Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extraordinary Machine/archive1

Extraordinary Machine

After reading through this article, I found it to be one of the most informative and comprehensive articles about an album on the entire site. II also found it extremely well referenced and written.--Fallout boy 09:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's peer review from last September can be found here. Extraordinary Machine 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, comments:

Fails 2a (esp. "Background and production" and "Delays and leaked tracks")
The intro doesn't quite work & is confusing, what about: "Extraordinary Machine is the third album by American singer-songwriter Fiona Apple. Produced by Jon Brion, it was originally scheduled for release in 2003 but was delayed several times by Epic Records without explanation, leading to speculation that a dispute had arisen over its commercial appeal."
Direct quotes (such as "The first couple of years [after Pawn], I didn't have anything left in me to write about...I just figured if the songs came to me, they came to me, and if not, 'Oh, well, it's been fun'") need to be cited
The whole 1st paragraph of "Background and production" needs citations
Perhaps you could excise the tangential info about Frank Sinatra (or put it in a trivia section). Ditto for the birthday factoid in "A reworked version of the song was performed at Largo on September 13 (Apple's twenty-fifth birthday), and Apple was joined by Brion on the celeste."
The URL for ref 2 is dead
Ref 4 doesn't point to the correct page on the website, couldn't verify source...
"It has some good bits, but I still think we never have topped the second version. Ideally, we would combine some of this with that, but obviously we can't. Sigh. Ask the others what they think - I know she was partial to both of them, particularly the second". is a direct quote, needs a ref
Quote attribution: "It's our understanding that Fiona is still in the midst of recording her next album, and we at Epic Records join music lovers everywhere in eagerly anticipating her next release."
"Delays and leaked tracks" is repetitive & needs serious copyedit
"Reception" is a section stub...
etc. (more of the same all over...) --Mikkerpikker 11:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PLEASE enlarge the font of the "Notes" section, it is unreadable! Mikkerpikker 11:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Articles with sections that are stubs should not become Featured Articles. They need to be well-researched.Soothing R 14:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, per above comments (I should note that I am one of the people alongside Fallout boy who has been contirbuting to this article). There's hardly any material on the album's history following its release (its Grammy nomination could use a mention, for example), and no quotes from any critics regarding the official version. Also, as Mikkerpikker pointed out above, some factoids and bits of trivia I originally added to the article are unimportant (as I now realise) and should be removed. I think that it should have gone through peer review again. That said, I respect and appreciate the concerns raised by other users, and hope that this article can be brought up to featured standard eventually. Extraordinary Machine 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the stubs argument, this is an article re: a commercially available product that may be misconstrued as advertising by a casual reader. We may be validating more than just ephemeral pop by featuring this (and many others of a similar category) article as best practice. --HasBeen 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]