Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Rainbows

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 00:10, 12 March 2008.

In Rainbows

edit
previous FAC
Check external links

Nominator I'm nominating this article on Radiohead's latest album for FA, after a somewhat premature previous nomination. Now, however, I believe it meets the FA criteria, and I look forward to your comments. Atlantik (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  • Lead: Self-released discbox - as in the discbox released itself? Make it a little clearer, or maybe even the mention is unnecessary in the lead.
  • The announcement of details about the album led to media attention centered around the band's decision to first release the album online as a digital download for which fans could decide the price they paid. - That sentence seems unnecessarily long and wordy; simplify.
  • Mention that Donwood is a longtime collaborator.
  • Link photographic etching? What is a "bath" here?
  • LInk hippy rock appropriately
  • "Just before the digital download release of the album, the band decided not to use the cover." - but isn't that the current album cover?
  • Link do-it-yourself, server.
  • No mention that the album was released at 160 kbps bitrate?
  • I'd say include a few more positive reviews (maybe one more). If the album had an 88%, the article should include reflect that as per WP:NPOV. Right now there are 5 positive and 3 negative reviews. Also, surely better opinions than a Canadian tabloid can be sought.
  • 2LP / 2CD - why no spaces?
  • I've removed a few but check for overlinking, especially in the publisher's section of the cites. Link only first mention of a publisher.
  • Make sure to format all the cites properly, I just found Radiohead Said to Shun Major Labels in Next Deal - it should be in quotes, all magazine article titles should.
indopug (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the issues you mentioned, except for the one about the Province's review - it's the only one I could find (surprisingly) that compared In Rainbows and OK Computer in any sort of terms at all. I wouldn't mind removing it, though if you think it would violate RS or feel very strongly about it. Atlantik (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to compare the two albums? I don't think so. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be a sort of consensus, I've replaced the review with one from the AMG. Atlantik (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see plenty of issues with the formats of the citations; "The Wire: Radiohead - In Rainbows, pg. 63" - is that right? There are plenty of cites where the article names aren't in quotations. Why does "Radiohead Returning To The Road In 2008" not have an external link? "Radiohead Said to Shun Major Labels in Next Deal" - why italics? indopug (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that Wire review needs to list the author, if it is available (it should be; I'm pretty sure they always name the author). Page number isn't necessary as long as it's clear what piece in the magazine is being cited. Also, ref-69 (Brandle, Lars, "Radiohead Returning To The Road In 2008", Billboard.com) is missing a link and proper formatting from the looks of it. Go through all the footnotes and make sure they are formatted correctly. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the citations, but I don't have access to the issue of The Wire, as I found that quote from the Metacritic compiling of album reviews. Atlantik (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find it. My work has a Wire subscription, and I think my library keeps the magazine in its catalogue. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the issue. The magazine's website for some reason doesn't list details for that month's issue (but lists details for issues before and after). You might want to contact the magazine and ask them for the relevant sourcing details. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. A very well-written and well-sourced article on a seminal recent album. Writing articles on albums and songs that have received this much attention and discussion can be somewhat difficult because there's so much to process and cover, but I feel that the article does a great job of covering the album in an encyclopedic way. I would advise Atlantik make one final run-through to check all the sourced information, because I noticed during the album's physical release there were other editors adding lots of information that occasionally misconstrued the sources cited. Once that's done and the issue with the Wire review is taken care of (and probably expand the lead a little bit; it definitely needs something about the music itself), I'll be happy to give this FAC a full support vote. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on your recommendations; could you could read the fixed lead and make any suggestions? Atlantik (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is fine now. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full support now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the links look live through the little tool at the top. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue - linking the first instance of each magazine's mention - is now fixed, as is the external link to the blog. Pitchfork Media, though, is a notable indie rock reviewer, so its inclusion is pretty merited. Atlantik (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Ealdgyth: Pitchfork Media. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankee much for educating me! It helps a bunch when folks link to Wikipedia articles on websites or magazines so folks can gauge a site easier. Thanks! Every bit you educate me means less questions later....Ealdgyth | Talk 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Initially, the album's commercial success was unclear as the band declined to publicise their Internet sales numbers." - But did they ever publish these numbers? And if so, how were they?
  • Ref 2: [1] doesn't cite the statement being made.
  • "Although the band had written several new songs by this point, little came of the recording sessions with Stent, which ended in April 2006." - reference for this statement?
  • "The band also played larger music festivals such as Bonnaroo and the V Festival; they headlined both lineups of V[9] and played a 28-song set at Bonnaroo, their longest live concert in years." - move ref 9 to the end of the sentence for easier readability. Also, something about the sentence bugs me...not sure what about the prose is bad, but yeah...Also, the next sentence could do with a source...
  • "The song "Nude", which" - previously wlinked in the last section
  • "Yorke, commenting on the band's relationship with EMI" - you've been quoting Yorke until now, so you don't need to name him again
  • "The staggered online release of the album began at about 5:30 GMT" - Might want to say the date too
  • The discbox description should be in past tense
  • Ensure past tense throughout the Sales section
  • Can the track listings and personnels go in columns?
  • IMO none of the external links are necessary.
  • I've deleted the Times editorial, but I think the remaining links, to Metacritic, the label's official album site, and the Yorke/Byrne Wired interview should stay - if you or anyone still disagrees, though, I'll remove them. Atlantik (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metacritic link is already used as a ref (#56). You're OK with the 2nd one, but the interview could potentially be used for referencing/adding content. And having an EL section with only 1 is odd IMO. Anyway, up to you, I'm supporting anyway. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support --Laser brain (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]
    • As a general rule, don't begin sentences with the word "this" in reference to a previous concept. For example, "This was attributed to difficulty regaining momentum after their break..." Instead, say "The delay was attributed..." or similar.
    • You qualify the first mention of Yorke with "frontman" but not the first mention of Greenwood. Don't make readers click the wikilink just to see that is he Radiohead's bassist.
    • "The tour, their first in several years, played in smaller venues such as clubs and theatres." The band played in the venues, not the tour.
    • "On the tour, the band included songs they were working on in their set." Reword, please.
    • "Recording, in contrast to their deadlocked 2005 sessions, were productive..." Take out the clause and you have "Recording were productive..."
    • Your use of ellipses in quotes is in consistent. Sometimes you have three periods with a space after, sometimes three periods unspaced, sometimes two periods.

--Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with pre-qualifying band members in this case and that's why I didn't bring it up myself; the members of Radiohead are in many cases multi-instrumentalists, so pre-qualifying them as guitarist or bassist may neither do justice to them nor be accurate. indopug (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how about a generic term like "band member"? My main issue is that I had to click Colin Greenwood even to find out rudimentary information. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced all the ellipses throughout, changing them to the MOS' recommended (...) style, if that's what you were calling attention to. Atlantik (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right, read the page again :-) It's three unspaced dots with spaces on either side, no parentheses, take note on when to use an nbsp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Atlantik (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your most recent edit on the article's page, the specific instance was put in with this edit. I've checked through the article, and I'm pretty sure that WP:PUNC is followed throughout the rest of the article, with the period inside the quote mark only when it was part of the original sentence. Atlantik (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Atlantik! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (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/In_Rainbows&oldid=1078801402"