Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slug (song)/archive2

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Slug (song)

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk), Melicans (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed once again. The previous nomination from a couple years ago failed due to some needed copyediting. The article has since been thoroughly copyedited, and some new information has been added to expand on the subject, bringing it up to FA standards. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't think why this article has had to wait nearly four weeks for any FAC attention; it's been here before, and there is usually sufficient interest in popular music articles to create some discussion and interaction. This is not really my area of music, but I hope that my review will provoke others to chip in:

Article length: at around 1300 words this is quite short, compared to some featured song articles. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd like someone more familiar with these article to confirm that this one meets the "comprehensive" criterion.
In the lead: "Lyrically, it is a portrait of a "desolate soul" during a time of celebration". I am not sure what this means. Also, since the words "desolate soul" are apparently a direct quotation from a source, the term needs to be cited.
"U2 spent time in Shinjuku, Tokyo at the end of the Zoo TV Tour in 1993, and the vivid colours of the street signs and billboards made them feel as if they were on the set of the 1982 film Blade Runner." I'm not sure how relevant the Blade Runner reference is, or whether readers will understand it, bearing in mind that the film was set in a futuristic Los Angeles infested by robots.
"Written as a soundtrack for a variety for imagined films..." Something wrong with the phrasing there.
"that began" → "that had begun"
Dates would be useful for the recording of "Seibu" and for its later rediscovery by The Edge.
I'm sure Eno meant something by "appearing inexorably", but I've no idea what. The word "inexorable" means "relentless"; how can something "appear" relentlessly? What do you think he meant?
There seems to be some compression of time here. In early July the band renames the song; later, Bono decides to deconstruct it, initially with Eno's disapproval but, again later, Eno changes his mind. There then follows the final editing during which Eno is pissed off with the group for its lack of effort. All this, and the editing finishes on 10 July, which is still fairly early in July by my reckoning. I reckon you need to row back on the "laters", particularly as you also have "The Edge later stated...."
""Slug" runs for 4:41 (4 minutes, 41 seconds)". Why not just: ""Slug" runs for 4 minutes, 41 seconds"?

That is all for the moment. I will post a brief sources review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Most the issues have been addressed. I didn't touch the Blade Runner reference yet because I want to look into that again, nor did I touch the issue with the lead since I didn't write that line and are not familiar with the source. I agree that dates would be useful for the original recording and its rediscovery by The Edge, but sources with that information are unavailable. Only the Eno reference provided dates in relation to its recording. I also deleted Eno's quote ("appearing inexorably") since I couldn't really understand what he meant either (even when re-reading the original source). As far as the shortness or the article, I can say that I've exhausted all possible sources on the topic. Since it was not released as a single, played live, or even technically appeared on a U2 album, there aren't too many sources relating to it other than what is cited. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks as well for your review. The Blade Runner mention is intended to tie in with the mention of visual music later on in the paragraph. It could be that it is out of place in that sequence, or had a greater context in an earlier revision (some parts were removed as I recall, and so the Blade Runner part could be a leftover from that). Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addendum; on reviewing the article per Eric's comments below, I realized that the source has not yet been added to the quotation in the lead. I'll double-check which source it belongs to tomorrow and add it in then. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference has been added to the lead. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image and sources review: The single image is appropriately licensed. Sources look fine, and citations are properly formatted. The one nitpick is that it is usual to give book publication years rather than exact dates. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many song articles are a bit thin, but this one seems to be pushing the envelope; I'm not even certain it would survive an AfD nomination. Is this song really notable? If it is, then the article certainly doesn't get across to me why. I'm also surprised to see so many prose problems in a second FA nomination. A few examples:

"... they derived other aspects of the track from seeing members of the Yakuza". What about the blind members of the Yakuza? What aspects?
"Bono decided to completely deconstruct the mix of the song, much to Eno's disapproval, however, Eno was satisfied with Bono's decision to change the mix." Just about the worst deployment of "however" I've ever seen.
"... they tried to create a visual suggestion from the music ...". That just doesn't make sense.
"Following its release, "Slug" was praised as one of the best songs on the album". How was it praised before its release?

Eric Corbett 23:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Eric. Prose was not significantly addressed in previous nominations, and as prose is admittedly my weakest strength (or strongest weakness, if you prefer) that may be the reason for the numerous problems at this stage. I've done my best to address the issues you have pointed out, with the exception of the third bullet. It may simply be the late hour, but I'm not entirely sure how it is nonsensical.

In regards to the notability, I admit it is something I considered numerous times when creating and editing the article in the past. WP:NSONG states "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I believe that the article is "reasonably detailed", and that it meets the first criterion (though "multiple" is clearly a vague term that infers different quantities to different editors). Notability is not part of the FAC criteria but, for what it may be worth, in the first FAC the GA reviewer, Steve, said "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." Whether you agree or disagree, my fate is in your hands. =) Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.