Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Streetcleaner/archive1

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2019 [1].

Streetcleaner

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 debut album of the industrial metal band Godflesh, one of the first (and neatest) releases of its kind. Since late 2017, I've been reworking all Godflesh-related articles and have promoted two lists (Godflesh discography and List of songs recorded by Godflesh) to featured status. Regardless, this is my first featured article candidate, and I hope to improve Streetcleaner with help from all you. Plus, the album's 30th anniversary is November 2019, so it would be cool to work it up to featured quality by then. Prior to nominating, User:PresN was kind enough to mentor me and improve a number of things. Thank you all in advance! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Opabinia

Er, well, I was here to see if there were any other science articles in need of a review, and this one caught my eye but is way out of my usual editing range, so take everything I say with a grain of salt or three.

The article puts a lot of emphasis on the use of the drum machine, but doesn't go into much detail on how that came about or what led the band to make that decision. The main Godflesh article has some material on it - that Broadrick didn't like their later use of live drumming, that the original choice of the drum machine was out of necessity - but I think that could be fleshed out more here considering how important it seems to have been. In particular, by the time of recording this material, did they actively prefer machine percussion or was it still "necessity"? Did they have trouble finding a drummer?

Good point! It's easy to lose perspective when writing about this stuff so much and forget to explain why something matters. Anyway, I added this to the prose: "This choice was at first made out of necessity since Broadrick could not play the beats he wanted acoustically, but he came to embrace machine percussion and consider it a defining feature of Godflesh". I know they prefered machine percussion by Streetcleaner, and I'll look for a reference explicitly saying that. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That raises the question - he couldn't play what he wanted because drumming wasn't his best skill, or because what he wanted wasn't really achievable by a live drummer in general? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specified it; he considered himself not a great drummer. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the background section: "...proved to be the foundation upon which Streetcleaner would fine-tune the genre" - is that a quote? If so it needs punctuation, if not it sounds a little peacocky. There's a few other instances where the writing seems overwrought to me - e.g. "unnerving sounds suffused with chaotic samples of desperate voices" - but I dunno, I usually write about molecules. (Maybe I'll see if I can get away with "suffused with chaotropes" somewhere...)

Thanks for pointing these out; I can get carried away sometimes. I changed your first example to "would fine-tune Godflesh's approach to the genre." Is that fine? I turned your second example into: "with enigmatic lyrics and sounds underlain with samples of voices." CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first change is better, I don't know about "underlain" (for one thing - maybe this is an Americanism, but I'd say "underlaid"). I was going to suggest quoting directly from the source if it's hard to describe, but then I looked at the source - a review from the website "Dead End Follies" - and poking around a little, it looks like a personal blog. Is the author a notable critic published elsewhere? The chapter-and-verse here is "high-quality reliable sources" - which can admittedly be hard to round up on some topics, especially ones that aren't well represented in traditional media, but I doubt an FA can get away with self-published sources unless the person doing the self-publishing is a recognized subject-matter expert (or a few other exceptions in WP:SPS). Similar problem with the citations to godflesh.com (looks like a fan site?); the others I looked at that seemed bloggy were interviews so somewhat less of a concern. (That said, someone could push back on that - if a self-published site posts what they claim is an interview with Joe Schmo, do we believe them? In this case, probably we do, but the risk is why we'd look for editorial oversight in sources even for subjects where that seems stuffy and unnecessary.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. I thought I had taken out all the questionable references by now. I removed the Dead End Follies one and, though it hurts my heart a lil, took out the ones to godflesh.com. They were all secondary support anyway, and the few that weren't I replaced with some better references I dug up. Also, you're right, underlaid sounds better. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some MOS-hound will yell at me but I think the article could do with some duplicate wikilinks - e.g. Swans is linked in the background section but by the time I got to "Inspired by the harshness of early Swans material..." I'd lost the context.

I agree completely. I'll go ahead and wikilink it and remove it should anyone complain later on. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current section order may be somewhere in a MOS page for music articles or something, but - considering that the "composition and style" section goes through each track in sequence and describes critics' reactions to it, I think it'd be easier to follow if the track listing preceded that section.

I can't find any rules on this, but I don't remember seeing any articles with such a structure. I'll look, though! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does the title mean? Is there anything written about how it was chosen/why that song came to be the title track?

I really wish there was something written about this, but sadly there's not (that I've found, at least). I do have a strong suspicion that Streetcleaner was named after the Whitehouse song "The Street Cleaner"; Broadrick was inspired by Whitehouse, after all. But this is original research, so I can't add it. Oh well! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The caption for the "Dead Head" sample says it "showcases the musical departure of Tiny Tears" - Tiny Tears came first, right? So what is it a "departure" from?

Good point. I've changed it to ""Dead Head" showcases the musical differences between Tiny Tears and Streetcleaner proper." Is this fine? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the live performances section, I'm not sure what it means that the Roadburn performance was released "again in 2017 in a wider capacity". Formats other than vinyl?

Yep! I made this more specific. Thanks. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a brief explanation for context to what a "Peel session" is - the link goes to the band's entry in a long list.

I added a little more and changed the wikilink target. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main Godflesh article says the band dissolved in 2002 and reformed in 2010. Is it significant that both of the full-album performances happened after the band was re-formed? (Also, the date of the Hospital Productions show is missing.)

Godflesh wasn't very beloved or respected before reformation, and since then Streetcleaner became a sort of classic. I can't remember them specifically talking about this anywhere, but I might be able to find something. Also, I added a year to the Hospital Productions show. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually interesting in its own right, and maybe should be fleshed out a little more - I did notice a lot of the reviews seemed to be about the re-release, but figured it had to do with the more recent stuff being more available. If the album wasn't well known until after the band got back together, what prompted the better reception the second time around? Why re-release an album that was expected to have only a limited audience? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure! It's an interesting question. Godflesh at the moment seems to be a critical darling. Plus, other musicians fawn over them all the time. They're from the end of the 80s, so I guess that lends a cool factor, and a few people looking back saw some love for Streetcleaner and went with it. And, ultimately, the 2010 reissue wasn't really a big deal. It didn't attract much attention or sell a huge amount of copies. Earache is kind of small, though, so I'm sure they were pleased regardless. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little disorienting to me that the live performances section precedes the release section in the text, but obviously comes later chronologically, but this may again be a standard set of sections for this article type.

I agree. I switched it around. How do you think this looks? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album was released in 1989 and a remastered version was released in 2010 with additional material. Were there any other notable differences between the two releases?

The packaging was different, but that's about it. Do you think I should mention this? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of prose clunkers - "a release that Broadrick provided guitar for shortly before starting Godflesh" -> "for which..." sounds cleaner to me; "The songs performed ("Tiny Tears", "Wound", "Pulp" and "Like Rats") saw the band experimenting live".

Thank you, this first one is a big improvement. I changed the second one some; is it enough? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good at prose, but think what's tripping me up there is the sentence structure, [inanimate object] saw [gerund (is that what it's called?)]. I don't know if you tried this already - there's backlogs everywhere - but the copyeditors at WP:GOCE can be very helpful with polishing up writing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I shifted it to 'On the tracks played, blah blah, the band experimented..." I'll keep working on it, and I'll look into some copyediting assistance. Thanks! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the retrospective reviews seem to say this was Godflesh's best, or among their best, and it sounds like Broadrick agrees. But this was their first album of a fairly long career. There's plenty of material on the album's influence on other bands, but it feels like there could be a bit more context on the band's immediate future if that material is available - what did they make of their success at the time, what effect did it have on their future plans, etc?

You're right. It's very tough to find references on Godflesh from 1987-1991. And as soon as they start working on a new project, they rarely want to talk about what came before. I'll look, but this is sadly a dead zone in their history. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Thank you very much for taking your time to do this! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I addressed more stuff. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, to be honest I've been sort of hoping that someone else more familiar with either the topic or music FAs or both would wander by :) I even looked at the past few months' worth of nominations to try to find recent examples of similar articles (and recent reviewers of same) but I didn't come up with much. I think input from a reviewer who is more knowledgeable about the subject is needed at this point (especially another look over the sources from someone who knows the area). Is there a relevant wikiproject to post a notice to, to scare up some more reviewers? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: You've been an incredible help regardless. I would never have thought of plenty of these fixes and refinements. The main relevant wikiproject, wikiproject industrial, is dead, but I'll try wikiproject metal. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like wikiproject metal is pretty dead, too. I guess I'll start looking for interested individuals. Is that frowned upon, asking specific people for FAC input? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ss112

So, having a quick look at the sources on the article, most seem reliable and it's overall a pretty good collection of sources, however a few grab my attention. I see a couple of blog sources. One, I understand, is Earache Records' official(?) Blogspot here, authored by the label's founder Digby Pearson. However, in most cases, primary sources should be avoided. Do you think there's any secondary news source that reported on what Pearson said there/is the information supported by that reference entirely relevant to the article? I checked out The Obelisk source here, and while ordinarily blog sources like this would be deemed unreliable, as I understand it WP:SPS are at least acceptable if the subject spoke to the outlet directly. Pointing this out because if a news source reported on what was said, then that might be preferable. This Wordpress blog would also ordinarily set off a red flag for me, but it looks like an interview Justin Broadrick gave directly to the author as well. Also, I see a couple of sources citing Roychristopher.com...it seems he's a professor and a writer about his hobbies in his spare time, but is he a reliable source? Could what he says be replaced by a more reliable publication? Ss112 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Ss112:, and thanks for the comments.

Earache Records blogspot: I'm sad to say that in all my Godflesh research I haven't seen anything else talk about the origin of Tiny Tears. I did just replace one in-line citation of Pearson's blog with a new source, but most of it seems like unique information. I thought it was okay because Pearson is the head of the label that released Streetcleaner, even if it is undesirably primary. Removing it would be tricky since the creation / history of those four tracks is important to the album.
The Obelisk: Thanks for pointing this out; I replaced it with two references. One is from Decibel, the other is from MetalSucks.
Wordpress interview: I am annoyed that this is a blog, but I think the quote it's used for is a good one. As far as I know, Broadrick hasn't said the same thing so directly anywhere else. But, I can remove this if you think it's for the best.
Roy Christopher: This guy has done at least two articles / interviews with Broadrick in the past, one in a music publication called Slap Magazine and one in another called Pandemonium Magazine. Two of his sources appear in the Streetcleaner article; one is from Slap Magazine, and the other is his own personal website. The latter lists 22 sources itself, so that adds a little reliability to it. However, the questionable reference (the one from his own website) only appears once in the Streetcleaner article, so I might be able to remove it and substitute it with a better source if you think it's necessary.

In summary, I removed one dubious reference and one in-line citation, and I added three better references. The Roy Christopher and Wordpress interview references remain, but I will gladly remove them if you think it's necessary after my explanations above. The Digby Pearson reference is kind of pivotal for the article, so I don't think it can go. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 20:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm adding this to the urgent list now, as we are approaching the point where this will be archived soon if we don't see a little progress. Belatedly answering the question posed above, it is fine to approach users for reviews as long as requests are worded neutrally and not just asking for support. Sarastro (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Hi. I'm having trouble finding interested editors. Do you have any recommendations? And, should this be archived as a non-pass, what is the best course of action from there? Renominate? Thanks in advance, CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 20:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

I took a look at the "Critical reception and legacy" section, which is one of the hardest bits to do well, and I think some work is needed. See WP:RECEPTION for some advice on how to write these sections -- you have the "A said B" problem, for example. A couple of other specific points:

There are a lot of different verbs used as substitutes for "said": "praised", "called", "emphasised", "labeled", "wrote", "regarded", "lauded". If you can reorganize the material so it flows around the points the reviewers and critics make, rather than just lists their comments, the need for most of these will disappear. The second paragraph is better than the first in this respect.
A couple of slightly unnatural phrases: "its acclaim grew with time" -- is "acclaim" the right word here?
Most of the second half of the first paragraph is high praise from several different critics. Do we need all the critics' names and the names of their publications? I don't think the reader would suffer if they had to click on the footnote to see Jason Pettigrew's name. You might try rewriting the whole paragraph with no direct quotes and without naming any of the sources: just paraphrase everything. If you can make that concise and readable, and then re-add some direct quotes for illustration, I think it'll be more readable.
Streetcleaner has cultivated a major following: not quite right: cultivation is an activity, so the subject can't be something inanimate.

I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I see there are no supports yet. It can be a bit of a chore to get the reception section right (see here for a fairly thorough example), so I'd recommend withdrawing this and working on it, then coming back to FAC. I'd be glad to comment on the reception section away from FAC if you would like me to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CelestialWeevil, just making sure you saw this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, Oh, I'm so sorry, I missed it. Thanks a bunch for the input. I always thought the reception section was rough, I just didn't know how to fix it. I'll work on it as soon as I can. Is it a better idea to withdraw the nomination myself or just wait for archival? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 15:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can request withdrawal by posting a note saying so here; the next time one of the coordinators go through they'll archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

I appreciate everyone's feedback. After I redo and improve some stuff, I'll renominate; for now, I'd like this article to be withdrawn from FAC. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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