Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Breeders Tour 2014/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 [1].

The Breeders Tour 2014

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about an impromptu tour that the Breeders went on three years ago to practice some then-unrecorded new material. It has been recently peer reviewed. I've thoroughly researched the topic, and believe the resulting article is a representative survey of available sources and is comprehensive in covering all the relevant details out there about this short tour. I look forward to your comments. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

For this part (comprised thirteen concerts in central and western United States), do you think it would be beneficial to link for Central United States and Western United States?
For this part (The tour received good reviews from critics), I would link critics to music criticism.
For this part (and the title track from the Safari EP), please provide a link for EP.

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. Thank you very much for your comments. I have linked "Music criticism" and "Extended play" as you suggested. I feel wiki-linking each of "Central United States" and "Western United States" would be too much—for one thing, there are already quite a few links in the first sentences of the lead. But if you feel strongly these are better, I’d be happy to discuss. Let me know what you think. Thank you again! Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments, and I agree with your response regarding "Central United States" and "Western United States". I support this for promotion on the basis of prose. Hope you have a wonderful day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba!Moisejp (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment review

Before I complete a sources review I'd like clarification on one point. Fifty sources ("references") are listed, but there are only 38 separate citations, which indicates that 12 of the sources are not cited and shouldn't be listed as references. Is this the case? Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. Thank you very much for offering to do the source review. The other 12 sources are in Notes 1 to 4. Thank you again! Moisejp (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Gavin Ryan book does not have an ISBN number. See here for more details [[2]]. Moisejp (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. I was wondering if you're still interested in doing the source review. If not, I'll request one on the FAC talk page. No worries either way, thanks, and have a nice day! Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have overlooked this, for which I sincerely apologise. On the matter of the 12 sources in the Notes, is there a particular reason why they are not formatted as citations in the normal way? I will begin my proper sources check right now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, no worries at all. I had fewer than 3 supports until just now, so there would have been no chance of promotion anyway. About the Notes section, I use {{<ref group=a>}}{{/ref>}} for formatting, and I can't put another {{<ref>}} inside this to link to the Footnotes section. That's why I have done the footnotes in the Notes section as I have. I believe I'm being consistent within the Notes section itself at least. But if there is another way you recommend I format this that would be consistent between both the main text and the Notes section, I'd be happy to consider it. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I use {{refn | |group= n}} for Notes, which allows for standard citation within each note. This would work. My few remaining sources points are listed below:

I don't think "Breeders Digest" is a print source, so shouldn't be italicised
Bernot: source contains the wrong link
Petrusich: "Spin" no longer runs a print version, so the name should not be italicised
Phillips: Essentially the same issue with "Blurt"
Rogers: Same with "Vegas Seven"

Otherwise the sources appear of appropriate quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. Thanks again for your sources review. I've fixed the link for Bernot, and reformatted the Notes section like you asked (I looked at your article Claudio Monteverdi to see exactly how you did it). I also de-italicized the non-print magazines. But I was wondering, could you tell me in MOS where it says that non-print magazines shouldn't be italicized. I thought I vaguely remembered seeing the opposite, that all magazines (print or online) should be italicized, but now when I look I can't seem to find anything about it either way. I'd just like to be confident going forward that I'm doing it right. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at present for an MoS search - maybe someone else will. It's been the practice at FAC for as long as I've been around, which is quite a while. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Sturmvogel_66

No DABs or overlinking
External links OK, with the usual problems of Google Book links.
Image is properly licensed.
Looks fine to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support! Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

WP:RECEPTION needs to be applied. I also don't like "of that year". --John (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thank you so much for taking time to look at the article and give feedback! I've changed the opening sentence from "September of that year" to "September 2014". This is what it originally was, but I was worried this sounded repetitive because 2014 is already mentioned earlier in the sentence. In the next few days, I'll work on aligning with RECEPTION. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, I've reworked the Reception section—let me know what you think. While before the order was strictly chronological, I've now split up the reviews into "high praise" and "praise with reservations" categories. I've also reduced the quotations and tried to vary the sentence structure even more than it was before. The four quotations I kept in the section were ones I find especially flavourful (first two) or harder to paraphrase well (last two). If these changes aren't what you had in mind, let me know, and I'm happy to take another stab at it. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, could I ask if you're satisfied with my changes, and whether there are any other changes you'd like to see? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge. I am travelling with limited Internet access. I will try to look at this in the next 24 hours. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, no worries, my friend. If you happen to need a few more days or however long, that's cool too. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits. --John (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. Your edits look good. Moisejp (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support on prose and completeness. --John (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suppport, and once more for your edits and suggestions! Moisejp (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again very much for your suggestions during the peer review, and your support. Moisejp (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

File:The Breeders Play the Showbox.jpg: License seems fine for me and caption is sourced and seems to check out. Use is also fine assuming that the billboard text refers to the tour.

ALT text is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jo-Jo! Moisejp (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written, well sourced, comprehensive. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support, Ceoil. Moisejp (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I was inclined to raise the issue of length, as this is unusually short. However, given that John and Ceoil both give this a pass on comprehensiveness, I'm happy to promote this. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.