Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Holes & Revelations/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Maralia 15:09, August 15, 2008 [1].

Black Holes & Revelations

[edit]
Nominator(s): naerii

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's got all the information I can find in it, it covers most topic areas, and I like it. Have at it. naerii 12:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I'm traveling, so responses may be delayed a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow really, for ex. Drowned in Sound and AbsolutePunk are professional reviews so anything they say is de facto a reliable source for what reviewers say. 'Reliability' doesn't come into the equation as you can't be unreliable about your own opinions. naerii 14:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • All the stars in the infobox look god-awful. Why are these ratings even in the infobox?
  • Uh, see the FAs I linked above also. I don't actually know of any album article that has a cover the width of the infobox. I actually think maybe that the width is hardcoded into the infobox. naerii 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracklistings via the template {{tracklist}}?
  • "Album art" section- doesn't deserve a subsection, if all you are going to say is that it was designed by X and then describe what the picture already tells us.
  • Current ref 18 a big fat red error.
  • All references should be completely filled out via {{cite web}} or similar.
  • All the table crap after personnel seems kinda... pointless.... it's prolly WP:ALBUM's way of doing things, but considering it's entirely unreferenced, can you explain why readers need to know each and every country's release? Wouldn't these tables make more sense next to the sections that talk about release, reception, sales, etc?
  • I have no reasoning why, it just seems to be the way things are done, for example Be Here Now (album). It seems to be the way that if you put it in someone opposes you for having pointless information, but if you take it out you're not being comprehensive enough. I have no particular opinion either way. I removed one of the more egregious sections. If you feel particularly strongly about them I'll remove them. I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this. naerii 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (responding in block, because filling out a bunch of inline comments just clutters things up.) I don't have to care what conventions WP:ALBUM comes up with (and I don't see where is says in that section that the infobox must contain a list of professional reviews.) In the infobox, the ratings only clutter the prose. It makes much more sense for a table to be in the relevant section on reception, i.e. how video game articles do it. Precedent isn't a recent to say that you can't make a change.
    • By the same token, rendering an "oppose" based on that logic is poor form because you are holding the article to a personal standard that is not an aspect of FA criteria. Precedent, as you commented, does not mean you can't make a change- however wikipedia is built upon consensus and that is a discussion for WP:ALBUMS, not a FA review. Forcing that particular issue falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)
  • Image:Chris Wolstenholme Lollapalooza 2007.jpg meets image criteria, however as noted on Image:Floating acrobats.jpg, the current license is not cc-3.0. You should change the license to reflect its current state.
  • LEAD: Feels a bit short. Perhaps flesh out to three paragraphs to talk about writing and such? Also, it might make more sense to have the lead follow the sequence set by the article body instead of starting out with release dates, jumping to sales and then back again.
  • Clunky sentences which should be made more direct:
    • "However, the band found recording there very slow, and they found it hard to make decisions on which songs to include,[4] so they decided to make a change in atmosphere and go to New York to finish the recording.[4]" Just be direct, e.g. "The band found recording to be very slow, making it hard to decide which songs to include on the album. The band travelled to New York to complete recording." or something of the like.
    • "The album was released on 3 July, 2006 in the UK and across the next few days it was released in the USA, Australia, Taiwan and Japan."
    • "Singles were released in both the UK and the US, although they were released in different orders in each country." think you want 'though' instead.
  • Image layout of the bassist screws up lyrical content header on wider resolutions. Add a {{-}} or rework placement.
  • Critical reception isn't doing much more me, acting more like an amalgamation of quotes without much context. I've got the album, love it myself, but even I can't really make heads or tails of the section. Sure, it might have received mixed reviews, but with a metacritic rating of 75, "mixed" would have to mean lots of people gave it 100s while a fervent minority gave it 0s. The first paragraph is pretty good, but doesn't demonstrate the "mixed" portion of the equation.
    • From then, it gets nebulous. Is a 4.2 bad? is that out of 5, 10, or a 100? "Overblown"-meaning what? Throwing out words doesn't help us when there is no real discussion of what critics liked/didn't like about the songs, instead all we get is "ridiculous".
-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist2;

  • Oppose 1C-comprehensive. A lot of work has gone into the article, but it is still only a merging of different web sources. Eg: Muse's previous album, Absolution was released in 2003 to critical acclaim. Absolution had brought the band mainstream exposure in the United States for the first time.[6]. Its cut and paste and there is no insight or context that I can see. I dont think its a bad article - far from it- but its not enough along to bring to FAC. Ceoil sláinte 23:22, 14 August 2008 (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/Black_Holes_%26_Revelations/archive1&oldid=1138456104"