Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tragic Kingdom/archive2

< 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [1].

Tragic Kingdom

edit
Nominator(s): Tezkag72 and Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Escape Artist Swyer and I worked a long time to get it to GA status, then had it peer reviewed. When all concerns were addressed, we put it up at FAC. Unfortunately, it was not promoted, most likely because of a lack of "support" votes due to there having been so many FACs listed at the time. We have decided that the best thing to do is to nominate it again, since the number of FACs has thinned out a bit. Tezkag72 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently the lead is completely insufficient IMHO. For example, the lead is 3 paragraphs long, the middle paragraph is completely dedicated to information unrelated to this album. In essence, the middle paragraph is a "background" section, yet the actually "background" section isn't that big. The lead places too much detail on the background details, which aren't even a sizable portion of the article body. I haven't moved beyond the lead yet, but that really does need sorting. The lead needs to be a summary of the article, each section of the article. — Realist2 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about now? I shortened it and now it focuses more on after the album's release. Tezkag72 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tour information should come at the end of the lead, like it does in the article body. The second paragraph is disjointed, first it discusses critical reception, then commercial reception, then Grammy awards (a critical aspect). I still feel the lead should be 3 paragraphs for an article of this size, but it's OK. I hope you didn't think I was saying the lead was too long, sorry if that was the impression. It wasn't too long, rather, it wasn't in proportion to the article body. I'm watchlisting the page BTW. — Realist2 17:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment's by Realist2 (Section 2)

  • The third single was "Don't Speak", a ballad about the breakup of Stefani and Kanal's relationship. It peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay,[20] but the song was not eligible to chart on the Billboard Hot 100 because no commercial single was released, which was a requirement at the time.[21] However, the song performed well on other Billboard charts[17][22][23]... - I think you should start off saying that it couldn't appear on the Billboard Hot 100, then go onto the "other Billboard charts", where you can mention the airplay chart info. It could be much tighter. The airplay chart is "[another] Billboard chart" after all. — Realist2 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:DontSpeak.ogg - There is no specific purpose of use for this clip. Note that the FUR for "No Doubt" and "Tragic Kingdom" are exactly the same. Please explain why the reader must hear this particular part of this particular song in relation to this article. The caption and the paragraph in the article about the song don't comment on the song's musical aspects at all (there is no critical commentary on the clip), so at this point I would suggest that this clip be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the most popular song from the album, and the text explains this. I'll look criterion 3 over, but it would be a shame to remove the only sound sample. Tezkag72 15:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say anything more about the piece, though? Note that at WP:NFC, it states "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." - Does a reputable source say this piece is "iconic" in any way or representative of the band? (I agree it would be a shame not to have a clip, but we have to have a real reason to include one. Sadly, few bands have released music into the PD!) Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess not. All the opposing so far for this seems to be stemming from the sound files. Would it be better if I just removed it? Would that help this article pass? That's my biggest concern. Tezkag72 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you should remove it, yes, especially if you have no sources that comment on the song itself. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are; there just aren't any there that show its notability compared to other songs on the album. Tezkag72 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm afraid it has to go. I feel your pain. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What about the rest of the article? Tezkag72 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose. I'm only reviewing the media content. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) While there are probably a couple rough spots in the prose, the writing is generally good. I copy-edited the lead; feel free to revert or alter any of my changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The structure needs work. I'd strongly recommened turning "Production" into its own section and moving the detail about singles into the "Release" section (as well as trimming it extensively; a lot of stuff should be reserved for the articles on the individual singles themselves). See Loveless (album), In Rainbows, and Blood Sugar Sex Magik for examples of well-written FA album articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to just trim it down to the main singles chart listings (Hot 100, UK Singles chart), and leave the airplay charts to the articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also precious little about the music. Excluding the singles subsection, the music section is woefully short. can this be expanded? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's a thought—should I put the info about the songs' composition (that I took out of the "singles" section) into the "music"? Tezkag72 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it's about the writing and themes. There were a lot of songs about Gwen's relationship and breakup with Kanal and about being treated differently because she's female. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lief's a tad hectic at the mo but I can write up a bit about themes (with quotations, lyrics, etc) in, say, two or three days time. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm developing it as well. Not ready yet. Tezkag72 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This was a great read! It's not ready for FA, though. The prose is rough and there is a frequent lack of clarity typically found when someone too close to the subject has done most of the writing and editing. A thorough copyedit is needed by an outside party with a eye toward clarity. Recommend withdrawing as I don't think this can be done quickly. Some examples just from the lead and Background - I'll be happy to revisit after the copyedit.
    • The second paragraph of the lead doesn't mention the album name and the "It sold ..." could use it. As written, sounds like "it" is No Doubt.
    • "No Doubt embarked on a tour to promote the album, which was designed..." Unclear - the tour or the album was designed?
    • "The album sold 30,000 copies; in the words of the program director of KROQ, a California radio station on which it was one of the band's driving ambitions to be played: 'It would take an act of God for this band to get on the radio.'" I don't really understand why these two statements are together. Why couldn't a band who sold 30,000 records get on the radio? Maybe they couldn't get on KROQ, but surely they were getting radio play somewhere.
    • In the Background section, you introduce Eric Stefani without telling us who he is or his significance. Don't make us follow the link to find out.
    • Tony Kanal's motivations for ending his relationship with Gwen Stefani are trivial to this article.
    • Wikilinking "recording studio" once is a bit much, twice is way too much.
    • Please no easter egg links (independently) that you have to click or hover over to see where it goes.
    • "... over three times as many as No Doubt." No, we don't need to point that out.
    • "Their independence attracted Interscope's attention and ensured that they would fund a third album." I'm not clear how their independence could perform either of these tasks.
--Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There are still ongoing questions. Please don't close it. Like, you never gave me a chance to respond to Laser_brain's comments. Tezkag72 04:23, 13 January 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/Tragic_Kingdom/archive2&oldid=1088821452"