Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slug (Passengers song)/archive1
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 SandyGeorgia 21:41, 26 July 2010 [1].
Slug (Passengers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, today I bring to your attention this article on "Slug". No, not the gastropod. This is an article about a song by the group Passengers (U2 and Brian Eno) that is virtually unknown, even to fans of both artists. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria. I am aware that it is very short, but I hope that you will not let that prejudice you; it may be short, but it is as comprehensive as I believe it is possible for this article to be.
I have combed through all of my available print resources (which is a fairly large amount), and have done numerous web searches including the usual websites for music articles, Google News/Archives/Books, and several online databases; all I have left untouched is the occassional random blog on the subject. Despite the lack of resources to work with, I am confident that I have crafted an article which meets all of the FA criteria. I hope that you enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the intro "Passengers" and "Original Soundtracks 1" are wikilinked to the same page. The article makes it clear that Passengers only produced one album, however I think that if this article was to be featured on the main page, the band and the album at least deserve their own pages, even if they are both stubs. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's something I've been planning on working on when I have the free time to do so. A lot of the material that could be included is in the OS1 anŀd U2 articles, though there are many more details that could be included. I am hesitant to rush out an article cobbled together with the details from both articles just for the sake of it having it's own page; I'd rather wait until I've tinkered around with it in my sandbox to the degree where having a seperate article would be worthwhile. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Passengers-Slug-musicsample.ogg should have the FU rationale tidied up, it really shouldn't have two Fasach Nua (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Combined the two sections together. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - After checking WP:NSONG, a song article should be about Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. The lead doesn't tell me why this song is notable and in your nomination you describe this song as virtually unknown; I looked at the list of other FA song articles and randomly chose one, Hey Baby (No Doubt song), which told me it peaked at #5 on Billboard's top 100 and won a Grammy. This probably should have been flagged in your GA review; according to the standards, songs which are not notable should be deleted and merged with an album article. I think you should withdraw the nomination. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First sentence. A song recorded by several notable artists (Brian Eno and U2) more than passes GNG and NSONG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONG also states a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This article is well beyond Stub-class, and I believe that it is "reasonably detailed". Despite the relatively few amount of sources, there is a great deal of information in the article about the song; far too much for it to be merged into Original Soundtracks 1 without suffering from a loss of content. I also note that this is a recording by several notable artists, namely U2 and Brian Eno. Charting should not be the only criteria for a song to have an article; so long as it is "reasonably detailed", which this is, an article can and should exist. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the GA reviewer, I did consider the article's notability and determined that, given a similar treatment for the other songs on the album, it could be unreasonable for that article to host the independent coverage of this song. While my personal views differ in that I prefer longer parent articles to the content being spread all over the shop, its existence does seem justified as far as policy goes. With that issue put aside, whether it can be a featured article is for you lot to decide. :-) Steve T • C 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We Are the World is an example of a featured article about a song independently released as a recording by several notable artists, I don't see the comparison. Brian Eno and U2 either produced or co-produced multiple albums for the band, they certainly were the same creative team for a long time, and I supposed one could make an argument that this song was notable as part of their decades-long collaboration for some reason, but you haven't bothered to do so. Miss Sarajevo charted and I suppose merits its own article, Your Blue Room also should be merged back into the album page along with this one. There's plenty of other things wrong with this article which we shouldn't have to slog through in a FAC review if it doesn't need to exist. Kirk (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand and appreciate if you feel that the article is not ready for FAC; that is a normal part of the article building process that occurs from time to time. However I'm afraid that I simply can't see the rationale for deleting it altogether; it meets the NSONG guidelines per my interpretation of them (and seemingly the interpretations of Steve and Floydian as well). I believe that there is enough information and detail on the song in this article that it warrants existence. Merging or deleting it would be harmful in that effect, not beneficial.
- I should clarify regarding the sources; while I have exhausted all of the sources that I have found and have access to, it is entirely possible that there is more information out there that can be used. I do not own every book about U2, and so there are very likely publications which discuss this song further which are not available on any type of preview through Google Books. Let us not forget that this song was released fifteen years ago, before the real advent of the internet age. Generally speaking, it seems to me that while there is a wealth of information available on pretty much any English-song from the beginning of this decade onwards. It is difficult to find information prior to this period unless the material in question was very popular or often discussed (think "Imagine" or the previously mentioned "We are the World"). Some of this information was transcribed to the internet but later removed for various reasons; I need to look no further than the relatively recent revamps of Billboard and Rolling Stone, which destroyed old charting records and removed several articles and album reviews (including the one for Original Soundtracks 1) respectively. That the information is not present online so far as I have been able to discover does not mean that it does not exist. I am still trying my utmost hardest to find as much information as I possibly can, using every search term that I can think of. And sometimes I do still manage to strike lucky.
- I will close out this response by noting that I may still withdraw this nomination, as you first encouraged, but I would like some more feedback from other uninvolved editors before deciding to take that step. Merging or deletion is, in my humble opinion, entirely the wrong step. Even if this article does not currently meet the FAC criteria in your determination, that is no reason to believe that it should be removed altogether. So far as I can gather it meets the guidelines at NSONG, for the reasons I have previously stated. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We Are the World is an example of a featured article about a song independently released as a recording by several notable artists, I don't see the comparison. Brian Eno and U2 either produced or co-produced multiple albums for the band, they certainly were the same creative team for a long time, and I supposed one could make an argument that this song was notable as part of their decades-long collaboration for some reason, but you haven't bothered to do so. Miss Sarajevo charted and I suppose merits its own article, Your Blue Room also should be merged back into the album page along with this one. There's plenty of other things wrong with this article which we shouldn't have to slog through in a FAC review if it doesn't need to exist. Kirk (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the GA reviewer, I did consider the article's notability and determined that, given a similar treatment for the other songs on the album, it could be unreasonable for that article to host the independent coverage of this song. While my personal views differ in that I prefer longer parent articles to the content being spread all over the shop, its existence does seem justified as far as policy goes. With that issue put aside, whether it can be a featured article is for you lot to decide. :-) Steve T • C 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONG also states a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This article is well beyond Stub-class, and I believe that it is "reasonably detailed". Despite the relatively few amount of sources, there is a great deal of information in the article about the song; far too much for it to be merged into Original Soundtracks 1 without suffering from a loss of content. I also note that this is a recording by several notable artists, namely U2 and Brian Eno. Charting should not be the only criteria for a song to have an article; so long as it is "reasonably detailed", which this is, an article can and should exist. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not an FA criterion. If there are concerns that this warrants an entire article, an RfC or AfD may need to be started. Reviewers should instead be reviewing based on the criteria - comprehensiveness, sourcing, images, prose, MOS. Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kirk opened a merge discussion at Talk:Original Soundtracks 1#Merger a few days ago. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can word my concerns in terms of the criteria. 1b, the lead mentions briefly why the album was notable (U2 & Eno; critical reception) but the body doesn't explain what Eno specifically did on this song or how he went from being a producer to a musician and the song doesn't appear to me to have been particularly critically acclaimed (it wasn't popular with fans according to the survey and won no awards). Someone in the merger comments mentioned it was played at live shows by U2; that section is missing from the article. I also don't think the article accurately describes the group - Miss Sarajevo describe Passengers as a pseudonym for U2 and not a separate group & the songs are considered part of U2.
- You are mistaken over the live performances. "Slug" was never performed live, but "Your Blue Room" was; you included the articles on both in the merger request, hence your confusion over that I suspect. The articles on "Miss Sarajevo", "Your Blue Room", and OS1 are all out of date and have not been worked on in a cohesive manner since their inception. I've quadruple-checked all of my sources and I can say with certainty that the information in this article is correct. This FAC is on "Slug", not the other three, and their innacurracies should have absolutely no bearing on the review of this article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know Slug was never performed live? Why isn't that in the article? Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No performance is listed in U2 Live: A Concert Documentary by Pimm Jal de la Parra, which covers live performances up to the end of the Elevation Tour. Everything from the Vertigo Tour onwards is listed on U2.com, and there is no record of a performance of "Slug" on there. Delving into other, less reliable sources, there is no record of it on U2Gigs.com, which covers every known performance since the band's inception; yes, it's a fansite, but ironically enough the band themselves cited it in the liner notes of some editions of No Line on the Horizon. If you think it's important enough to add and can think of a way to cite something that didn't happen, then please be my guest and enter it into the article, because I have not been able to think of any way to do it. Saying that it was never played is one thing; finding a way to cite that is quite another. It was left out for that reason. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know Slug was never performed live? Why isn't that in the article? Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken over the live performances. "Slug" was never performed live, but "Your Blue Room" was; you included the articles on both in the merger request, hence your confusion over that I suspect. The articles on "Miss Sarajevo", "Your Blue Room", and OS1 are all out of date and have not been worked on in a cohesive manner since their inception. I've quadruple-checked all of my sources and I can say with certainty that the information in this article is correct. This FAC is on "Slug", not the other three, and their innacurracies should have absolutely no bearing on the review of this article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2a, the lead doesn't accurately summarize the details of the critical reception and popularity; in my opinion, lack there of. For a song that wasn't very popular with fans one would think there would be a fair amount of negative press too (1d bias?).
- If you can find negative press, please add it to the article. I do not write articles in a biased manner; I put in every detail and aspect that I can find, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. None of the reviews that I found described the track in a negative manner. And I would suggest that it isn't so much "Slug" being unpopular as it is that "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" - both of which have been included on at least two other releases - are the only two songs from the album that most casual fans have heard, given it's releative obscurity. That it is the third most popular song on each of the surveys, and the extremely high proportion of votes for "no preference" in 2010 (the only year that option was available) seems to support that. However since both of our conclusions constitute original research, naturally neither can be included in the article. And for what it is worth, both of my previous FAs only include a brief mention of reception in the lead; it is, after all, only a brief summary, and not every single detail needs to be included. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought 'No idea' was 3rd...anways, that survey is a primary source, which is highlighting why you shouldn't use them in articles; we can't agree what it means with no article about the objective analysis of @U2 fan surveys. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'No preference' was the third ranked selection in 2010 only, but 'no preference' is not a song. I said that it was the third ranked song on the list in each of those years, which is both correct and verifiable. Delving into why the exact percentage was so low in comparison to "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" is a little bit nitpicky, and bordering on original research in my opinion. It's our job to report the facts; not to analyze them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought 'No idea' was 3rd...anways, that survey is a primary source, which is highlighting why you shouldn't use them in articles; we can't agree what it means with no article about the objective analysis of @U2 fan surveys. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find negative press, please add it to the article. I do not write articles in a biased manner; I put in every detail and aspect that I can find, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. None of the reviews that I found described the track in a negative manner. And I would suggest that it isn't so much "Slug" being unpopular as it is that "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" - both of which have been included on at least two other releases - are the only two songs from the album that most casual fans have heard, given it's releative obscurity. That it is the third most popular song on each of the surveys, and the extremely high proportion of votes for "no preference" in 2010 (the only year that option was available) seems to support that. However since both of our conclusions constitute original research, naturally neither can be included in the article. And for what it is worth, both of my previous FAs only include a brief mention of reception in the lead; it is, after all, only a brief summary, and not every single detail needs to be included. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1c footnote 6 is missing a reference in the bibliography, and 13 - 17 don't seem to be to me from a reliable source (an unofficial fan site).
- Footnote 6 was removed in error after the FAC began due to my own poor eyesight in response to the source comments by Brianboulton below, and it has now been reinstated. References 13-17, the survey, were conducted by Matt McGee, 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). Atu2/@U2 (however you prefer to write it) was also the media partner for the inaugural U2 Conference last year, which was supported by the band. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote 6 was removed in error after the FAC began due to my own poor eyesight in response to the source comments by Brianboulton below, and it has now been reinstated. References 13-17, the survey, were conducted by Matt McGee, 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). Atu2/@U2 (however you prefer to write it) was also the media partner for the inaugural U2 Conference last year, which was supported by the band. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most FA reviewers would like to see more than 17 references and 2 bibliography items in a FA, and the article is rather short & as I've explained I think the article could have more sources and be longer. Melicans mentioned above some of my objections could be resolved with more research with sources that are currently unavailable, further emphasizing a problem with 1b. I would gather the best approach would be to withdraw the FAC to spend the requisite time to make the article more complete or as I recommended, merging the article into the album. Kirk (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So long as it is comprehensive, 17 inline citations and 3 bibliography items should be enough. Hurricane Irene (2005) (promoted in 2006, FAR in 2008) has only nine inline citations and no items under a bibliography. New York State Route 373 (promoted August 2008) has just 22 inline citations, and again nothing for a bibliography. Nico Ditch (promoted February 2009) has just 16 inline citations, of which almost half are drawn from the same two sources (Nevell 1992 and Nevell 1998). 2005 Azores subtropical storm (promoted August 2008) has only 11 inline citations, and (yet again) nothing for a Bibliography. Length ≠ comprehensiveness; they are two entirely different things. There have been very short FAs before, and there will continue to be short FAs in this future.
- This article may not be the longest in existence, but I can assure you that it is comprehensive. As I said before, I can appreciate if you believe this article does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:WIAFA, but I would like the feedback of one or two more uninvolved editors to get additional feedback on the matter before taking the step of withdrawal. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read some of those other reviews and the discussion was pretty similar; its not about length its about comprehensiveness and short length in those cases was a warning about a lack of comprehensiveness which was addressed in their reviews; I keep mentioning specific things missing from the article that aren't being fixed to my satisfaction. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I have missed any specific suggestions, but the only points that I have really seen brought up are that the article is too short in length and that the other related articles say something different from this one. If you have any specific suggestions on how I can improve this one (such as how I can source that it was never played live), can you please reiterate them? It's late, I'm tired, and I'm afraid that I'm just missing any actionable points that you have brought up. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read some of those other reviews and the discussion was pretty similar; its not about length its about comprehensiveness and short length in those cases was a warning about a lack of comprehensiveness which was addressed in their reviews; I keep mentioning specific things missing from the article that aren't being fixed to my satisfaction. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can word my concerns in terms of the criteria. 1b, the lead mentions briefly why the album was notable (U2 & Eno; critical reception) but the body doesn't explain what Eno specifically did on this song or how he went from being a producer to a musician and the song doesn't appear to me to have been particularly critically acclaimed (it wasn't popular with fans according to the survey and won no awards). Someone in the merger comments mentioned it was played at live shows by U2; that section is missing from the article. I also don't think the article accurately describes the group - Miss Sarajevo describe Passengers as a pseudonym for U2 and not a separate group & the songs are considered part of U2.
Sources comment: There are no citations to the U2 by U book listed in the bibliography. This should be listed separately as further reading, rather than including it with the references. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually doesn't contain any information on the song, so I have removed it altogether. I'm not sure why it was slipped in. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No other sources issues Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that was my mistake; it is fact used it the inline citations; number 6, labelled as McCormick (2006). Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No other sources issues Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken Kirk's advice under consideration and, after doing some more searches and editing of the article, have to conclude that it probably isn't ready for FAC. In light of that, I withdraw this nomination, but maintain that a merger would be unwise and unhelpful. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:38, 24 July 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.