Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loveless (album)

< 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 15:57, 18 December 2007.

Loveless (album)

edit
check links LuciferMorgan 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination This article (about a very influential and critically-acclaimed album by alt-rock band My Bloody Valentine) has been part of a months-long collaboration between me and fellow WikiProject Alternative music members Ceoil and Brandt Luke Zorn. It was one of the project's Collaborations of the Week back in August, and the page has been recently promoted as a Good Article. We've worked hard on the article, and now feel it's ready for FA status. Any concerns should be addressed promptly. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I'll make comments here as I find things to comment on;
  • "Shields wavers his guitar's tremolo bar as he strums, which contributes, in part, to the band's unique sound.[26]" - The fact this contributes to the band's alleged (alleged since I'm unfamiliar with the group) unique sound is the opinion of Jim DeRogatis. The statement should reflect this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the defining trait of My Bloody Valentine as described by a number of critics. It's been ripped off a lot since then, so maybe it should be rephrased to "distinctive". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LuciferMorgan's suggestion is best in this situation, especially with an easily-misleading statement. Find several sources that agree for the sentence to remain the same. NSR77 TC 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally pointed out by sources as the band's definiing trait (for example, the McGonigal book spends a chapter on it, and guitar magazines always describe it). As there is a consensus of sources, I'll just change it to "distinctive". WesleyDodds (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to ask Ceoil about that, but it is established by a number of sources that Creation was in dire financial straits at this time. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer, I'll have to check tonight if the word severe is used on the cited page, but the preceeding chapters detail Creation's near bankrupt situation in fine detail. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the accuracy, but am merely wondering if the word "severe" is warranted. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source uses the word 'crippled', and has this quote from mcgee about shields: I went to the wall for you. I stole my fathers money for you. I think severe is implied. Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
There is inconsistency when introducing direct quotes. Some sentences introduce a quote with a colon, others with a comma.
I'll fix this soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done WesleyDodds (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary for the "Only Shallow" sound sample needs to be attributed to a source (I believe that is ref #32) in order to qualify as fair use. Just need to add that source to the sample box is all, so that someone, such as I, won't have to search within the body for verification. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a reference because the information listed in infobox comments is right next to it in the paragraph about the drums on the album. As the body of the article discusses this, it qualifies under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it qualifies under fair use and I see the ref, I found it in the text. My point is that I had to look for it. It's just a minor thing. Simply add the ref (32) to the sample box as well, which would make it easier for any reviewer to navigate to it, rather than having to search for it in the text.

Support. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with comments - I gave the article a light copyedit (that was all that was needed), but a small issue remains:
The beginning of the second paragraph of the "reception" section states: "reviews of Loveless praised the album for its groundbreaking nature." That's a little POV ("groundbreaking" is a peacock word), and should probably be truncated to read "reviews of Loveless praised the album." Edit it how you see fit.
Reworded with reference. With "groundbreaking" I was trying to sum up what reviewers generally said about the album, but no big deal. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
The article is comprehensive, informative and engaging. I'm sure the above-mentioned issue will be dealt with swiftly, so I'm giving this article my full endorsement. Grim (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/questions: these are really requests for clarifications, since I'm not sure if they're mistakes or not. As such, they may all be non-actionable:
First, I take it that the use of "nineteen" in the Lead ("between 1989 and 1991 in nineteen recording studios") is just aesthetics, to avoid "1989...1991...19". Right?
Yes. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Recording and production, the name "The Elephant and Wapping"; is/was that the actual name of the studio? It's just that it looks like the name of a pup, and I was wondering if the basement studio was in the basement of a pub of that name, rather than that being the name of the studio.
It was the the name of the studio according to sources. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google shows it may be the Elephant Recording Studio in Wapping, but google results aren't related specifically to this album or group, so your printed sources are probably to be preferred. Carre (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same section, "Dutt admits being desperate 'to leave'" – why is "to leave" in quotes generally, and why in single quotes specifically?
Good point. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, same section "to Creation's dismay, he needed 13 days; rather than the usual one." – don't think the semi-colon is needed or adds anything.
Removed. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. As I say, these are requests for clarifications more than anything else. Ta. Carre (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. Carre (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is there no credits/personnel section? "160 thousand pounds was the most" - why not £160,000? I think the lead could use another paragraph (its a huge article), with more about the production and the music. Also, the "make tea" quote seems out of place in the lead. Why is the bit about their live shows in the reception section, if it can be expanded it could have a section of its own. Tommy Stardust (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS says spell numbers greater than 9. Actually, I agree about the lead. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The credits listed in the album sleeve have been proven to be largely arbitrary, and in some instances it's unknown who actually contributed what. As for the pound amount, that's a direct quote, so it won't be changed. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just two short comments:
    • In the third paragraph of the "Recording and production" section Anjali Dutt is quoted as calling Bilinda Butcher, Belinda. Is this misspelling really used in the original? If so, wouldn't adding a [sic] be appropriate?
No, thats a typo. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same thing goes for the "whats" in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section.--

Carabinieri (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another typo. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • The tour saw My Bloody Valentine accused of criminal negligence by the music press, who took exception to the long period of extreme noise played during You Made Me Realise, referring to it as "the holocaust". - needs a reference. Link you made me realise.
Same ref as the sentence below it. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That para also uses a couple of unnecessary "the"s - the american flautist, the critic mark kemp.
Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS fixes - "with 'Loveless' you..." and "'Loveless' ups the ante," "'Loveless' is the outermost", "Collapsed Lung's 1996 single Board Game", Audio samples of 'Loveless'
Fixed. In the case of the reviews quoted, the reviewers put Loveless in quotation marks, per British grammar conventions. Thus when quoted, this article accurately uses quotation marks in those instances. And with the sample box, that seems to be some sort of flaw in the script, because it's definitely formatted to render the album name in italics. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell is "The Scene That's Delighted To Eat Quiche"?
It's a dismissive comment about The Scene That Celebrates Itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rolling Stone gave the album four out of five stars. In a review that also covered Creation labelmates Chapterhouse and Velvet Crush, reviewer Ira Robbins" - i needed to read that twice to figure that Ira robbins was the rolling stone reviewer... the two sentences need to be clubbed better.
I think it's pretty apparent. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a hard sell" - seemes colloquial - could you rephrase it? or maybe link it.
Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Loveless's influence" - extra "s"
I believe British grammar uses the extra "s", but I'd appreciate clarification on that by someone who uses British English. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use the extra s if you would say it as in "Jesuses ball". Do not use an extra s if you would not say it as in "Socrates ball". So in this instance use the s. That's British grammar. Hiding T 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shields wavers his guitar's tremolo bar" - why the sudden change to present tense?
Because it's referring to the music on the album, which exists in the here and now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention the word "shoegaze" in any form - that seems odd. the lead can be expanded into 3 paras - 1st one for production, second for music and the third for reception, legacy and influence.
There's really no good place to list shoegaze in the lead, and it is largely incidental to the rest of the article, so it's not imperative. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support with pleasure. I gave this article a thorough once-over and found it very readable and very well flowing. I also found it a very well-sourced article and that they're quite reliable. Given that it is one of my favorite albums and a shoegazing masterpiece, I would be pleased to no extent to see it pass as an FA. (SUDUSER)85 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Loveless_(album)&oldid=1138466018"