Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Title TK/archive2

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2016 [1].

Title TK

[edit]
Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title TK's first FAC attempt, in May, had several supports, but one editor felt the article needed rewriting. After some copy-editing and shuffling of content by both of us, this editor has now declared the article "much improved". I'm therefore submitting it again for FAC in the hopes that consensus for support will be achieved this time around. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning Support: I am the editor who felt the article needed some work before. The nominator has put a lot of work into this, and deserves praise for their patience as I've picked away at it. I think we are just about there. I've done quite a lot of copy-editing of this article now, so I'd like some other eyes on it before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again for all of your help on the article. I'm committed to working with you and other editors to make sure we end up with an article that we're all helpful with, and look forward to fruitful results. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll take a deeper dive later, but at first blush this seems right at the FA-quality level I would expect for a rock album article. I have one source to recommend: Albini appeared on WTF With Marc Maron earlier this year and, when asked which albums he'd worked on seemed most important to him in retrospect, named Title TK (perhaps surprisingly) as one of two. The response was quite emotional and hinted at the dramatic back story of the album. The bulk of his words on Title TK (maybe all of them) can be found here. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead

[edit]
  • The release date should be specifically noted in the opening sentence. This is only an assumption, but can you check if the album was released in Europe a day earlier because 4AD is a British label, and a day later in the US because Allmusic is hosted by an American company? Also Elektra is based in America, so that would probably be the reason why there were two different dates.
  • There is an article on 4AD, so you can link the label. You should also add the labels which released the album in the lead.
  • You can lose the references in the infobox since you've elaborated on studio and genre in the article's body.
  • Removed. At one point there was an editor who was going around and removing genres from articles (not this one) where there was no reference in the infobox, and since then I've always added refs for genres. But personally I don't have a very strong opinion about it. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll keep an eye if anyone randomly changes the genre.
  • "the composition of the group changed several times"... this reads more like a police record; why not write something less official like "the lineup changed several times"?
  • how about "four New York studios"? Locations seems not needed.
  • The term "computer manipulation" is not the luckiest solution here. The way it is written now, someone might conclude that computers are used to manipulate the album's listeners.
Wrote computer editing instead. It has the same meaning, only it's more encyclopedic-friendly.
  • Can you name the one reviewer who "has commented that keyboards buzz..."
  • My thinking was to keep the reviewers' names out of the non-Songs part of the Music and lyrics section; for this section, I hoped to focus on what was said and keep who said it in the background. This is partly because between the Songs and the Reception sections, the reader is already presented with lots of reviewer names. If I also put reviewer names in the top part of Music and lyrics, it might be too much. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll elaborate this below as I see it occurs at more than one occasion.
  • Allmusic shouldn't be italicized, as it is in 'Songs'
  • The NME doesn't use star-rating system. Also, why not place Metacritic in the table?
  • I believe there's a practice to avoid writing positive/mixed/negative review in the table because non-rated reviews can be interpreted differently from reader to reader.
  • Addressed the three points above per your suggestions. I also added another negative review to the infobox to balance it better (due to the removal of the (Mixed) review). Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered putting the singles' chart positions in the "Charts" section under different subsection?
  • Could you please direct me to an example of this (preferable in a FA) so I can see exactly what you mean? Just now I did a random search of some albums and didn't see the singles' chart positions listed for any of them. But I think I have seen what you're talking about somewhere before. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I have no problem letting them stay in the prose.
  • I see literally every review in the critical reception is quoted. Can you paraphrase some of them and make them read more cohesively?
OK, I've had a go at increasing the paraphrasing and trying to improve the flow. Let me know what you think, and I'm happy to tweak it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a review from Encyclopedia of Popular Music (hope I did the reference formatting properly) and placed Metacritic at the top of the able where it should be. The rest of the reviews look good.
  • You can add an external links section and incorporate a Discogs history of releases.
It's not an FA standard, just a suggestion of mine to have a link to all the album's releases, such as in The Ecstatic, another FA candidate.
  • What were Tanya Donelly and Britt Walford roles in the group? You should say in the Background and initial recording attempts.
  • I see this is a common occurrence in other sentences. When you firstly introduce a person in the article's body, link the name and describe his position (bassist, drummer, guitarist, etc.)
  • by the time of the band's 1993 album Last Splash... by the time it was released or recorded?
  • What is a chance meeting with the Fear members? Coincidental, arranged, or something else?
Because Fear members were in town and she used the chance to arrange a meeting?
  • I certainly would never understand "chance meeting" to mean that. But that's fine. I think "coincidental meeting" reads awkwardly. Do you have a suggestion how you would like it worded? Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, leave it the way it is now. Thanks for clarifying.
  • On a second thought, assistance or intervention are better choices than manipulation.
  • The "quiet-LOUD-quiet" dynamic link shouldn't be leading to Pixies; it's like pointing death metal to death (metal band).
  • Do we have sources that tell what the album cover represents?
  • Why are the reviews written in present when they should be in past? They are definitely a finished action, thus they need to be in past simple.
  • Changed to past simple in the Reception section because it can be implicitly surmised that the reviews came out in the time period right after the album's release, even though there are no explicit time markers. For the Music and lyrics section (including Songs) I strongly feel that the present perfect (has + past participle) is appropriate, as—within the text itself—these comments are not as strongly tied to the release of the album, and thus the time frame becomes more open-ended. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You definitely need to sort out the one reviewer issue. That includes the "Off You" caption and the first two paragraphs of "Music and lyrics". That one reviewer could be some Facebook user who wrote his opinion on the album. And since it's an opinion and not a fact, it should be precisely attributed to the author.
  • I have added attribution to instances of "one reviewer" and the like. I did leave a handful of instances of phrases such as "multiple critics have said" (with multiple references), which I hope you'll agree is not the same issue as "one reviewer". Moisejp (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, more reviewers can be referred to as "multiple critics have said" or just "critics said".
  • Related to the point above, you don't need to source every member's position as you did here. It's simply for better navigation for users like me who never heard of those musicians before.
  • OK, I have removed the explicit sources for Donnelly and Walford because between Erlewine and Albini (the two refs that directly follow) they are identified as these, even if both are not identified in both refs. But the Amps' roles were not mentioned in the pre-existing ref, so I will keep the new ref I added for that, if that's OK. Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry for opposing, but after reading the article thoroughly, I don't think the prose has the same quality as other featured albums or candidates, such as The Ecstatic. I realize you have put much effort and time into this, but the text is wordy at places. I copyedited some sentences myself and made several suggestions above, but as for now, I don't think the article is ready for promotion.--Retrohead (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, Retrohead, don't leave me like that. Could I ask why didn't oppose before making all of those suggestions above? Was it less wordy before this edit [[2]]? This has been through two peer reviews with all parties satisfied at the end of both peer reviews, and it had eight supports in its last FAC. I have been working months and months on this to satisfy everybody. Don't leave me with an oppose after I have just done major edits to it to address your concerns. Please work with me. Moisejp (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've struck my vote. I don't want to be an obstacle and fail the nomination if eight editors support promotion. Neither I want to push changes from a position of power. It's up to the nominator if he wants to implement any suggestions. I only think that reviews from 2002 should be written in past simple and stand-alone critics' opinions should be attributed to the author. I agree if more or all reviewers have the same opinion, they shouldn't be all explicitly mentioned. But anyhow, good luck with the rest of the reviewers.--Retrohead (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much! I don't want to press my luck, but I really am much more comfortable with this version from three edits ago [[3]] or I could also live with the version one edit after that. If you are withdrawing your oppose, would you mind if I reverted to one of these? I did like the various other suggestions you made and your copy-edits up to this point. I can show you examples of where the present tense is used for critical commentary in other FAs if that helps. Moisejp (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you disagree with changing tenses and citing critics names, so I boldly restored the prose as it previously was. Like I said, if you think my edits or suggestions are not right, feel free to revert.--Retrohead (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I guess my input here is done. Glad you liked some of my edits and I think the article is in better shape then it was few days before. Hope to see you getting it promoted.--Retrohead (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Breeders Title TK.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct given that it's an album cover. Has a boilerplate non-free use rationale but I'd say that all points on WP:NFCC are met.
  • File:Kim Deal Smoke.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Caption points out that it refers to a problem during the production process (the topic of the section). Basic EXIF, file can be found elsewhere on the web at lower or identical resolution, no indication of copying. No indication of Flickrwashing.
  • File:Albini-Shellac-7.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Image and caption refer to an event alluded to in the section. No EXIF this time. answers.com has a higher resolution image but I can't find it. No clear cut evidence of Flickrwashing.
  • File:Breeders Off You.ogg: Non-free song sample, which seems correct to me. Has a fairly detailed non-free use rationale and the caption discusses the content of the sample specifically, with sources. The sample is in the section for the song and lyrics, which seems pertinent to me. Overall I think all parts of NFCC (including #8) are met.
  • File:Breeders Kim Deal.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Caption is sourced and also commented on in the article. Other versions of the file exist on the web in lower resolution. See my comments on Kim Deal Smoke.jpg for the rest (same Flickr uploader).

I see that all files have adequate ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Just to confirm, this all means no further action is required on my part? I just wasn't sure about the part about different resolutions existing on the web. Moisejp (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, unless you want to re-check these that they don't predate the upload to Flickr - because that would indicate a copyright violation in most cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working through a close copyedit in my spare time here and there. I know you've seen my edits Moisejp, but I wanted to make sure I indicated this for anyone else following the candidacy. As I noted above, I'm very impressed with the quality of research and comprehensiveness. Pending this copyedit I'm confident that I will support. Moisejp, if you see any changes I've made that you disagree with just let me know here. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brandt Luke Zorn. Thank you very much for your interest in this article, your kind words, and your copy-edits so far, which I've generally found to be excellent. I was especially happy with your edit "Engineers and musicians on the project came to believe Deal's behavior and demanding musical standards made her difficult to work with at this time." From the beginning, I'd been striving for the most neutral way to express this, and it's my opinion that you nailed it. A couple of concerns:
  • Currently in the second paragraph of "Music and lyrics", three sentences in a row begin with "Critics..."
  • I'd like to explain the logic I've used for verb tenses throughout the article. I could be somewhat flexible about this, but whatever system gets decided on needs to be coherent:
  • Simple past for events with an explicit time marker (that month, in 1997, etc.)—or where the completed time period can be implicitly induced from the context surrounding the sentence—i.e., where there is an answer to the question "When did it happen?" I've used the simple past for most events up to the end of "Subsequent recording and coalescence of the group".
  • Present perfect where the time frame is not clear from the context, and is thus open-ended. This includes instances where band members are commenting on events after the fact. I used the present perfect in the first two paragraphs of "Music and lyrics" and throughout "Songs" when the commentators were not specifically named. In your edits of "Music and lyrics" you changed a number of instances to the simple past, and I would like ideally to change them back to the present perfect.
  • Literary present for all commentary where the reviewers are named, basically in the "Songs" section and in the last two paragraphs of "Release and reception". Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for laying this out. Present perfect is probably appropriate for verbs that "critics," reviewers, commentators do as a group, because they didn't necessarily all write/publish simultaneously (even if the reviews are mostly contemporaneous, with the exception of that 2013 review), so I've changed those back. I would recommend simple past for individual commentators, even where literary present is otherwise mostly appropriate in describing the songs. Literary present is awkward, arguably inaccurate when describing how critics wrote about something. Consider this phrase from the current edit: "Pitchfork Media's Will Bryant is struck by the song's ominousness." Is he still? I'm going to change as many of these instances of literary perfect to simple past, while retaining simple past in sentences that just describe the qualities of a song.
I also agree that the three instances of sentences starting with "Critics" in a row is not great, and I've reworded those. That was inadvertent on my part, but I really wanted to pare down those sentences, which were kind of long and unwieldy (particularly the one that included the lines from the lyrics being described.) Each of those sentences expressed an idea that critics had noted two somewhat opposing qualities in the music. For each sentence, I read through the cited reviews to ensure that I retained their meaning. Because of the length of the originals, when I condensed them I switched to an active tense, simple structure (which I have hopefully refined in the reword—I was taking them on one by one). Some of these sentences were difficult to reword, either because I didn't think that the original draft best served the meaning of the review, or that the identified contrast in opinions was not as sharp as the sentence made it seem. For example: "While some critics have made reference to the dark tendencies of the lyrics, others have commented on the humor of the album." Darkness and humor are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive, so it makes more sense to say that both qualities are present, rather than that some critics saw darkness while others saw humor. I'm more confident about the opposition between "poetic" and "opaque" in the sense of those words as used in the reviews, although again it may not be immediately clear to a reader and could use some massaging. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, two very small notes: (1) I think the Notes section might look better split into two columns, but this is totally optional, and (2) it used to be that the track listing template was reserved only for "complex" track listings (typically hip hop albums with features on nearly every track and a need to cite producers on a track by track basis); however, it seems now that there's an irresistible pressure for it to become ubiquitous. I don't really think the track listing here "warrants" use of the template based on past comments I've received on its use, but I think it's very likely that someone would come along and change it back anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandt, thank you sincerely again for all the time you have spent copy-editing this. I really appreciate how much thought you have put into your edits, including going to the sources to get the complete context. I'm willing to go along with the verb tense changes you've proposed. I've gone ahead and changed the verbs in the rest of Songs and Reception, but of course feel free to further copy-edit the wording as you see fit. I also split the Notes section into colwidth=45em based on your suggestion. I don't have a strong opinion about the track listing, but I agree with you that if we remove it, some keen soul will probably add it back. Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources formatted consistently
Earwig's copyvio tool ok
Abbott 2002 used 4 times - article material faithful to source.
Albini 2002 used 15 times - article material faithful to source.

I am happy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cas Liber! Moisejp (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- @Sarastro1 and Brandt Luke Zorn: As things stand I'd say we have consensus to promote but I'm happy to leave this open a bit longer if you have any further comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've completed my copyedit at this time. Thank you to Moisejp for your patience as I slogged through this copyedit (it's my first week returning to law school and I have had only a little free time), and great job on this article overall. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've had a look at the changes since I last looked at this, and they seem fine. Some of them I'm not sure are an improvement, but that is a matter of taste! I've done a couple of last tweaks but overall I'm happy to switch to full support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2016 (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/Title_TK/archive2&oldid=738773155"