Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City of Blinding Lights/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

City of Blinding Lights

[edit]
Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Hello everyone, I am nominating "City of Blinding Lights" for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FAC criteria. It passed GAN with flying colours and recently underwent a Peer Review which led to some additions in both images and composition. I have compared it with several of the current song FAs, and I believe that this article either matches or exceeds the information that they have (although since I did a lot of work turning it from this into its present form, I probably would think that!). I'm pretty sure that all the sourcing checks out, and everything online is archived in case the webpages are later taken down. I hope that the article is to your liking. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You can wait and see what others think, but I vote to lose the File:Midtown Manhattan as City of Blinding Lights.JPG image. It's a bit over the top, and its direct relevance is questionable. • Ling.Nut 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll keep it in mind, but I don't think that I'll remove it until I've had a bit more feedback on it from other editors. It was suggested in the peer review that the image be included to help illustrate the song's lyrics, so I'd like to see what other editors think about its inclusion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ling Nut. Maybe a different photo of New York would be good, but this particular photo looks cheesy. Consider adding a picture of GM Place, and maybe something from the Obama campaign. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this image of the Brooklyn Bridge? It is one that I like very much, but my only concern with it is the length of the image. I will try to incorporate an image of GM Place or of Obama's campaign, but given the length of the sections and the number of images and quotes already used, I think there may be some difficulty in fitting both. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images of GM Place and from Obama's campaign have been added. I've swapped out the previous image of NYC with the bridge image linked above. It's a featured image, so it should be okay I think. Alt's have been provided for all three, but I'm not particularly good with architectural alts so somebody may want to double-check what I've written for the GM Place image. Thanks for the feedback thus far! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text has been modified accordingly; I tried to base it on the portrait examples on WP:ALT. I only hope that I didn't make it overly detailed. As for the website, I can only assume that it is a temporary downtime. I was on it just yesterday and it was working fine. Given that the site is run by IRMA and is their official archive, I can't imagine that it would be taken down wthout notice. I imagine that it should be up again within the next little. I've added a temporary back-up (reference 59) for the time being until the server issues are resolved. The source I have used for this backup is Chart Stats which, according to WP:GOODCHARTS, is reliable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text and external links seem fine now. --PresN 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Fine What makes these reliable?

  • http://www.atu2.com/news/directing-u2-from-vertigo-to-vancouver-with-alex--martin.html
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5lSh9TQd1
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5lShG3fje
  • The Assayas, Cogan, and McCormick books are only used once. It would be nicely presented if they were put in notes instead.
  • This needs to be put in references and each page cited in the the notes: a b c d e "Chapter Five: City of Blinding Lights". U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Guitar Recorded Version. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2005. pp. 33–47. ISBN 0634096907.

RB88 (T) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The atu2 source was an exclusive interview with the directors of the music video that contains information not available anyplace else. The conductor of that interview, Matt McGee, is an author well known to U2 related subjects for the book U2: A Diary, which chronicles the life of the band dating from the 1970s to 2009 and is heavily used on many U2 articles on Wikipedia (particularly Timeline of U2).
The two webcitation sources link to U2Gigs. The U2Gigs website is an archive of U2 concerts that is identical to the ones on the U2.com website (Vertigo and U2 360°). I selected those two particular pages to make it easier so that people do not need to trawl through over 200 individual setlists to ascertain that the information is correct. U2 themselves ascertained the validity of the website by citing it in the liner notes of the Dutch version of No Line on the Horizon. If you prefer, however, then I can change the cites to the generic tour pages on U2.com.
That'd be best. An official source is always better, even if it has loads of searches and flash menus and whatnot. RB88 (T) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, give me two minutes and I'll have it changed to U2.com. I only used U2Gigs to try and avoid using primary sources as much as it was possible. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can use primary sources for things like track listing and gigs without fear. RB88 (T) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for responding to my replies so quickly and for pointing out that primary sources can sometimes be okay! Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Assayas, Cogan, and McCormick refs have been moved to inline as part of Notes, and the pages for the Hal Leonard book have been cited individually with the main ref moved down to References. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concern addressed Just a quick comment. I noticed the running time has been changed to only list the single length. I disagree with this. The article is primarily about the song, which happens to be a single. The infobox, although indicating the song is a single, captures other information that is true of the song as a whole (lyricist, composer, producer, etc). I think both lengths should be included. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I hadn't even noticed that was gone. I can see the original intent to simplify the infobox, but I agree with you that the album version should be listed since much of the article, particularly in regards to the lengths in "Composition", is more about the album version than the single. So re-added in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - There is some problem with the chart statement quoted below:

'It charted in the United Kingdom for twenty-one weeks, peaking at number two and ranking number 113 on the year-end charts'

Peak of 2 is correct, so is the 113 end of year. The part about charted for twenty-two weeks however is incorrect. The Chart Plus source while an excellent reliable source is here being misread(WP:NOR) as it shows the single charting for 22 weeks on there charts of Top250Top200, which is much bigger then the official chart. The positions above 75 where not at the time official positions recognised by The Official Charts Company(today it only recognises the Top100) and so you can't say it charted at those positions over 75. If you want to specify the number of weeks on the UK Charts then some clarification and another reference is required. Chart Stats here shows it spent 9 weeks in the Top75. You could change the sentence to say 'It charted in the United Kingdom Top75 singles for nine weeks.' and add the ChartStat reference or you could remove that part entirely. SunCreator (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for catching that! I've altered the statement so that it now reads "It charted in the Top 75 in the United Kingdom for nine weeks, peaking at number two and ranking number 113 on the year-end charts" with the link you provided above. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good now. Just to give you a heads up: the 'Chart Stat' source given is the one recommended for the UK by WP:GOODCHARTS. However, there is discussion underway here and here about reliable sources for UK chart information. SunCreator (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen both of those discussions recently while providing citations for all of the various U2 album and single articles. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of these articles, I really have no alternative but to use Everyhit and ChartStats, since over a 30 year career a 100 week archive on OCC doesn't provide any sources for them. As they seem to be borderline (some editors accept them as reliable, others do not) I have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Personally I don't have any qualms about using either source, and they certainly seems to be reliable to me. Until either has been definitively decided to not meet the reliable sourcing guidelines, I don't see any reason not to continue them (particularly since most of the objections have been raised by a single editor). Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very interesting and engaging read. Sources, alt text, image copyright and disambig links all look good. Appears to be comprehensive and does not go into unnecessary detail. Layout is very logical and easy to follow. A great article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many niggling little problems. A few examples:
  • "The song was inspired by an exhibition of Anton Corbijn's photographs in The Netherlands." The country is called the Netherlands, not The Netherlands.
Fixed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... sustained over ten seconds". What does "over" mean in this context? Sustained for ten seconds or sustained for more than ten seconds?
"Over" changed to "for". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The underlying theme of "City of Blinding Lights" is lost innocence, as reflected in the chorus. This viewpoint was reinforced ...". What viewpoint?
Altered to "The theme..." MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was shot at General Motors Place in Vancouver, British Columbia during the Vertigo Tour on 27 April 2005 ...". So the tour lasted for just one day?
Reworded to "It was shot at General Motors Place in Vancouver, British Columbia on 27 April 2005, with additional footage taken from the band's Vertigo Tour concert on 28 April." MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The completed video shows a live performance of the band playing the song on the Vertigo Tour stage." So what does the uncompleted video show?
Removed "completed". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "City of Blinding Lights" was positively received following the release of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb ...". How was it received before the release of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb?
It had no reception beforehand; removed the second part of that sentence. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... it is joined by a theme played by both The Edge and Bono in piano and lower-register guitar drones.". "Both" is obviously redundant, but it's also ambiguous. Do The Edge and Bono both play piano and "guitar drones", or does one play piano and the other guitar drones? Can themes by played "in" piano?
Reworded for clarity. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The track was used by Barack Obama as the background theme of his presidential candidacy announcement ...".
I'm not quite sure why you've bolded the "of"; are you trying to indicate that a different word (such as "for") would be better? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Malleus has said that he will review the alterations made to the article's prose when he has time to do so. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the people in charge of the FAC process not to close this review within the next 24 hours; I will be travelling during that time and will be unable to respond to any further comments until then. I have asked several people for assistance in copyediting the article so that Malleus's prose concerns above may be addressed while I am away. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. A good article, but lacking in some respects for me.
  • The lead should mention that the song was a top ten hit in many countries. I'd put it in the first paragraph, in fact; it's more important than where the music video was shot.
  • I don't understand why you listed five countries, when there are also others in made the top ten in. I would be tempted to say "it was a top ten hit in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and several other countries" (naming the 'home base' area) and leave it at that. I also still don't see why the location of the music video shoot is so important to be in the first paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed; and the music video is listed there because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. I've left the first paragraph to talk about aspects of the songs release (what album, when, charts, music video), and the other two paragraphs about other aspects of the song (how it was written/what it was written about, how it was received and has been used later). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at it this way. There are tens of thousands of song articles in WP and a hundred already about U2 songs. What makes this one special? What makes this one, when put up on the main page of one of the most popular websites in the world, intice readers who aren't U2 fans and who aren't even necessarily pop music fans, into wanting to read it? I would include that this is one of Obama's favorite songs up in the lead. That's more important than where the music video was filmed. As it is, you're deemphasizing the Obama connection in the lead (saying it was played at "several" of his events, when it was a regular feature of his campaign stops, and splitting the inaugural performance out past intervening material). That doesn't make sense to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is just a brief summary of the rest of the article; it is by it's nature supposed to touch on the different sections. The cause of this disagreement seems to be that you feel the information in the lead should be subjectively ordered by importance where I feel that it should be put together so that different aspects are summarized at different times. WP:LEAD says nothing about an order of importance either. Though the Obama deemphasis is not intentional, I would disagree that it being one of his favourite songs is more important. They're very different parts of the subject; one is about the single's release, the other about it's enduring legacy. I don't think that importance can really be compared, or that it matters over a simple sentence. I will try to slip the favourite song information into the third paragraph with the other Obama information, but as I said before I've used the first paragraph to detail the song's release; date, charts, and video.
My concern is about proportionality with the rest of the article. Is the Obama information important? Naturally, but I don't think any one point holds more importance than another; they are all parts that make up the whole. I don't want to make the info in the lead disproportionate in consideration of the amount of info in the article. The lead is just a brief summary to hook the reader, so we don't want to repeat every little detail. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammy Award names do not need to be quoted.
  • The statement "and has since become a live staple of U2 concerts" is an overreach, since there's only been one tour since its 'release tour'. This phrase should be reserved for the likes of "Where the Streets Have No Name", "One", etc., that have consistently appeared on 4 or 5 or more tours in a row. "City" may get there, but it hasn't had a chance to yet.
  • To me, the Composition and Theme section loses the forest for the trees. What's the most distinctive thing about the song? What are its hooks? I think the first is that four-note descending piano line at the start and end. The second hook is the "ooh - ooh - ooh - ooh ... / Oh! you! look! so! beautiful tonight" part. Those are the two parts that I'd try to get across to readers more.
  • That the first verse is set in London comes as a bit jarring, given that the article's been going on and on about NYC. That needs a little more elaboration.
  • Yes, the piano intro was played by Clayton during the Vertigo shows, but what about the piano parts after that? Some mention should be made of the group's use of offstage musicians and/or sequencers to generate a denser sound.
  • And I'd mention that intro piano part is a one-finger, four-note one, lest anyone think Clayton is the next Elton John.
  • On the 360 Tour, I'd mention that it makes it makes use of the fully descending video cone ... whatever you call that thing.
  • Does the Stockman Walk On: The Spiritual Journey of U2 book or the Scharen One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Who Seek God book have any analysis or thoughts about the song? Several books have been written about U2's music that delve into it at a deeper level than newspaper/magazine reviews can. Some of these are published before "City" came out but these two are from 2005 and 2006.
  • I'll ask around to see if anybody who has copies of those books can provide any information, but as I'm an atheist and don't particularly have any interest in religious interpretations of lyrics neither of them are a part of my on-hand U2 resources (hence why I cannot check them). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here and elsewhere, you've got to identify people a little better (you can't just say "Bill Friskics-Warren felt that the final line ..." or the reader will say "Who the hell is Bill Friskics-Warren?"). Say "Sociology professor Joe Smith writes that ..." or "Minister Jane Holly sees in the lyric ..." or "Music writer Pat Field notes that ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Reception and legacy section, why is Billboard Adult Top 40 chart linked but none of the other charts linked?
  • Was it nominated for any other Grammys? If so, I'd mention that. And again, Grammy name doesn't go in quotes.
  • This is ungrammatical: "The film was parodied in 2009 The Simpsons episode – titled "The Devil Wears Nada", with the song ..."
  • ESPN (or somebody) is using the song in 2010 World Cup promos as well.
  • I'd like to see more about its use by the Obama campaign. This is one of the main things that makes it more than just the average U2 hit song. What was it about the song that made it compelling for this use? Have other campaigns used it as well? This, as well as the repeat World Cup use, is the kind of thing that gives a song extended life and greater importance, and needs to be expanded upon here.
  • I've moved it down and added a little bit to it which I hope covers why it was picked by the band. I'm finding it very difficult to find anything regarding the reaction to its performance; unsurprisingly, every article I've found focuses more on the overall celebration than on one individual song. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still a lot more mileage you can get out of this performance. His remarks were directed right at Obama and were during the opening part of "City", not in between songs; you could give the full Bono quote, which thanks Obama for making the song part of the soundtrack of his campaign and more and alludes to the oddity of four Irish boys from North Dublin being there at all. And you can mention that Bono changed some lyrics for this performance, working in a reference to Lincoln and also including a refrain about America getting off the ground. And he did a call-out to Joe Biden!? (Irish connection?) I also wouldn't say the song was abbreviated, because it covers 4 1/2 minutes or so; if some particular part was left out (the bridge?), mention that. Again, this performance was to the largest number of people the song will ever have; it's worth going into in the article, not just passing by in a hurry. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brooklyn Bridge show is called that in one place, and Empire–Fulton Ferry State Park in another. It should be made clear they're one and the same.
  • A concert name such as "Stop Sellafield" doesn't need to be quoted.
  • Linking of publishers in the cites seems inconsistent. Many are linked, but CNN and Huffington Post are not, for example. Some are linked on first reference but not later, but Allmusic is linked on second reference and not the first.
  • Linking of authors in the cites also seems inconsistent. Why David Browne linked but not Ann Powers or Stephen Thomas Erlewine? There may be others, I just spotted two.

Overall, the article strikes me as a collection of facts about the song and its recording, rather than a unified whole about a work of art and its impact. In part that's how WP works, but I think even within WP guidelines this article can be improved in this direction. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. When I first looked at this a few days ago I really did think it was some way off the mark, but there's been some impressive work done since then, so I'm happy to be able to support its promotion now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I hadn't come across this before, but in terms of prose looks fine - I see no deal-breakers..and it's about as comprehensive and article on a song as I have ever seen... well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This might look like an easy pile-on support, but I've been watching the article for about a week, meaning to review, and was initially going to oppose on prose grounds. Then I saw Malleus had already covered that, so I left it a few days. When I came back, the prose had already improved, so I made some tweaks that I thought might push it over the edge. It wasn't until this morning that I found time to look at the rest. Not keen on most of U2's output myself, but this is about as interesting an article about a single as we can get on Wikipedia, helped by elements such as its uncommon development, use in Obama's campaign and the level of detail of the composition section. Nothing more to say, really; nice work, Steve T • C 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 28 February 2010 (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/City_of_Blinding_Lights/archive1&oldid=1138457633"