Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)/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 promoted by Karanacs 16:29, 13 September 2009 [1].

Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Ok so it isn't quite the greatest rock album ever like DSotM, but its probably up there in the top ten and certainly ranks top of some people's lists. Its slightly shorter than I'd like but that's more down to a paucity of written material than anything else (DSotM has entire books written about it, WYWH does not). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The alt text is quite good and very detailed, but it's a bit long; see WP:ALT#Brevity. Relatively unimportant etails like "The sky is blue with no clouds." can be omitted. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll give a more thorough review later, but here are a few right off the bat:
  • discogs.com is not reliable in the same way that IMDb is not reliable, as they're both user-generated. You've double sourced the release information you're citing anyway, so unless I'm mistaken removing the discogs citation doesn't change anything.
  • Reference 45 seems to be broken; check over this real quick, seems like a simple fix. It's evident from the ref name alone exactly what you were trying to cite.
  • Same issue as DSotM on the formatting of the "Sales chart performance" table.
  • Another minor issue, which also came up with DSotM; I'm not sure how exactly this is fixed, but it bothers me that the titles of web references are italicized and not in quotes as they should be. Can someone explain why this is?

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding the citations, they're formatted entirely correctly; this article uses the {{citation}} template. There's no "as they should be" about it – while the {{cite web}} template puts them in quotes instead of italics, there's no requirement to use one template over the other as long as the use within the article is consistent. – iridescent 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done, ref 45 had been accidently deleted by another user. I prefer to use the Citation template (easier for newcomers to understand). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few other things I've noticed:

  • The paragraph that begins "In 2007, one of Germany's largest public radio stations..." in the "Sales" subsection should be up in the "Reception" section with the other retrospective ratings and listings.
  • It is not made clear in the text that Ben Edmunds is writing for Rolling Stone.
  • Names are used inconsistently; After the first mention of the full name in the main text, the person should be referred to by last name only. Also, you say Rick Wright and Richard Wright, which is potentially confusing.
  • "première" and "premièred" - Are the alternate spellings necessary?
  • I think that the first Gilmour quote would be better positioned in Template:Quote box. In general, blockquotes work best when they're followed by a sentence that ends in a colon, like the Edmunds quote. In this case though the Gilmour quote just sorta floats there.
  • This last one by no means bars the article from a support, as the info may not even exist as far as I know, but I'm curious if any band members other than Wright and Gilmour have said anything retrospectively about the album. Is there any Mason or Waters perspective here? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waters has said that he felt that the long instrumental sections were unnecessary, that the lyrics should introduce the music, rather than the music introducing the lyrics. I'll have to check on what Mason thinks. I already have a fair bit from Waters in there though. I'm creating a completely new Pink Floyd article in my sandbox here and may expand upon this there, as I feel Waters' criticism is more to do with the direction he was taking as a lyricist, rather than criticism of the album per se. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my points have been sufficiently addressed and I now believe that the article is feature-worthy. I really have to commend the awesome job you're doing with the Pink Floyd articles, Parrot of Doom. Nice work! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to refer to this new editor inserting this source. I guess this can be settled on consensus as to whether it is a reliable source or not. PS: Well picked up though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is related to the actions of that editor, who proceeded to spam unreliable review links across a range of Pink Floyd articles using first an IP, and then an account. The source he used contains 'reviews' from members of the public. When repeatedly asked to justify the reliability of the source he resorted to abuse, using his IP address to create edits like this. You can see similar issues on DSotM, and Meddle.
This is not an edit war - its vandalism, pure and simple, hence the article's protected status. You can check the history of those three articles and see that this user is alone in making these changes, and that several users and admins reverted them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the protection now. It was intended as a short term measure to prevent disruption as described by PoD above. As Casliber says, consensus will prevail, but I'm pretty sure it was as described by PoD. Apologies for any inconvenience. – B.hotep •talk• 09:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think reference 41 is not needed; the facts are unlikely to be contested, and are indeed common knowledge to Floyd's fans. Q Magazine (refs 51 and 52) is a respected publication, and although the references do not link directly to the publisher's website, again I think that these facts are unlikely to be contested. IMHO, the image review remains the major obstacle—but I still rely on other reviewers for this. Graham Colm Talk 19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If pushed I can probably remove the Hypergallery reference without losing too much information. It'll have to wait until tomorrow though. As for the Q list, it isn't a major loss if it goes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and we seem to be forgetting that citations are required "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Graham Colm Talk 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This won't be a problem now - see above Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (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/Wish_You_Were_Here_(Pink_Floyd_album)/archive1&oldid=1138475755"