Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fluke (band)/archive1

Fluke (band)

I have been working on this article for some time now. I hope that other editors will find it is well written, thoroughly referenced and comprehensive considering the limited number of resources available on the topic. Martin Hinks 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Way too many samples! Reduce the number of samples because it is pushing fair use. Also, try using Template:cite web when citing a web source. CloudNine 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken out most of the samples from inline with the text except where it indicates a change of musical style or a significant song. I'll work on using the cite web template... Martin Hinks 16:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now all using cite web template as well. Martin Hinks 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed samples from the bottom cluster as well, only leaving in songs that show a clear change in musical direction. Hopefully this resolves your comments. Martin Hinks 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article. I agree that having that many songs bunched together verges an infringement of the tenets of fair use, but assume that this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all. I do have one other detraction, nonetheless, to this otherwise informative and well sourced article. (Sourced to death, some might say :).) Incidentally, I'd like to beef about style, and the general voice and diction used in certain portions of the article. Some sections seem to operate outside of the realm of rules regarding subordinate clauses. For example, take

The band's debut album, 2Pie Island, was released in September 2006 in the UK to virtually no critical attention either positive or negative.

The passive voice in this sentence is a personal style objection: my tendency to appreciate the active voice, when it can be used, is often hypocritically ignored by me. (To speak nothing of split infinitives.) In the above sentence the phrase "either positive or negative" sounds like a run-on sentence because it is an unrequired subordinate clause the likes of which should be set off by a comma and I must comment that if commas are not used that often it gets fluid either to the point where the prose does not seem brilliant or you're not entirely sure how the sentence started. Finally, "either-or" should be "neither-nor." I would suggest:

2 Bit Pie released 2Pie Island, the band's debut album, in September 2006 in the UK to virtually no critical attention, neither positive nor negative.

Or even better:

In September 2006, 2 Bit Pie released its debut album, 2Pie Island, in the UK. The coverage by cultural critics was minimal and overall neutral, and the album amassed only a dearth of critical attention.

Also note, for example:

The album is named Risotto because it contained a mix of the pre-released singles "Atom Bomb" and "Absurd", new tracks "Goodnight Lover", "Kitten Moon", the post-album single "Squirt" and older tracks remixed by themselves; "Mosh" being a remix of "Tosh" from Oto.

What's a risotto? I had to look that up. After learning what it is, it took an intellectually significant logical inference to determine the nature of the causality in the quote above. "Being" should generally not be used as a verb.

This content is good, but just to me, the manner in which it is presented is of generally good but occasionally dubious quality (in certain places). Martin Hinks: briefly looking over your contributions, you have a tendency to articulate things deftly. Some of this article does not have this. Also, endnotes must have been a relative nightmare: good job on that. I admire the work you've done for this article. I'm attempting to do the same for Flat Earth (right now I'm creating a "game plan" before editing), and it requires a concentrated exertion of pure brainpower. I overall support this article! --Gracenotes ^T § 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granma on the subject of Grammar

"amassed a dearth of critical attention". Are you serious? The writing in terms as contradictory as that is very much worse prose than writing in the passive voice when one could write in the active. Moreover, the use of "neither, nor" works like this:-

There was neither positive nor negative critical attention. Correct!
The critical attention was neither positive nor negative. Correct!
There was no critical attention, neither positive nor negative. Incorrect!

Why? Because there was no critical attention of either kind. The reason being that in cases 1 and 2 the negative sense of the sentence is conveyed solely by the use of the neither and nor. In sentence 3, the nagtive is conveyed by the word no. "There was no attention" is a definite statement. What sort of attention could there have been? "either positive or negative".

There was nothing wrong with the sentence to start with. Nitpicking at perfectly acceptable grammar is ridiculous!

A great number articles come up for review that are written by people who are quite ignorant of grammatical rules and use the language badly. There are others written by people for whom English is not the first language and who also need help. Let's do it instead of demolishing perfectly adequate writing just because this particular forum permits and encourages criticism.

--Amandajm 08:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support - I'll take a look through the article today and see what I can do about those passive voices. I'll also link in risotto to give the context for that sentence.

I have now looked at the sentences you specified and will continue to look through the article for any other sentences that aren't up to scratch. Many thanks, Martin Hinks 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object There's information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. The lead should only be a summary of the article. LuciferMorgan 17:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid this was an oversight on my part. Originally I had the information in the lead using inline citations, but saw that FAs don't follow that format and that the lead should just be a summary. This lead to me accidentally removing the citations without duplicating the information further down. This should now be resolved. Thanks, Martin Hinks 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent article, long standing fan of the band,

fantastic source of information. JustinCredible2006 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—1a. I can't yet support this. Please go through and simplify or chop up the long winding sentences; here are three, for which I point out problems other than their length and comlexity.
- "The band also realised at this early stage that they would experience the greatest artistic freedom if they possessed their own recording studio and so they took it upon themselves to obtain their own premises at this stage, an asset which has, according to Jon Fugler, proved invaluable in coordinating the "wider pool of people - musicians and friends - that we draw on to help."[6]" And please get rid of the "also"; where are we told before this that the band realised something?
- "When Fluke were touring for Risotto their official mascot was an animated racing car driver named Arial Tetsuo, again derived from their involvement with the Wipeout soundtrack, personified on stage by Rachel Stewart who sang the female vocals for all Fluke's live performances between 1997 and 1999." This is an involved chain: too complex. And a comma or two would make for easier reading (throughout the article, there are too few commas). In the previous para, there's a redundant "also".
- "The album is structured so that the more accessible 'pop' tracks are to be found at the beginning of the album, whilst the more ambitious ambient tracks are to be found towards the end of the album and although this could have given the album the effect of petering out it received favourable critical reviews with Billboard magazine describing it as "groundbreaking".[8][9]" And remove the several redundant "to be found"s.Tony 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, many thanks for your comments. I have just taken a look through the article and spent a few hours adjusting sentences that were too long as well as hopefully sorting out the issues that you highlighted. I'm now going to get my "real-world" proof reader to have another look through it and when I've implemented any changes she suggests I'll get back to you. Hopefully I can resolve this to your satisfaction! Martin Hinks 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'm still not wildly happy to be able to easily locate problems in the prose. For example, at random:

- "This burst of success was followed by a rush of two further singles,"—Not encyclopedic (a little excessive, a tinge of POV, and "rush" is loose semantically.
- "Though this could have produced a stagnating effect, it was received favourably by critics"—It's unclear whether the first clause is POV; I mean, was it a stagnating effect? Could have? Can't have it both ways.
- "suggesting that Fluke were to become the next big thing in Europe"—"Would", not "were to".
- "Oto was somewhat darker than Six Wheels on my Wagon,"—What does "somewhat" add? It's one of those non-words; consider removing it. Either it was darker or it wasn't, and there's no point in hedging about it.
- Sorry to be picky, but the grammar of the first two items is different: "After touring for a year with Risotto on the American, "Electric Highway Tour", and having made two appearances at ..." Easier as: "Having toured for a year with Risotto on the American, "Electric Highway Tour", and made two appearances at".

This doesn't come up to the standard of writing in other FAs in this field I've looked at. Someone else to run through it? Tony 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]