposite: use as little as possible.Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People like images, but it's understandable that it's difficult to find/use many.
Changed to yes as I don't notice any other possible major improvements. Leranedo 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Hardly FA-standard writing. What's wrong with plain old "before": "Previous to the formation of the Make-Up ...". Awkward and ambiguous: "In a post-Nation of Ulysses interview, Svenonius explained the formation of the Make-Up from the ashes of his former band". MOS breaches in final punctuation before closing quotes. UNspaced en dashes as interruptors? No: read MOS. "as "cultural refugees" as". Fair-use justifications good, though. Needs massaging throughout. Tony (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Tony. I think I've addressed some of your concerns (diff)). I was aware of the punctuation after the quotation thing, I just happen to think that it is incorrect grammar. But if Wikipedia says it is so then I guess it is so. I also changed "previous" to "before," as well the double "as," and also one instance of an unspaced en dash. I could only find one instance of that, so let me know if I missed any. As for the akward and ambiguous quote, I'm not sure what the problem is. Svenonius explains the formation of the Make-Up, which came immediately after and as a result of the break-up of his previous band. I think that setnence is pretty clear in setting up the quote that proceeds. Do you have any specific suggestions? Thanks again! Drewcifer 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Logical punctuation is not a grammatical issue; it concerns WP's overarching policy of not tampering with original sources. It's not conceived as a transatlantic dispute. My examples above were at random to underline the need to bring on board others to collaborate in improving the prose on a technical level. Tony (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't agree with the policy, but I am willing to abide by it. As for bringing others on to collaborate, I'm afraid I've done everything I know of to do that. If you take a look at the history of the page, I am by and large the main editor of the article: I guess not very many other people are interested in the topic. I asked for a peer review some time ago, which largely went unfulfilled. The GAC and this FAC has helped somewhat, but I would guess you'd argue it didn't help enough. So, is there some other service I am missing? Otherwise, I'm happy to take care of specific problems, issues, or suggestions myself, but without specifics, it is largely an un-actionable objection. Drewcifer 03:14, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Make-Up/archive1&oldid=1085530363"