Wikipedia:Peer review/Smells Like Teen Spirit/archive1

Smells Like Teen Spirit

Hey all, I brought this to GA status a few months back quite easily (there's been so much written and said about this song), but I've pretty much let it sit since then. This has the potential, with the resources available, to be a Featured Article. Since there's plenty of source material to work from, I'm mainly looking for feedback largely on how to make this a better article: everything to prose issues to punctuation to layout. Nevertheless, in-depth analysis of the article in any form at this point would be much appreciated. WesleyDodds 09:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

• A lot of red links which aren't need are present.

• With the song samples, spread them to sections throughout the article (thus eradicating the unneeded section) - for example, the article has a "Live performances" section so wouldn't the live version of the song be better off in there somewhere? Wouldn't the two cover clips be better off in the "Cover versions" section also?

• There's one / two sentence paragraphs in places which makes it stubby - they perhaps could be merged and rewritten to improve flow.

• Weasly words in places - like "acclaimed", "famous", "highly popular", "notable" - adjectives are hardly ever needed in an encyclopaedia.

Overall not a bad article. LuciferMorgan 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Points have now been addressed and taken care of. I admit I'm having trouble finding a way to rephrase the sentence "Like the song itself, the music video for 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' has been highly popular and acclaimed." Any suggestions? WesleyDodds 11:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think the article proves the video was "highly popular", but proves it was acclaimed. I think the awards you list for the video prove acclaim, but not popularity. LuciferMorgan 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed this now. I've also been moving some text around and adding more cited info while addressing your points. Any more thoughts? WesleyDodds 10:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

""Smells Like Teen Spirit" was, along with "Come as You Are", one of a few new songs to be recorded during the Nevermind sessions.[9]"

The word "new" needs replacing as it's redundant. Definitely FAC material though - I'd bite the bullet and go for FAC. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that line. Nirvana originally had recorded a bunch of songs intended for their second album in a studio session in 1990. Once they signed with Geffen and actually started recording Nevermind in 1991, they recorded a bunch of songs they already had, but in the meantime Cobain had written two or three new songs, including "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Come as You Are". I'll try and clarify that in the article. WesleyDodds 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've addressed all those points, verified all the references that were not added by me, added even more cited material that I picked up at the library, and tweaked the text as I've gone along. I'll probably put it up at FAC within the next day. Any suggestions on how to expand the lead? To me that seems the only section that's somewhat lacking. WesleyDodds 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ShadowHalo

Some small things:

• Rather than having five bullet points in the infobox for the #1 position, only do one and put all of the countries in parentheses.

Done. WesleyDodds 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The {{Extra tracklisting}} template is missing the "type" field.

I did a preview edit and adding the "type" field didn't alter the infobox at all, so I assume it's not applicable when listing an album track in a single's infobox. WesleyDodds 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It worked for me. My guess is that you might not have capitalized "Type" (aren't templates fun?). ShadowHalo 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• There needs to be one or more references for the table of chart positions. There are various ways to format it. You can put citations in the table headers (Hollaback Girl). If there are lots of individual ones, you can put them after the name of the chart (Don't Speak). Or you can do a separate section in the Notes/References section so long as it's clear which references cover which charts (Cool (song)).

Minor question: The American and British chart placings are cited in the text. Sbould I also cite them in the chart? WesleyDodds 23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cited all the ones I could verify. There's a number of chart positions I couldn't info on. Should they just be removed? WesleyDodds 08:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If there aren't references available for the chart positions, then they should be removed. You may want to see if you can find when they were added in and try asking those users. (If you do find sources, let me know. I've been trying to find somewhere that has chart positions from before the 1990s but to no avail so far.) If the references are provided in the main article, then I wouldn't worry too much about including them in the table, especially since adding the same source for the same Billboard charts would be somewhat redundant. If someone at FAC finds it an issue, then they can be inserted pretty easily. ShadowHalo 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the page history, almost every single chart placing was added by the same anonymous IP. While I found no discrepancies when I verified the chart positions I could find reference for, it's probably best to take out the ones without reference. WesleyDodds 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article shouldn't be in Category:1991 songs if it's already in Category:1991 singles (the latter is a subcategory of the former). ShadowHalo 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. WesleyDodds 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil

Some more small things:

• The format of the book refs should be: Azerrad (1994), p. 167. & Azerrad (1994), pp. 211-12. - Azerrad wrote more than one book, I assume.

Listing the publication year is only necessary if I cite more than one book he wrote.

The point is that other books may be later cited; probably not in this case, but it's required by WP:CITE. Ceoil 00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:CITE/ES, there is no set citation format. What matters is consistency and that all the important information is listed. I always use the referencing guideline I used in college (some variation of Chicago, I think). As long as one style is used consistently in the article, it's fine. Honestly, I always thought you changed the book citations in articles we've worked on together because you preferred a particular citation style :) WesleyDodds 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Ceoil 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• "In the United Kingdom, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" reached #7, but charted for 184 weeks" - but seems misplaced, I know what you are getting at, but that placing was a big deal at the time.

Fixed

• I tried to ce this and failed: "though it lost to the Red Hot Chili Peppers's "Give it Away" and "Layla" by Eric Clapton, respectively. The loss to Clapton" - Loss is repeated in consecutive sentences; but I can't put my finger on a different word.

Rephrased

• "It was anticipated that the follow up single "Come as You Are" would be the song to cross over to mainstream formats." - Can you clarify if this assumption was made by Geffin, or by Nirvana and Geffin?

I really don't think the source explicitly says. I suppose it's inferred that it's Geffen. I'll check soon.

The book doesn't specify; the quote is "'Teen Spirit' was not supposed to be the hit. The second single, 'Come as You Are,' was supposed to be the track that would cross over to other formats; 'Teen Spirit' was the base-building alternative cut." I supposed it's inferred everyone involved with the band made this assumption, since the statement is followed by Goldberg's quote, but I don't want to make a logical leap. WesleyDodds 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• "and added, "As Nirvana knows only too well" - Not sure what is right and wrong here, but even though its a direct quote, my preference would be that "As" is not capitalised. There are a few instances of this.

American grammar.

Tisk, you Americans and your grammar; but ok, fine. Ceoil 00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going through it, and will post more suggestions as they strike me. Overall the article is very strong. Ceoil 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. WesleyDodds 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This is a FA standard article, well done. Ceoil 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)