A fact from Plumb (Field Music album) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Field Music album Plumb was nominated for the 2012 Mercury Prize, even though the band thought that their odds were "minimal to nil"?
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that the Field Music album Plumb was nominated for the 2012 Mercury Prize, even though the band thought their odds were "minimal to nil"?
ALT1:... that the Field Music album Plumb has so many falsetto vocals that a reviewer said it was as if the band "will settle for nothing less than the highest possible notes"?
Overall: Both of those hooks are brilliant (clearly sourced in the article), but I'm concerned over the copyvio detector's results. If you can get it under 40% I will be more than happy to approve this. mike•owendiscuss18:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MikeOwen, I will take a look at this when I can (I'm at work, currently). But quick question: could the copyvio detector results simply stem from the fact that the article makes heavy use of quotations, particularly when it comes to review blurbs in the Reception section and, in the 70% example you cite above, direct quotes from Q&A interviews? — HunterKahn20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly it, but it also has a fair bit to do with large quotations from interviews as well. My advice would be to reword some of the sections where the percentage is quite high or to remove somewhat less important bits. Some sources are only i little bit above 40%, so reducing those won't be too hard. Hope you have a great evening! mike•owendiscuss20:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MikeOwen I've gone through and reduced the amount of direct quotations in the article, of which there were many. I've gotten all of them down to under 40% in the Copyvio detector, except for three that are just slightly above 40%, but they are only that high because each of those three has a quotation box in the story. I don't think I can get it below 40% without removing the quote boxes altogether, which I'd rather not do because I think it would reduce the quality of the article, so I'm hoping you'll find it acceptable as it currently is? — HunterKahn00:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine with me, BlueMoonset. Thank you for the offer. :) What would be the correct way to go about this? Should I remove the "Review" tag this article's listing on the WP:GAN page? Or should I mark it as seeking a second opinion? Or some other method? — HunterKahn17:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn, just leave it as it is, and I'll see if the person I have in mind can take this on. If that doesn't work, then we'll go to plan B (which is the 2ndopinion status). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Plumb has been described as a 'melting pot of genres, influences, and styles'..." There is a source here – is this definitely mentioned in the body?
Yes it is, in the reviews section. The only reason I use the citation here as well is because it's a direct quotation. — HunterKahn21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...incorporating elements from each of the Brewis brothers' earlier side projects, including the funk style of Peter Brewis' The Week That Was, and the new wave and synth rock of David Brewis' School of Language." This is quite a mouthful! I would remove the specific phrase "each of the Brewis brothers' earlier side projects, including" to get "incorporating elements from the funk style of Peter Brewis' The Week That Was, and the new wave and synth rock of David Brewis' School of Language." Or something like that.
"...the band was attracted to because of the political, economic, environmental implications of such stations." There should be an "and" after the word "economic".
"David Brewis said the individual tracks are modular and shift rapidly between sections in a more linear way than normally found on a pop album." The surname can be removed – they have already been introduced as Peter and David. This comes up in a couple of other places too.
The way I had been doing it is I referred to them as "David Brewis" or "Peter Brewis" at the beginning of a given section, and then by first name only in each subsequent reference within that section. But if you disagree with that, I can remove the last names but all from the very first references in the body of the article. — HunterKahn21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Plumb incorporated elements from the side projects of each of the Brewis brothers' side projects, including the funk style of Peter Brewis' The Week That Was and the new wave and synth rock of David Brewis' School of Language." The side projects of the side projects? Remove the duplicate.
"Lavery described the album as an 'existential crisis in a post-industrial north-east town', and, likewise..." I would replace the "and" with a semicolon – the sentence will flow better.
"Lemmon wrote the album addresses themes of..." Is this meant to be a quote or is it saying that it was the way the album was written (if that makes sense)?
"...to mean that to have more money is to have status ... It's become..." I'm not a professional quoter, but I think square brackets need to be used between the "...".
"Prior to the recording of Plumb, Field Music had shared studio space for 10 years with the band The Futureheads. It was called 8 Music, part of an arts cooperative. That studio became unavailable after the community building in which it was located was closed down, due to the Recession. So Field Music built their own new studio..." These few sentences feel awkward. I would suggest a rewrite.
"This section is too small. I think it should be combined with the critical reception to create a "Reception" section, with "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance".
"...on 1 November 2012, the Official Charts Company announced Plumb had experienced a 17% increase in sales following the nomination announcement." We already know there was a boost, so I would consider merging this and the previous part of the sentence (before the semicolon) together.
This section is incredibly long – arguably way longer than need be. I would recommend a trim-down of the reviews.
I trimmed it a bit. I realize it's still a bit long and probably wouldn't pass muster at FAC like this, but I think it's sufficient for GA now. But if you think I should trim it further, let me know! 21:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Thatoneweirdwikier. I apologize for my inactivity; some personal issues kept me off Wikipedia much longer than I expected, but I am back now and plan to start working on this no later than tomorrow. I appreciate your patience! — HunterKahn21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those hooks are brilliant (clearly sourced in the article), but I'm concerned over the copyvio detector's results. If you can get it under 40% I will be more than happy to approve this. mike•owen discuss 18:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to comment on here – good job!
On hold for