Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slug (song)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:41, 11 December 2010 [1].

Slug (song)

[edit]

Slug (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone; today I bring "Slug" to your attention as a featured article candidate. "Slug" is a little known song crafted by Passengers; a sideproject by U2 and Brian Eno in the mid-1990s which they did as a warm-up for the next U2 album. The article may appear to be on the short side at first glance, but I can assure you that it is as comprehensive as it is possible for it to be, and that it meets the notability criteria set out at WP:NSONG. I have combed through every print and web-based resource I could find, and one or two that others provided to me. I believe that the article meets all of the featured article criteria, and so I bring it to now to your attention. I hope that you enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not released as a single, so no cover art exists for it. The U2 WikiProject has generally found that for song articles, the infobox is the simplest and least obtrusive place to include a sample. Do you feel that changing the position of the sample would be of value, or is it just a personal preference based on aesthetics? Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
City of Blinding Lights (today's featured article) has the music sample in the infobox, so I don't think it is necessary to put the sample in the body of the article for FA status. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs (there was one in a template, but I fixed that), no external link problems. --PresN 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 1b, 2a, 1d
Its better than last time, but needs some copy editing and I think some of my major concerns from before are still there:
1b, 2a the lead mentions briefly why the album was notable (U2 & Eno; critical reception) but the song doesn't appear to me to have been particularly critically acclaimed (no single,wasn't popular with fans according to the survey and won no awards) but you don't get that impression from reading the lead or the article. Similarly, the lead doesn't accurately summarize the critical reception and popularity; or in my opinion, lack there of.
1d There's problem with describing the song as fan's 'third favourite on the album' based on those fan surveys since it was a distant 3rd and not really statistically distinct from the other unpopular songs on the album. Without some kind of synthesis on how to derive relative popularity from web-based fan surveys of popular music from a secondary source, I think those surveys are an example of the problems described in WP:Primary.
1d/1b - for a song that ended up being unpopular with fans one would think there would be a fair amount of negative press too, and it wasn't exactly a financial success since it only appears on one album, no single. For example, when a song gets 4 starts out of 5, is that good, bad or meh?
That's my opinion; I'm open to changing my mind based on what other reviewers thing is appropriate for FA articles about popular music. Kirk (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the bit about the fan survey on various levels, therefore I went ahead and removed it entirely from the article. The survey didn't necessarily give the notion that it was poorly received by fans, since it was ranked 3rd best song on the album. But the small 4% vote does throw readers off, so it was best to do away with it. I edited the lead a bit to state how it was well received by many critics, including two major music magazines. Looking over the lead again, it seems to summarize the entire article and better state the notability of the song. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like this isn't researched well enough because I think the article should explain why the song was not popular, not a financial success, and won no awards. Removing the fan survey just addresses my 1d concern and makes 1b worse - the survey, while flawed, did explain the unpopularity of the song. I still feel like the article should address the obvious lack of financial success & fan popularity (no single, no live performances), and not winning awards because if it was a financial success, popular with fans and was nominated for awards that would be in the article. Like I said earlier, other reviewers may disagree. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to you the last time around, that information does not exist. There are a variety of reasons for why that might be, but those are only speculations and can't be included. I am not sure why you are so hung-up on what you perceive as being unpopularity among fans when you previously said that the inclusion of the survey was problematic since there was no synthesis on what the results meant. You are drawing your own conclusions from those results, and there is simply no way to cite that.
I also do not see how it is possible to reference a statement saying that it did not win awards and was not played live. As I invited you the last time, if you know of a way to say and reference that something hasn't happened, please tell me. Otherwise I am at a loss as to how you expect me to address your points. Everything that can be established has been so. What you are asking for are details that simply do not exist. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help explain the relative unpopularity of the track if we gave a summary view of the Passengers project as a whole near the end: the release was intended to be an experimental one with Eno to fill the void between Zooropa and the band's next studio album, and because it was not marketed as a U2 release, it went relatively unnoticed and was swept under the rug in many cases (see Larry Mullen's retrospective comments indicating regret/disinterest). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting suggestion, but how would we relate that information specifically to "Slug"? If I recall correctly those sources do not mention the song specifically, so adding it might just seem like some unrelated trivia about the album that it was on. Do you have an idea on how to properly integrate it? I'm not adverse to adding it in, I'm just having a hard time seeing how it could be done so in a way that would answer Kirk's concerns. Melicans (talkcontributions,) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for taking so long to respond; I got swamped with the number of term papers I had left to write. Can you provide any specific examples of where copyediting is needed? I've given the article a thorough look but nothing jumped out at me; probably because my eyes are stale when it comes to looking at this article. I think that Dream out loud's edits, in which the fan survey results were removed, to Reception and to the lead addressed pretty much all of the concerns you outlined above. Thanks very much for the feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article a bit of a run-through/copyedit, and I think it is looking a bit better. I admit I have never been entirely satisfied with lumping everything together under "Writing, recording and theme", and I think this reworking improves it somewhat. Any thoughts? Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Melicans said earlier, nowhere does it say in the article that this song was "unpopular" nor can that information be cited anyhow. I don't see how a song that was praised as one of the best on its album by a couple major music magazines can be considered "unpopular". If we went into more detail about the unpopularity of the album, that would be going a little off-topic because that information should be in the Original Soundtracks 1 article, and this article is about the song, not the album. It was also said that the song was not a financial success. How can a song make money? It was not released as a single, and was only a song on the album. The album can generate profits, but the individual song cannot. But still it is being said that this article fails 1b and 1d. Criteria 1b states that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and I think it has been made clear that extensive amounts of research was done to include every possible known fact about this song and that no details have been left out. And stating the song is "unpopular" is not a detail that needs to be included as we have clearly established that that was not the case. Criteria 1d states that an article "presents views fairly and without bias", and I don't think this article has any issues with WP:NPOV as it appears to be very neutral. Again, not stating the song is "unpopular" does not affect its neutrality because, again, we have clearly established that that was not the case. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead: "Following its release, "Slug" was praised as one of the best songs on the album by many critics, including music magazines Rolling Stone and Uncut." which begs the question, if critics liked it so much, why was there no single, it won no awards, it wasn't popular with fans (chart position, concert performances)? I'm also concerned about bias because since it seemed to be a financial flop so there had to be some reviewers who said the song wasn't that good, or the good reviews you cited really were not mediocre in music-reviewer-speak. If you don't want to answer these questions, or can't find a citation from a secondary source, or you think they are stupid questions you just have to get support from other reviewers to gain a consensus - this process doesn't have to be unanimous. Kirk (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe has already been explained by Y2kcrazyjoker4, Original Soundtracks 1 itself was not widely promoted and was a commercial disappointment. The planned second single, "Your Blue Room", was cancelled because the album was a failure. We cannot speculate if "Slug" would have been released had the album been a commercial success; but discussing the failure of the album in this article would going too far off-topic, and it's implementation would have little or no connection at all to "Slug". Drawing the conclusion that "Slug" wasn't released as a single because the album was not a success would be pure WP:OR. I still don't see how an individual song can be considered to be a "financial flop" either; as Dream out loud pointed out, an individual song cannot generate profits unless it is released as a single; which we have clearly established multiple times, in this FAC and the last, that "Slug" is not. Your supposition that the song received negative reviews based on this "lack of financial success" is the largest original conclusion that I have ever seen; the two factors are completely unrelated. Something that receives terrible reviews, whether a book, film, or album, can make a lot of money, and the reverse is also true. I've searched every single source and review that I could find, and not once did I see a negative spin on the song. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources look OK (spotchecks carried out on online sources). A little untidiness in the citations, e.g. some page numbers preceded by "p.", others not; I suspect this is a consequence of templates. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source templates have been cleaned up for consistency. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Uncut should be linked in 'Reception' section
  • Refs 1, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 are missing publishers

Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked Uncut, but publishers are not necessary unless for major publications (ex: printed newspapers, magazines, popular websites). In fact in a previous FA review, an editor told me to remove the publisher parameter from most of my references for that reason. I mean, they could be easily added in, but there wouldn't be much purpose. Anyone could click on the link of the publication and get the publisher info right there. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I don't really mind, I just thought that it was common practise. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the removing publisher parameters for that reason. First of all, according to WP:CITEHOW, you should use a citation style, and you should be consistent applying that style. In many styles you can omit publishers for well known newspapers/magazines because its usually the newspaper or magazine (i.e. New York Times); for others it adds credibility. I don't think Uncut is in the same league as the NYT; I would second adding a publisher. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 24 November 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/Slug_(song)/archive1&oldid=401831247"