Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monkey Gone to Heaven

< 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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

Monkey Gone to Heaven

edit
Check external links

1989 single by the American alternative rock band Pixies from Doolittle. Was promoted to GA status in July sometime, but I've finally got around to improving it to A-class and hopefully FA status. CloudNine (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, what's up?
    -[Oppose --Kiyarrllston 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)] [done]""Monkey Gone to Heaven" is also concerned with man's relationship with the supernatural[numberology], referenced by the lyrics "If man is 5/then the Devil is 6/and God is 7." either that or not referenced by those lyrics really- but by another part of the song? I also feel it's grandiose somehow[reply]
    --Kiyarrllston 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I was unclear, thank you for asking me to explain.
[done]This would be an example of bad writing in the form of bad organization. That paragraph is about numerology, not about supernatural or spiritual concerns. As the first sentence of the paragraph it would be more fitting to say it is numerology that those lyrics reference. While spirituality and numerology are connected, it is best to put the truest fact on the board.
I also don't think the word "referenced" is very well used there.
Again, thank you for asking me to explain. I do not think my original comment was very clear.
More important than that regarding that section is the fact that it doesn't seem to be referenced to some ... highly respected literary critic who said all those things.
Thus - who is it that thinks [and says that] "[these are the themes" and this is the meaning -?]
regarding that section "One of "Monkey Gone to Heaven"'s main themes is environmentalism." - the first sentence would be better off as one saying "Monkey Gone to Heaven" has - and then either "various themes" OR "environentalism, numerology, and ___ as themes" - OR even better ... "Monkey Gone to Heaven" is a song without a definite meaning but rather falls into post-modernism as pastiche [Cited to Literary Critic #39875]
Improving the article's writing would be the most important necessary improvement to get my support for its candidateship.
Didn't mean to be unclear, I would love to see this article improve.
--Kiyarrllston 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note: numerology concern is addressed--Kiyarrllston 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find your comments hard to understand, which means it's harder to address them. They're very wordy and unclear. Could perhaps phrase your comments in the style of most other reviewers? (Why the multiple line-breaks?) CloudNine (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you once more. You are not the first to tell me that I am unclear, let me attempt to clarify. My opposition is currently based on the quality of the "meaning" section.
1- The first sentence of the section should serve as an introduction to the section, just as the first sentence of a paragraph should similarly serve as an introduction to the paragraph.
Actually, the environmentalism theme is the main one; the "if man is 5 ... " bit is more of a reference; I've already included a summary sentence of the song's themes in the lead paragraph. CloudNine (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adequately addressed, Thank you for addressing this objection.--Kiyarrllston 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2- I believe the section may fall under WP:OR. Citing a literary critic instead of the lyrics to speak of what the song means would be a great improvement.
Where isn't the section well-cited? In the second paragraph for example, the quote and numerology fact is cited to the reference, and the last sentence is obvious. CloudNine (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I think this impression was due to the writing, as I believed the statement "environmentalism is a theme" was unsupported by any source other than lyrics, please take a look at my comment below- Also, I searched "monkey gone to heaven" on google books and I found Doolittle by Ben Sisario - in page 66 a I interpret that a bandmember says: "It's a good statement of the way I feel about music [...] It's slightly aloof about your own music. Just cut the crap you what what I mean? [...] that's the kind of aesthetic I think that we had". This kind of attitude does not seem ready to note "motifs" within it's work and I believe there should be some note of this within meaning as it is definitely part of the song.--Kiyarrllston 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I've got the book.) Black Francis is famous for insisting there is no meaning to his lyrics, but he does talk about it in some interviews. Actually in that excerpt, he's talking about his approach to albums and song length, rather than lyrical meaning. CloudNine (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original objection was addressed. I hope my comments are helpful, thank you for reading this comment.--Kiyarrllston 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per 1a: "Ben Sisario, author of Doolittle 33⅓, offers a slightly different interpretation of the song" - what the other interpretation was is not clear. I believe the readers are supposed to understand that the following is the first interpretation: """On one hand, it's this big organic toilet."" -What is the it? the world of the song? planet earth? I ask you to be make the article clearer on what "it" is in that sentence - I suggest: "The band's interpretation is that the world of the song is "this big organic toilet [...]"" or "The song's message according to the band is that "[earth's] like this big"--Kiyarrllston 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would refer to "the ocean" (in the previous sentence), but I've clarified it anyway. CloudNine (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be proper to set up a first interpretation, to then say "a slightly different interpretation [...]" preferably using the word "interpretation".
I think it would be proper to include the information that Black Francis commonly insists that there is no meaning to his lyrics.
I think with these done I have no problem removing my oppose.
--Kiyarrllston 01:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice; also I performed a copy-edit:

  • The music video, the Pixies' first after signing to major label Elektra Records - They didnt release any videos from Surfer Rosa, did they? If not, remove "after signing..." and move "signed to elektra" to the release part.
  • Fixed.
  • The melody section might be construed as OR: especially the toy piano and staccato bits seem like too detailed analysis for uncited stuff.
  • I've got a citation for "toy piano" somewhere. I'm working on the assumption that a Melody section like the one I've written implicitly uses the song as a source, much like film articles implicitly use the film as a source.
  • I've referenced as much as possible, and culled the bits that I couldn't reference. What are your thoughts from here?
  • The second para of the lyrics section has "If Man is 5", but melody section has "If man is five". Pick one, what do the liner notes lyrics say?
  • The "If Man is 5" was in quotes, but I changed it to "five" anyway.
  • I dont think you can link rocklists and acclaimedmusic because of possible copyvio.
  • I don't think AcclaimedMusic is a copyvio (it's only repeating the chart positions, rather than the full list itself). I'll probably replace rocklists with a direct reference.
  • That best-song rank section should be made into a table, making it much more elegant.
  • I did have it as a table, but since it hasn't received a huge amount of awards, I decided it worked better as prose.
  • There are six entries for the table as i count: 4 single of the year lists (nme, rs, vv, mm), the RS 500 and the nme indie list. That would make for a good table. Right now its rather complicated which reviewer ranks it at what.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • aleceiffel is a fansite, besides, track-listing doesn't need referencing. The cd single itslef is the reference.
  • I wouldn't say it was a fansite (with the connotation of it being unreliable); content from the site has been reproduced in books as Fool the World.
  • fix the allmusic link.
  • The link appears to work fine. What's wrong in particular?
  • Its a redirect, check the external links tab above.
  • Done. Thanks for pointing it out.
indopug (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support I know nothing about popular music, but I could easily follow this article. I made a few minor copy edits as I was reading - please revert any that introduced errors or ambiguities. Questions and comments:
  • The song was written and sung by frontman Black Francis and was produced by Gil Norton during the album's recording sessions. - Is it unusual for a song to be produced during an album's recording sessions? I wasn't sure why this was being emphasized.
  • It's a little redundant, so I removed it for now. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • The song's numerology is alluded to on the single's cover, which also features a monkey with a halo. - How is numerology represented? Make this clear in the sentence.
    • Done.
  • Do you know what the chord progressions are? I, IV, V, I, for example?
    • The chord progression is Em - F# - A - D - B, but I haven't got a scholarly reference for that. (I suppose, if that's admissible, converting into I, IV etc. would not be original research?)
  • Fiacco was surprised to find there were no charts written for the musicians to play - Do you mean scores or parts, perhaps?
  • Fixed. I think the word "charts" was used in the source, so I also used it. It doesn't make much sense as a musical term though.
  • Notes:
  • Note 1 is missing page numbers
  • Note 3 is missing page numbers
  • Note 11 is missing page numbers and volume/issue number
  • Note 12 is missing page numbers and volume/issue number
  • Note 13 is missing page numbers
  • Unfortunately I haven't got access to the sources themselves, but I transcribed the reviews from a book that didn't state the page numbers. (I don't think the page numbers are critical?). I'll look up the volume/issue number soon.
  • When transcribing reviews from sources it is usual to credit those sources (Qtd. from ... or some such indication) and then give the original publication information in a separate part of the note (although not everyone gives the original publication information). This is because sometimes—shockingly—things are misprinted; you want readers to know exactly where you copied the information from. If you copied it from a reprint, that is different from copying it from the original. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, on looking again at my sources, I read the reprints on a website. However, I'm unsure of their permission to reprint the articles, so surely linking to them would count as contributory infringement? (Sorry for the late reply on this FAC.) CloudNine (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added "Quoted from Alec Eiffel" for now. What do you think? CloudNine (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - you can't just list the name of the song. You have to list the source you actually copied the information from. Even if you can't link to it, you have to list it. Something like "Qtd. from www.smith.com; originally published in NME (March 1989): 13-15" - or something like that. (I'm not really sure why you are listing the name of a song anyway - it is confusing to me. Aren't these reviews?) Awadewit | talk 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a website Awadewit; apologies for not making it clearer. I've removed the "Qtd. from Alec Eiffel" for now, but will seek a wider consensus on the issue soon. CloudNine (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. You do need to list whatever source you got the information from - I can't emphasize this enough. So, as I understand it, it would be something like this: "www.aleceiffel.com. Retrieved on [date]; originally published in NME (March 1989): [page numbers]." Awadewit | talk 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Note 16 is broken
  • Fixed.
  • Check to see if links have dates. For example, note 18, Rolling Stone article was posted in 2004. That should be indicated in the note.
  • Done.
  • But there are still others that need to be done. This was just a sample to show you the concept.
  • I reckon I've added the dates where they apply to the source now.

A very thorough and carefully-written article on a popular song - nice to see! Awadewit | talk 23:01, 12 January 2008 (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/Monkey_Gone_to_Heaven&oldid=1138467147"