Talk:Dream Days at the Hotel Existence

Page moved to "at" not "At"

Hey, I don't want to start any edit wars, but a quick Google search shows the album title as "Dream Days at the Hotel Existence" or "Dream Days At The Hotel Existence", not a mix. If the album comes out all in caps, hey I don't mind if we change it to the 2nd option. I can't find any sources that verified the original title capitalisation. Stu 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the page as per WP:MOS with the capital "a" in "at" as that's the WP stylistic requirement, not a lower case "a". I don't mind having it this way, but I made it like that to begin with to be compliant.

--linca^linca 10:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on the actual place where that is stated, for my own curiosity? WP:CAPS seems to indicate not capitalising a in at. Stu 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names from the page WP:NAMING. "Note that short verbs (Is, Are, Do) and pronouns (Me, It, His) are capitalized" indicates short verbs (i.e. "at" being a preposition, a short verb) are to be capitalised. As I said, I created it with that naming convention, but I'm not pedantic abut it. You asked the question, I answered it.

--linca^linca 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

First of all the article is not 'stable' because the album was released today...

• The lead does not summarize the article, no mention of background or critical reception
• No information on recording/production of the album
• incomplete grammar May 12 2007. -> May 12, 2007
• References needs a publisher, date, a retrieve date (for Internet archive purposes)

Wait a week or two until there are reviews, sales figures and chart positions released for the reception section. M3tal H3ad 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: "* incomplete grammar May 12 2007. -> May 12, 2007" When you link the dates and put a comma after the month and day and then put the year, WikiMedia takes out the comma, I believe because of a legacy based on the manual of style, so there's no way that the date will be produced and show the date with the comma if we wikilink the dates (and as per WP:MOS you're supposed to wiki link the dates). Other than that, we've assessed most of the items you've mentioned, but we'll wait, as you suggested, to get more time behind the album, more reviews and charts released and we'll bug you again. --linca^linca 15:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Songwriting credits

At the moment, Bernard and JC are listed in the article as having written all the songs, yet on the album liner notes it states "All selections written and performed by Powderfinger". Does anybody have a source for the current listing? I'll leave it for a few days and then, if none is found, I'll change it. Peace. Wwwhhh 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the songwriters. They were stated in the Australian iTunes Store. RaNdOm26 08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ARIA Charts

Anyone know what day they are updated on? It's vital that we get this info ASAP, as the position they start on will usually be the highest (at least, with an album that's well anticipated like this one), so we can remove the Current Album tag when that's done. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The website updates every Sunday evening; though Nova radio announces them a few hours earlier. RaNdOm26 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By Sunday evening, Random means 10pm, so you may as well say Monday, but the stats are available from a select few sources as early as 2am Sunday morning. If we can secure that info, that'd be great. For sure, it's going to make number one in its first week and probably for the few weeks to follow. I can't imagine the forthcoming albums by mandy Moore or Lifehouse are able to topple it. --linca^linca 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's Mandy Moore!! =P Anyway, it hasn't updated here yet... Anyone have a link for the other sources? - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. I wish someone would host a site like in NZ (charts.co.nz) where it's clearly laid out and generally released a couple of days before the actual RIANZ site. --linca^linca 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been updated. Thanks, Random! - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Assesment

I'm moved it from A-class/high importance. As it failed GA, its certainly cannot be A-class. I'd say it's Start or B with the next stage being GA. I'm giving it a B as it's well referenced and seems to be readable prose. Importance is relative to the category for which it being assessed. Perhaps High on the PF project, but not for broader projects. —Moondyne 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A class doesn't necessarily mean greater than GA class, according to the definitions for the classes. it actually says specifically that just because an article is not GA doesn't mean it can't be A. As it passed the required info to be an A class, that's why I noted it as that. I suppose I could wait a few weeks, though, and see if we can get it reviewed for GA again. --linca^linca 13:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. My bad. Interestingly the Australian assessment guide says: "Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class." and the Albums guide is slightly varied and says: "Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.". Anyway, I would not oppose a change back to A-class if anyone wishes it. —Moondyne 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's all good. We'll leave it for a couple of weeks, let some charts and mroe notable reviews get behind the album and try again for GA then. --linca^linca 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences

Does anyone else get the feeling that Powderfinger has been listening to a lot of Tubular Bells lately? It seems to me that it's unfair to claim that they've made few innovations (though that claim is well sourced). I guess we can add responses and influences as reliable commentators publish reviews of the album.--Yeti Hunter 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical innovations are both hard to prove and disprove due to the simple subjective nature of it. The band doesn't claim any innovation, though claims to have been trying to be like Tom Petty in some of the songs (which is in the album bio written by Bernard Fanning on the official website), which led to pianist Benmont Tench (who was in Tom Petty band) to say that he though it sounded like Buffalo Springfield who Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers were always trying to sound like. Anyway, I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's fair to say it's "uninnovative" on par with the fact that I don't really know that the album is justifiably refered to as being "innovative." It's a term that I don't think should be thrown about with new albums. --linca^linca 05:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A little sloppy here. I would highly encourage the editor(s) to read the article aloud, and many of the errors listed here (and others) will jump out. Please remove "(See 2007 in music." Also, numbers (eg - "a 3 year hiatus") need to be spelled out. Please format dates correctly, per WP:DATE. The punctuation is wrong in this phrase

was “consistent”, and “distinctly Australian”

. I am not sure what the rules are in Australia, so you will have to double check if the quotes should come before or after the comma (the rule varies by country). Additionally, there should be a period at the end of the sentence. The word "relating" should be "related." In the phrase "Ian Haug citing" the word citing is used improperly. Try "said" or "remarked" or "stated." In " After only just over a month" "just over" and "only" are redundant; pick one. This needs to be corrected "The title of the album comes the 2005 book." Reference tags should follow punctuation (not before a period, quotation mark or comma). "Several differences to previous recordings were undertaken" doesn't make any sense. Maybe instead of "undertaken," you should say "employed" or "tried." This is in passive voice, which makes it even more confusing. It would be better if you were specific and said, "the band" or "the producer" or "the sound editor" made the changes. Also, "to achieve a different sound" - different from what? The previous recordings? The previous album? This:

This time, however, recording began at Sunset Sound, a historic Los Angeles studio, in late January 2007 following a brief blog from the band on their MySpace telling fans to expect the new album.

is a run-on sentence. This phrase "though had used several" is missing something. In this sentence:

Some songs would have parts written by a writing pair or trio and the others would write the other parts and put their parts together to allow a more diverse and, according to the band, fresh approach.

the word "parts" is used too much, which takes away from the clarity of the statement. It is also a run-on sentence and the grammar is off towards the end. Here: "producer Nick" a comma is needed in the middle. This sentence

The band used different approaches in putting the album together as "It comes back to the sound the five of us can make together" (as said by singer Bernard Fanning) indicating that they will be the same band just playing different music, a fact running in unison with the large amount of reviews commenting on the albums consistency and cohesion.

is a huge run-on with grammar problems. This statement "received by early view reviewers" is redundant; just say reviewers. "DVD orchard" should probably be capitalized. "but that "It is, though," is redundant ("but that" and then later "though"). Try to reword that. I believe "crafter" should be "crafted." The phrase "which both employs" should be "which both employ." This phrase "and there are confirmations of performances in northern Victoria" uses a weasel phrasing ("there are confirmations") Confirmations by whom?

2. Factually accurate?: Not bad. This quote "just a plain rock record" needs referencing.  Done

3. Broad in coverage?: It would be nice to know which newspaper they had to get the codeword from.  Done

4. Neutral point of view?: Good here, especially with the critique.

5. Article stability? A fairly new article, with no evidence of edit wards going on.

6. Images?: Great here as well.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed all typographical errors mentioned above. I'm now checking that all refs are placed after punctuation. Thanks for the review! - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that in Australia, we place punctuation after quotation marks, for example John stated that "this is a good article". as opposed to John stated that "this is a good article." Slabba 05:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was the other way around...that's how I've done all my writing so far in life! G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick search on Google for punctuation and quotation mark treatment to confirm that what I said was right. Turns out British English, which we use in Australia, places punctuation after the quotation marks, whilst in American English, the punctuation is before the quotation marks. Do a quick search, there's some interesting information on the topic. Slabba 08:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. *Giggy goes to rewrite all his assignments* Very interesting. In this case, we'll have to write the article the way you said. By the way, do you have a link? Giggy _U^CP 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Slabba, but that's not how I was schooled in Sydney or Canberra. I was taught that all punctuation goes inside the quotes where the punctuation relates to the quote. for instance:

He asked me "Why did you do that?"
Why didn't I tell him "Your mother is bald"?

Does that make sense? The quotes encapsulate the question if the question is what's being quoted. If the phrase is the question which happens to contain a quote, then the quote goes within the punctuation. Oh, and the way I've said here is what's mentioned in the WP:MOS, just to clarify. I'm lazy and write all pages Americanized (hence the "z" in Americanized) until I realise that it's supposed to be in Australian prose. --linca^linca 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters too much. Here's a couple of links http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/writing/basics.html#quote and http://www.betterwritingskills.com/articles/quotation-marks.txt By the way I agree with what you said He asked me "Why did you do that?"

That is the correct treatment, but I mean full stops and commas should fall outside of the quote marks if it's the end of the sentence or the like.Slabba 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the University of Ottawa's quotation marks punctuation page, "Question marks, exclamation marks, and dashes go inside quotation marks when they are part of the quotation, and outside when they do not," and, "Commas and periods always go inside the quotation marks." This is also the way I was taught, so I just thought I'd mention it. And because G1ggy pointed it out to me, yes, I realize Ottawa is in Canada, however I was just looking for the first somewhat authoritative link about it. --RazorICE 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that's a Canadian source. Still, when I was over there (oh dear, OR :P), I found they spoke similar English to us Aussies. Obviously, they use the word period instead of full stop, but otherwise it's almost the same. Unless we have something that counters that, I suppose we can take RI's link on board. In any case, it's not which English we use that counts, but having the same usage throughout the article. Giggy _U^CP 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Something else I found: Comma_(punctuation)#Differences_between_American_and_British_usage. Worth noting. (Just realised that this is what Slabba said above. However, it's on Wikipedia, hence it must be true! :P) --RazorICE 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I've found this research quite interesting and have learnt something new, we went off on a bit of a tangent though lol. But like G1ggy said, we just have to be consistent throughout. Slabba 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-nominated for GA

Any response to the nomination for Good Article status, please make here. --linca^linca 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Several issues as I read through the article:

• "Prior to its release, Powderfinger had been in a three year hiatus after their highly successful album Vulture Street during which lead singer Bernard Fanning released his debut solo album Tea and Sympathy, and guitarist Darren Middleton recorded an album named The Way Out with his band Drag." This is a fairly awkward sentence. "in a hiatus" doesn't sound right (on?), and there should be a comma after Vulture Street for flow.
• A number of low-value wikilinks, including "single" and "singer".
• The papers and magazines in the "Professional reviews" section should be wikilinked.
• 2007 in 12 May 2007 should be wikilinked per WP:DATE.
• I don't think you need to note the previous record for the album sales chart, it doesn't add to the article and shouldn't be in the lead.
• Unnecessary internal links in the lead; "commenting" doesn't need to be wikilinked, as it should be clear to the reader that reviews of the album are located in Critical recognition. Same with "claims".
• "Strong critical reviews" doesn't read well. "positive critical reception" perhaps?
• The lead should tell the reader who the producer of the album was to summarise the article adequately.
• Is "Powderfinger" singular or plural? I've no preference either way, but the article is not consistent with regards to this.
• What is Triple J? "Australian radio station" should suffice in my opinion.
• "After just over a month in the studio on 2 March 2007, Fanning announced on Triple J that the tracking was complete and mixing the album was to follow, and gave an approximate release of June.[7] The album features famous session pianist, and previous pianist for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Benmont Tench throughout." Both sentences need to be copyedited; I find them hard to follow
• "Several differences to previous recordings were undertaken in recording Dream Days at the Hotel Existence in order to achieve a different sound to previous albums." Also very unclear.
• "a brief blog". "a brief blog entry" would make more sense.
• "they'd" "they had". Contractions are generally seen as informal; there's several instances of these.

All these points suggest the article needs a thorough copyedit by an independent editor. I have a few more general suggestions.

• Direct quotes are uncited throughout the article.
• The succession box would be better placed at the bottom of the article.
• The Critical recognition section is full of one or two line paragraphs; these need expanding or merging.

Due to the volume of work needed, I'm afraid I'll have to fail this article. The content is there, it's just a number of stylistic and referencing issues that need correction. If you disagree with or want to clarify any of the points made in my review, feel free to contact me on my talk page. CloudNine 12:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and made all the changes suggested (including the last three points, as best I could). Any more comments? Giggy _U^CP 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I've just spent quite a bit of time fixing up the references in the article so that they are all consistent and have a retrieval date. One step closer to GA status! I reckon we could just about renominate the article now, it's looking good. Slabba 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, G1ggy and I have listed it for peer review so perhaps with a bit of TLC and some broader project people editing we might be able to get it past GA and straight to FA, with any luck. At a glance, it meets the criteria for FA basically and just has some basic prose issues to contend with that should be eaasily dealt with in the WP:PR. --linca^linca 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone at FAC would support a non GA article, Linca :P But it's worth a try! Before we do that though, have all of CloudNine's GA comments been addressed? That would be an obvious starting point. I'm gonna go through this with a very fine TLC comb at some stage and try to improve the prose too. Giggy _U^CP 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I moved a few citations for WP:CITE and removed a few parentheses here and there to improve the prose. My only remaining concern is the four paragraphs in the WP:LEAD. If this can be reorganised to meet the guidelines (probably only two paragraphs required for an article of this length, possibly three at a push) then I'll gladly re-assess to push the article from being on-hold to being a good article. Good work on addressing the previous reviews, by the way. The Rambling Man 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rambling Man. I actually made the lead that long because I'd been accosted (ok, possibly a bit of a strong word) upon writing them too short in the past. Can I ask your suggestion with regards to that: Do you want the same infoto be reconstructed into two or three paragraphs, or move one or two paragraphs into seperate sections of the article (or remove duplicated information from later in the article altogether)? I know your position is for GA, but from a peer review perspective, what would you say? --linca^linca 12:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just kind of done a bit of both of what I think you meant. I'm not sure really what else can be dropped out of the lead, to be honest, but we're down to three paragraphs, having trimmed some info out altogether, moved the chart info to chart performance section and got rid of the Bernard Fanning and Darren Middleton side project info and generalised that bit. --linca^linca 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the lead is much better now, so I'm happy to remove the uncertainty over the compliance with the WP:MOS and promote. Well done. The Rambling Man 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

For those who didn't notice, this article was peer reviewed. Results of the review are copied below. Giggy _U^CP 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't, didn't, Can't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)