Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rumours/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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [1].

Rumours

[edit]
Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I feel like I've written a Jackie Collins novel.

Come on oldies, support. (Although you probably won't after I've just called you oldies.) RB88 (T) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Single "free"-licensed image had incorrect copyright statement but was corrected. Copyrighted album cover and 19-second excerpt of Don't Stop are used as fair use material; their fair use rationales are justifiable. Jappalang (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm too young to remember this first time round, but I've heard good things about it, and the article's looking good too. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Before my time too but definitely worth the effort. Also, I kept the lead as it was because it's pretty tight and flowing. Hope you don't mind. I look forward to more feedback. In the meantime, try and listen to it from start and finish. ;) RB88 (T) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed "Grammy Award-winning" because it was POV as a qualifier there (you call it award winning before even calling it an album). I'll try to squeeze in a full copy-edit soon, but until then, try to reduce passive voice, especially in the Studio sessions and Composition sections. (a search for "was" will point what sentences need fixing). Also, I am hesitant to consider this article as comprehensive as The Complete Guide to Their Music seems to be an important source not used.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Guide is some guy's interpretation of their music and lyrics, thus Further reading. Stop clutching at straws Wesley-style. Fleetwood Mac in the Classic Albums and Rumours DVD-A are much more qualified to talk about these things don't you think. Plus Rikky Rooksby has not got much more to say than what's already been summated in the article. I'll have a look at the passive though. RB88 (T) 03:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ended up using it as a streamlining source, but not for musical elements though as it'd be POV. RB88 (T) 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Grammy Album of the Year is important enough to be given a line in the lead. The 2004 reissue isn't.—indopug (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Course it is. Remasters are integral parts of old albums as the sound and quality is changed. Plus this one actually changed the tracklist and had a whole cd of the demos of each song (hence a summation of Track listing in the lead). RB88 (T) 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Sorted out the passive. Some is needed however in every written piece for varied prose. If you have any more issues, please bring them here. RB88 (T) 03:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I am old enough to remember this, first time round (just). I remember thinking they were all rather old - some were in their thirties!! My detailed comments on the article were given at peer review, all addressed, and I am happy to support the article's promotion. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Brian. It wouldn't be in this position as an article without your input. And age is just a number etc etc. It didn't hinder FMac that's for sure. RB88 (T) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Rafablu88 has worked through all the points I raised, comments which I've moved to the talk page. Outstanding (minor) points are left below. I've made a fairly comprehensive review and, with a bit of copy-editing remaining, am generally happy that this is FA standard. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fleetwood has noted that everyone made "tremendous emotional sacrifices" just to attend studio work." - when did he note this?
    • I don't know, and to be honest I don't think it matters. The content is more important. Anyhow, the verb tense shows it's retrospective. RB88 (T) 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I tend to think that whenever opinion is given on history, by those involved, its always useful to try and find a date - even if its just dated to the publication date of the source, with a footnote for clarity. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree here. It doesn't matter if he said in 1980, 1990, or 2000. The verb makes it clear it's some time after the event. Plus adding the sources year when it doesn't give the actual date of the quote is a bit futile. People can just click on the cite and see the publication date. I think adding years everywhere tends to ruin the prose or the timeframe flow. RB88 (T) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fleetwood Mac's main lyricists—Buckingham, Christine McVie and Nicks—worked individually on specific songs, but sometimes shared lines with the band." - written lines, or sung lines? The former is implied, so perhaps "composed (individual?) lines" might be better?
  • Comment: A few points:
  1. Origins section, first paragraph: I'm not keen on "eponymous" instead of the name of the album. It substitutes cleverness for clarity.
    • Fair enough.
  2. It gave them radio exposure. Had they not had any before?
    • Used extensive.
  3. No need for a colon in "The line-up at the time was: guitarist ..." "Consisted of" would be better than "was."
  4. You introduce divorce before saying they were married. I wonder if the issue of emotional turmoil should have its own section, with some introduction to the characters to that readers can keep the names straight. Understanding this paragraph would be quite tricky for people who didn't already know the issues. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put the marriage before. I don't think more detail is needed. The article is about the album after all, and not the band. The two paragraphs are a nice summary and flow well, i.e. last album, hit single, line-up, explaining the situation of each, press issues, start of studio, logistics. RB88 (T) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Binksternet, more to come. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The starting of the second sentence "Recorded at US locations during 1976" has several problems: the abbreviation "US" comes before "United States" is introduced, and "U.S." (with two periods) is the abbreviation settled upon by WikiProjects I'm involved in, especially the large and exacting Milhist Project. The locations themselves were in Florida and California: perhaps the sentence can be recast as "Recorded in Florida and California during 1976..." The comma after Richard Dashut is not needed.
    Sorted out the whole paragraph. Also, British English uses US (check the BBC or The Guardian's MOS). RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I love how the word "rumours" comes in during the discussion of the aftermath of the previous album. Nice!
    That only happened yesterday after edits, but I did notice it. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Dashut quote "the craft of record making" must be referenced.
    All cites cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or a paragraph break. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree. The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone clearly states that the "citation should be placed either directly after the quotation" or "after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." Not at the end of the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The phrase "he and Christine McVie jammed with guitar and piano" indicates which man? Dashut? Later, the word "latter" is clumsy.
    Added Buckingham, but I don't think latter is that clumsy, especially since it immediately follows the sentence with the two names, i.e. there shouldn't be any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The phrase "extensive of cocaine" should be "extensive use of cocaine".
    Done. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Buckingham's quote "the whole being more than the sum of the parts" must be referenced.
    All cites cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or a paragraph break. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The wording of "more abstract with the instrumentals in her songs" leaves the reader wondering what "her songs" were. Perhaps it could be "the songs on which she sang lead" or "the songs which she wrote" or something similar.
    Done. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. From personal knowledge gleaned from the audio engineer grapevine, the phrase "damaged by the Record Plant's recording machine" is not precise. What happened to the multi-track master tape is that the main one was wa-a-ay overused—it went back and forth past the playback heads more times than in any previous album mixdown, and became worn out. Fleetwood Mac were too undecided about what the mixdown should sound like, and they spent too much time trying different mixes. When they finally settled on a mix, the tape was sounding dull from the loss of high frequencies from its wear and tear against the playback head. The multi-track backup tape (a one-generation down copy) was used to mix the recording session tracks down to the final stereo master. All this means is that the final consumer version is one generation removed from the original—a very slight diminishing of detail along with a very slight addition of tape hiss. The Record Plant's tape machine was not responsible... such a problem would have occurred at any recording studio given Fleetwood Mac's indecisive state at that time.
    The sources don't mention much detail on this, apart from mangling or "chewing", hence damage. And I can only go on them. But it would have been nice to add a bit more. As an expert, would you have any engineers' trade publications that might have mentioned it in more detail, even if it was just in passing? RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is one technical mention of the multitrack tape dulling over time, with details about transients etc., though the author doesn't name the album. This one is the bonanza, an article in the recording industry rag Sound On Sound which talks about tape decay and the backup safety master. Say, I learned something new from that article: the backup tape was the same generation of basic tracks, so only the vocal overdubs transferred to it were down one generation. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Added the info in summarised, layman's terms. And also added a bit more here and there from it. RB88 (T) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The sentence which starts "The front cover features a stylised shot" is in the present tense, but the paragraph is talking about 1977. Is the past tense more appropriate?
    Using the past tense might suggest that the release is no longer in existence, when it is. But, I can change it if you still feel the same. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hear from other editors on this. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I don't think it's that big a deal though. RB88 (T) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the present tense is better, as if it was in the past tense one may think that the album cover was changed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I jumped in and changed a bunch of wording in the studio sessions section. My familiarity with the subject matter made me think I could raise the technical accuracy of the section without making it too opaque for non-technical sorts. I corrected some wikilinks that didn't point to the optimum target, and I changed some wording about Sausalito and Berkeley, places I've been to on countless occasions. Let me know if the results don't satisfy. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. Some of the stuff needed a bit more. But in general, I simplified most of it as it seemed too technical. Even I struggled to fully understand it sometimes. It's better to keep it simple and summative rather than too expert-y. RB88 (T) 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We-e-ell, I thought I would make all those changes so that we wouldn't be faced with supporting each one here on the FAC page, but I see that your simplifications have fundamentally changed some of the meanings that I had intended:
        • I wrote that the ladies stayed at a "condominium near the town's main thoroughfare along the waterfront" but you trimmed it back to "condominium in the city centre." Sausalito is one of those cities all on edge, where the so-called "centre" is shoved up against one border. As such, how can the popular waterfront shopping and restaurant district, the location of city offices, be the center of the city? It is instead along the waterfront, at the extreme eastern edge of the city.
        • I changed a phrase to this: "studio's lodge among the private residences perched on the steep hillside to the west" after which you restored it to "studio's lodge in the adjacent hills." The studio's lodge was on the slope of Sausalito, not in the adjacent hills. Sausalito has a tiny strip of flat land near sea level—the majority of its area is on a steep slope rising up to the west of the waterfront. Lots and lots of private homes are on this steep slope; it is the main residential district. The other two residential districts are the much smaller houseboat berth area and the waterfront area. The reference "DVD"... does it specify the lodge's address? If memory serves, the recording studio's lodge was simply one of the large private homes dotting the steep slope of Sausalito, not something farther away.
          • Well, I can only go on the sources available sorry. Everything is very vague. The waterfront was mentioned but no specific location was given for the women's place. The men's place only details "the hills" and that's it. I think it's enough info tbh without going on too much detail. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wrote "monitor loudspeakers without extended high frequency response" but you scaled it back to "poor quality monitor loudspeakers". The source says "it had very dead speakers" which does not mean "poor quality" in pro audio; "dead" has a number of meanings but when applied to loudspeakers very often means "lack of high freqs." The Record Plant had some classic high quality studio monitors which did not have extended high frequency response up to where Caillat wished it to be. Aside from the attenuated HF response, the speakers in the Record Plant were spot-on for voice-range frequencies, and very neutral, not colored, within their intended bandwidth. They were very high quality but with a design goal at variance to Caillat's expectations.
          • I used Caillat's original "dead speakers" since you say "very often means". If he didn't mention it himself, then it's always better to quote instead of crossing the WP:OR line. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's go one step closer to the original and quote Caillat's "very dead speakers". One of the possible meanings of "dead speakers" is that they don't work at all; not the case here. Instead, Caillat used the phrase "very dead speakers" which, perversely, isn't used to mean non-working speakers. Instead, "very dead speakers" goes over the line into overstatement, to describe loudspeakers that are working but are not "brilliant" or "bright" or full range with appropriately extended highs. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wrote "From the beginning, Buckingham took charge of the studio sessions to carefully build "a pop album"–he decided not to record all of the tracks together as live takes" but you restored the earlier "From the beginning, Buckingham took charge of the studio sessions to make "a pop album" and decided not to record tracks as live takes." The biggest problem I have with your version is that every "take" recorded was "live" for Rumours—all of them. There were no sequencers or drum machines recording "non-live" tracks. It works like this: you sing or play your part "live" in real time, you get recorded in real time. Your performance is "live", but all by yourself, with the other musicians canned on tape. To make the point intended in the reference, the sentence should say that Buckingham imagined that none of the tracks would be recorded the classic blues-rock way in which all the musicians would gather at the recording studio and play along with each other at the same time. Instead, Lindsay was thinking that each musician would record alone so that the parts would be very much isolated from each other for maximum creative scope in the subsequent mixdown.
          • Again, I can only go on the sources. The info came straight from the horse's mouth and that's what I put. In the end, I've decided to remove it. It doesn't add much and if, as you suggest, there is reader ambiguity, then it's better to err on the safe side. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wrote "Baffles were placed around the drum kit and around John McVie" but you took out one word to restore "Baffles were placed around the drum kit and John McVie." Your wording puts baffles around a nucleus of two musicians who are unseparated from each other. My version puts baffles around two musicians, each one separated from the other by baffles. My version is what the Sound On Sound article states.
        • About your version of the vari-speed oscillator wizard, you wrote "which played the Sausalito tapes in his left ear and the safety masters in his right" but both tapes were from Sausalito. Both the over-used master tapes and the pristine safety tapes were recorded in Sausalito, simultaneously on twin recorders, with the safeties put immediately in storage after the tracking sessions. Then you wrote "he converged their respective speeds and make-ups, especially in relation to the drum tracks." Yes, he converged their respective speeds, but what do you mean by "make-ups" or "especially in relation to the drum tracks." All the best tracks were getting "converged" during this operation, with none more important than the other, none "especially". Two of the drum tracks, the snare and hi-hat, were being used to line the tapes up in time, but these two were not made more important thereby—they just provided excellent timing information.
        • Just a little FYI: each 2-inch 24-track tape on its large aluminum reel would hold one normal-length pop song. Each song had a master tape and an initially identical safety tape. The guy with the VSO and headphones mixed each pair together using the best tracks from each.
          • This is where's it's at now based on your expert view: "A specialist was hired to rectify the Sausalito tapes using a vari-speed oscillator. Through a pair of headphones which played the damaged tapes in his left ear and the safety master recordings in his right, he converged their respective speeds aided by the timings provided by the snare and hi-hat audio tracks." Good? RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Finally, one observation unrelated to my wording changes: the sentence "The album's working title in Sausalito was Yesterday's Dreams" seems wholly out of place in the paragraph where it now appears. Perhaps it can be moved down a paragraph or two, and be incorporated more skilfully into the flow of the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed; the wording of the studio sessions section satisfies me. The photo of Sausalito is nice, but I think I might try to pop by 2200 Bridgeway and snap a photo of the famed recording studio, now closed and held by a bank. Has anybody seen this little video of The Plant made by Mick Fleetwood last June? If you have enough cash, you can buy The Plant from the bank, with the audio equipment inside a bargaining point. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on just the MOS matter about leaving direct quotes with no footnote at the end of the sentence which introduces each one. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. A little fix! Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just realised this and am a bit shocked that you've gone from a support to an object based on a minor redundancy. As I explained, all citations cover ALL the preceding material up to the previous citation or a paragraph break, INCLUDING ALL QUOTATIONS WITHIN THAT SPACE. It's a bit redundant to put the same number over and over, sentence after sentence. It also inhibits readership. RB88 (T) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is a minor point, but one that factors directly in the FA requirement that the article follow MOS. Because they can hold up a FAC, no MOS matter is minor. The MOS appears to contradict your wish to keep the text uncluttered when it demands a footnote following the end quotation mark of a quote or at the end of a sentence introducing a quote. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's implicit that the cites cover certain material. I have often been told at FAC to remove consequent duplicates, even when quotes are present. It's just intuitive. I don't see what fears you have or what fears will be alleviated by me coping and pasting a ref a few times. I mean you could have even done it yourself. I'm a bit puzzled why it warranted a support to oppose. RB88 (T) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone states that the "citation should be placed either directly after the quotation" or "after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." I don't see the implicit part you mention. I have no objection to you, and the article is excellent, but all FAs must follow MOS. It is a simple fix. You stated your belief that a footnote covering a paragraph should not follow each quote in a paragraph which is why I did not fix it myself, and why I changed my !vote to oppose. I'm not going to fix something against your wishes. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Support. This addition of some 70 named refs seems a lot like it should be listed as an example at Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I do not think you need to lower the article's readability by littering it with unasked-for footnotes. I will remove the ones I think excessive, and I will then support the article for FA. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia. I was merely following the consistent citations rule and leading it to its logical conclusion, a ref for every sentence. I'm quite upset you've removed them. I want my article to overzealously adhere to every single rule in the book. I am sick and tired of rationality and intuition and I do think our readers are idiot sheep. Thanks for the support anyway. RB88 (T) 09:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, became integral members of Fleetwood Mac following the success of Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later." Really--"following"? No. They wrote most of the songs on Fleetwood Mac and performed on all of them. Surely they were "integral members" of the group by early 1975, when that album was recorded. DocKino (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're missing the point here. It's not denying they were members before Fleetwood Mac. It's merely saying that the success they had crafting songs for both albums, which sold well, made them crucial to Fleetwood Mac's songwriting. When Fleetwood hired them before Fleetwood Mac, this was not apparent and they were just back-up. In fact, only Buckingham was wanted as a guitarist but he brought Nicks along as well. RB88 (T) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me? If I was really missing the point, I suppose you wouldn't have bothered to rewrite the caption, as you did. Care to apologize for your sour attitude?
      • Whatever, friend. I'm afraid it is still you who are missing the point. And the point is that you have still written a very poor caption. Fleetwood Mac consists of 11 songs—Buckingham and/or Nicks wrote or cowrote 6 of them. Nicks was the sole writer (and lead singer) of the album's third single. Rumours consists of 11 songs—Buckingham and/or Nicks wrote or cowrote 7 of them. But you'd have us understand that Buckingham and Nicks were not "integral to the band's songwriting" during the conception and recording of Fleetwood Mac, not "integral to the band's songwriting" after the successful release of that album, and not "integral to the band's songwriting" during the conception and recording of Rumours. OK. I'd say you've got a serious blind spot when it comes to the quality of your writing and I expect that I will find significant 1a deficiencies as I read through the rest of the article. See you again soon... DocKino (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bloody hell. Didn't realise a single sentence would get you to find straws (and a thesaurus) to keep you warm (see below). I even changed it a bit, but I'll reword it if you're still sensitive. RB88 (T) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed by changing ONE measly word. What an an erroneous, amiss, askew, awry, defective, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, inaccurate, inexact, invalid, misguided, specious, spurious, unfounded, unsound, untrue mistake that was! RB88 (T) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to make sure we're now communicating productively. Here is how the caption read when I first suggested it was problematic:
Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, became integral members of Fleetwood Mac following the success of Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later
And here is the caption now:
Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, were integral to Fleetwood Mac's songwriting on Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later
  • Just one question, tovarisch: Was I, in fact, "missing the point" or is the caption substantially more accurate now?
Well, as I said, I changed it cos you seemed a bit touchy. What you could have done when I said I saw no inherent problem in the meaning was: 1. change it yourself (and I really wouldn't have been bothered) or 2. explain rationally how you wanted it to be phrased (like all the other nice editors who have contributed so far). You did neither, and instead wrote the stuff above and below. Seemed a bit excessive. RB88 (T) 04:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fortunately, the problematic caption (and the problematic obliviousness to the problem) discussed above is not representative of the general quality of the article's writing. Nonetheless, the article is filled with awkward, infelicitous, and unclear phrasing. It is not quite up to our literary standard at this point. Here are a few examples, just from the lead:

  • "Rumours is Fleetwood Mac's most successful release after a Grammy Award win and sales of over 40 million copies worldwide." Surely "with" rather than "after". As sales are more customarily associated with "success" in this context, their mention should probably precede that of the Grammy Award. Instead of "Grammy Award win"--which is unnecessarily (even if only mildly) redundant--perhaps state exactly what the Grammy Award was for.
  • "For the album, the band wanted to expand on the success of the 1975 record Fleetwood Mac, but struggled with emotional upheaval before and during the recording sessions." Unnecessary verbiage: "For the album". Rather overobvious verbiage: "The band wanted to expand on [the success of...]" (the informative point here is simply that Fleetwood Mac was successful, the rest is gaseous: it is the norm for any band that has a successful album to want to follow it up with a more successful one--apparent exceptions like Tusk are worthy of note, but this is pabulum). Awkward phrasing: "struggled with emotional upheaval" (could probably be cut, as it conceptually repeats content of next sentence; alternately the repetitive material in the next sentence could be trimmed). The "but" is also misplaced--as you go on to explain, that "emotional upheaval" contributed to the album's power.
    • Removed "for the album". As you have proven yourself with your Tusk comment, expanding on success is not 100% given in the history of music. The norm is your point of view. Sometimes, bands like to be extremely experimental to nullify mainstream success. The expansion of success has to be made clear for non-norm experts, but I added a "commercial" qualifier to the sentence. The rest was reworded in conjunction with the comment below. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The studio time for Rumours was marked by interpersonal strife and hedonistic behaviour as all Fleetwood Mac members went through breakups; the lyrics were informed by these personal relationship failures." Infelicitous phrase: "studio time" (perhaps "the Rumours sessions" or "the Rumours recording sessions"). Awkward phrasing: "all Fleetwood Mac members went through breakups" (perhaps "each band member went through [or, experienced] a romantic breakup"). Underestablished subject: "the lyrics" (albums consist of "songs" or "compositions" or such--those, in turn, include lyrics; the leap demanded by the current phrasing is awkward).
    • (Maybe something along these lines: Their most recent album, Fleetwood Mac, had been very successful. In contrast to that record's largely harmonious recording sessions, the band entered the studio for Rumours rent by interpersonal strife. Each member went through a romantic breakup during the sessions. Their relationship failures informed the lyrics of most of the songs they recorded. ["Most" to accommodate "You Make Loving Fun".])
      • No offence, but this reads very poorly, with no flow. It has awkward phrasing, superfluous material, and infelicitous wording, whatever that is. All in all, not bad, but not good. I went with: "The band wanted to expand on the commercial success of the 1975 record Fleetwood Mac, but struggled with relationship breakups before recording started. The Rumours studio sessions were marked by hedonistic behaviour and interpersonal strife between Fleetwood Mac members; the album's lyrics were informed by these experiences." RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influenced by pop music, the compositions were moulded through a combination of acoustic and electric instruments." Surely, many of the songs were more than "influenced" by pop music; rather, a substantial portion of the album is pop music, or straddles the line between pop and rock, or...something a bit stronger than pop "influenced". Awkward phrasing: "compositions were molded through...instruments" (a very odd construction--do you actually want to say something here directly about the compositions or about their arrangements?).
    • The album is not pop music, merely influenced by it. No critic in the history of mankind has ever called it pop music. "Pop" as in popular or popular culture maybe, but not musically. Pop rock is a subgenre of rock music. The compositions phrase is fine. It summarises the composition section nicely without going into much detail, which should and must be reserved for the article text. See WP:LEAD. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mixing process slowed the creation of Rumours". Infelicitous phrase: "slowed the creation of" (perhaps "delayed the completion of").
  • "Rumours garnered critical acclaim and commercial attention." What does "commercial attention" mean? I submit: nothing.
  • "Praise centred on its production values and melodies". Confusing use of jargon: "production values" (are we talking about the quality or the style of the production? Or both?) Another awkward leap: "its...melodies" (again, like lyrics, songs "naturally" have 'em...albums can have 'em, but the phrasing must be adjusted to bridge the conceptual gap with some elegance).
  • "The record has aided the development of musical acts in different genres." Very infelicitous phrasing: "aided the development of musical acts". Albums don't "aid development". On either side of the Atlantic, this is an unidiomatic notion. An album may "inspire". Other acts may "build on its innovations". There are several possibilities. "Aid development" is not among them.

Again, this is just the lead, which appears to be representative of the article as a whole. The writing is not bad. Nor, however, is it good. I believe a careful, sensitive line edit is called for. DocKino (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll fix/reply to these ASAP. For the record, Parrot of Doom, an extremely experienced copy editor and writer of FA classic rock albums, is going through the article bit by bit with only minor issues to bring up (mostly about word placement). But, you have your thesaurus handy so maybe you'll find some more. RB88 (T) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thank you for the compliment. I've still got some sections to go, once that's done I plan to do a copyedit of the whole thing and then support. Its only the prose letting this down right now, and it isn't far off. This is a very well researched article. Parrot of Doom 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, just wanted to say that the lead rarely, if ever, is a true representation of the whole article, which while still summative, is more historical and relies on sources and citations. See WP:LEAD for crucial differences and also maybe get together with User:Indopug who has never liked my leads but has never found massive error in the actual texts. Intros tend to be acquired tastes (as you have proven). RB88 (T) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. Don't get me wrong—it's good! I only reviewed from Composition-down. I found several prose glitches and some monotonous sections that succumb to the ever-popular tendency toward prosaic listing of review scores and rankings without any real cohesiveness. The bigger thing that stuck in my craw was the way some sources have been used; details and other issues below:
    • Class Albums DVD: General lack of information. Neither the web site for the company who made the DVD nor Amazon provide any substantive information on its producers or creative staff. Who interviewed the band members for the DVD? Are they journalists? Additionally, each time the source is used, we aren't told who on the DVD said what, to back up the claim. See the item below about Buckingham's guitar work "dominating" the album. That statement is sourced to the DVD, but who said it makes a huge difference in context. The narrator? Mick Fleetwood? Buckingham himself? For each use of this source, we need the track and time, and if it is from a quotation, whose quotation.
      • I don't know how familiar you are with the Classic Albums series, but essentially it is a camera pointed at member(s) while they chat, discuss, and narrate what happened. All opinions are attributed to whoever said it, facts on the other hand are not, as usual. Give me an hour or so and I'll put the timings if you're that bothered. Been meaning to rewatch it. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same comments for the Making Of DVD.
      • The Making Of section of the DVD-Audio of Rumours has no timings per se, unlike the songs themselves. It involves clickable menus and band discussions for each song. Hence, it would be a bit fruitless and redundant to cite "Song 1 Menu", "Song 2 Menu" etc, when it's pretty evident where the info came from for each track. So, I've left this as it was in the refs. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are we not providing page numbers to books used as sources? Again, need to identify where in the source you got the information so it's verifiable.
      • The page numbers were clearly there. I originally had a ref section like now but thought it was a bit clumsy for a handful of pages only cited once. But there's no accounting for aesthetics I guess. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Buckingham's guitar work and Christine McVie's use of Fender Rhodes piano and Hammond B-3 organ dominate most tracks." Ah.. is this sourced to the DVD? It's somewhat of a dubious, if not bold claim, considering the musical variety represented on the album. In what way does Buckingham's guitar work "dominate"? This requires exploration and details, and probably secondary sourcing. Who on the DVD said that?
      • DONE. Reworded, but no one said. It's summarised from the instrument list in each song menu (see above comment for more info). RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "includes both acoustic and tack piano" How is a tack piano not an acoustic piano?
    • "By March, the album had sold over ten million copies worldwide, with over eight million in the US alone." The "with" conjunction is clumsy and ambiguous here. Do you mean "including", or "plus"? Please revise.
    • In "Critical", what is the reason for name-dropping all the reviewers? I could see if they are someone notable, but do readers really need that piece of information that (Joe Shmoe) of (publication) wrote something? I'm sure Joe appreciates the attribution, but why can't we leave it for those who follow the source? It feels like we are forcing the names in there to keep active voice.
    • "interplay between the three vocalists" Between two, among three.
    • "The Guardian collated worldwide data in 1997 from a range of renowned critics, artists, and radio DJs, which placed" Who placed seems more natural here, doesn't it?
    • "Produced by Mick Fleetwood, it contained each song of the original covered by a different act influenced by the album." Clunky.. I had to read it 3 times before it was clear.
    • Second para of Legacy: I see this trend a lot in pop culture articles, where we make a para out of long lists of review scores or chart placements. It makes for dull prose, to be sure.
      • I would say it's dullER prose, but the key operative is "prose". At both WP:ALBUMS and WP:ALTMUSIC, we're always encouraging more and more prose for any section that be written rather than tables or lists which frankly are for FLC. I used as many synonyms as possible and tried to spice it up. Any more and it will violate POV, weasel words, and peacock. I think with the type of info available it's pretty nicely and safely written. It's also a single paragraph (which IS needed for 1b) in a 40k+ article. Ah... but you didn't read above Composition. Weird that. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You've resolved most of my concerns, and I won't be coming back to review the rest. Good luck. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: prose & clarity issues. Per my random paragraph test: Original:

The album has been acclaimed by media outlets since its release. John Swenson of Rolling Stone explained that the interplay among the three vocalists was one of its most pleasing elements; he stated, "Despite the interminable delay in finishing the record, Rumours proves that the success of Fleetwood Mac was no fluke."[56] Robert Christgau, reviewing in The Village Voice, described the album as "more consistent and more eccentric" than its predecessor and thought that it "jumps right out of the speakers at you".[57] John Rockwell of The New York Times wrote that it is "a delightful disk, and one hopes the public thinks so, too",[58] while Dave Marsh of the St. Petersburg Times commented that its songs are "as grandly glossy as anything right now".[59] In contrast, Robert Hilburn of Los Angeles Times called Rumours a "frustratingly uneven" record,[60] while Juan Rodriguez of The Gazette suggested that, while the music is "crisper and clearer", Fleetwood Mac's ideas are "slightly more muddled".[61] The album featured at number four in the The Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers.[62]

Issues:

  1. The album has been acclaimed by media outlets since its release is such a bad sentence. First off, why media outlet? And second, why use the weak acclaimed by? Try: The album received widespread critical acclaim.
  2. We next jump to the Rolling Stone Review, oddly focusing on a specific aspect of the album rather than a review of the whole thing, which is what one would expect logically. Or even a summary of the critical reaction, such as: The album received favourable (or laudatory?) reviews in Rolling Stone Magazine, the New York Times, the Village Voice and others.
  3. Now introduce specific examples. Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called the album "more consistent and more eccentric" than its predecessor and said it "jumps right out of the speakers at you". John Rockwell of The New York Times wrote it is "a delightful disk, and one hopes the public thinks so, too." Etc...
  4. The album featured at number four in the The Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers. Good ending content, but why featured? Bad prose. In the The Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, an aggregation of prominent critical reviews, (Do we need this detail?) the album was listed at number four.

So, too many prose and logical structure issues to be FA material, which requires a very high standard of both writing and clarity. The tone of the entire article needs to be similarly refined. Eusebeus (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm sick and tired of people not familiar with the WP:ALBUMS guidelines or other FA albums (see Silent Alarm, A Weekend in the City, Remain in Light etc) commenting on aspects which really cannot be or written any other way. And frankly, your paragraph test simply sucks. In a 45+k article, you and the previous oppose focused on singular sections which are admittedly less flowy or showy than the rest because that is how they have to be. The critical section essentially involves listing the views of 10 critics as per WP:ALBUMS. The only changes are with verb synonyms because everything else is essentially a quote. I'm not changing a single thing, because 1. everything is accurate and 2. it's a culmination of all the advice everyone has given in over half a dozen FAs about its content. I might CE it, I might not, but I'm definitely not replying to any of the frivolous comments above. If you want to be a proper reviewers, stop with the flawed paragraph tests and review the whole thing or at least don't take a stance based with terrible sampling techniques. I'm sure the FAC reviewers will see sense. RB88 (T) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does WP:ALBUM exempt this article from the FA standards for prose and clarity? I regret you have taken umbrage at my comment (certainly not aimed at you personally), but I took a paragraph at random and noted the flaws. I could repeat the exercise across the article, since the poor prose quality is endemic. Anyway, good luck. Eusebeus (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly did you read "exempt"? It doesn't, but considering the type of info present in the section, the prose will not be stellar by definition. I've tried to spice it up with everything that I can. Synonyms, joiners, placing similar views or consequential views together. There's so much that can be humanly done to improve the prose without infringing on POV, weasel, and peacock words. It's a very delicate section where a single word out of place could lead to OR. Comments like "the poor prose is endemic" based on a ridiculous sample will get you laughed at in every peer reviewed journal in the land. Either get stuck in and prove your point and the article improves based on your full review or stop with conclusions based unrepresentative data. RB88 (T) 11:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Ended up fixing the above niggles when I ce'd the whole thing yesterday. From what I can see, Y2kcrazyjoker4 went through all of it as well and had only minor things to sort out. Also, all 3 supporters so far have extensively ce'd the article before giving a verdict. (Binksternet even gave a marvellous source.) RB88 (T) 23:43, 4 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/Rumours/archive1&oldid=1136095729"