Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pixies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pixies (band)
I feel that the article has reached a stage where it is fully detailed, covering every aspect of their history (as well as obscure information such as their instrumentation), and it is also well referenced. I guess this is a self-nomination, as I have contributed a lot to the article and improved it immensely. CloudNine 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - from the original nominator. CloudNine 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comments. The article looks good overall. With an FAC-eye I offer the following suggestions:
Provide more detail on how the band has been so influential in alternative rock. A couple of references to Cobain are all I see in that regard. The Guardian article ref provides more material for this, I think (e.g. Thom Yorke).Introduce the band members in the Background or Formation section. The third sentence of the lead is kind of awkward at doing this, with its sentence structure and so many blue links together. While introducing the band members, incorporate the instrumentation information that is currently a very short section.- Moved their instruments (i.e. vocals etc.) from lead to infobox. Members are introduced in Formation to a good degree I feel. I'm not sure how I can merge instrumentation when introducing the members without derailing the story of the formation though. Comments appreciated. CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Is anybody clear on whether one has to say "Pixies are" or "Pixies is"--e.g. in first sentence.- I'm not sure either, but I've tried to be consistent throughout the article CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Add references for the chart performance of their records.- Add fair use rationale for any (non-album cover?) fair use images. Cheers, –Outʀiggʀ 06:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi CloudNine. You asked for further thoughts on my talk page. I feel this is very good, but a few more things bug me. In the lead, I would say the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be switched; the second describes their legacy and the third describes their music. I am uncomfortable with this seemingly random sentence "Francis was the group's primary songwriter and singer and had a distinctly desperate, yowling delivery — he once befriended a Thai rock singer who told him to "scream it like you hate that bitch", in the style of The Beatles' "Oh! Darling".[6][7]" This is a long sentence with references that are first too vague (a Thai rock singer) and then too specific (a relatively obscure Beatles song). I just don't quite get it - did this anonymous Thai rock singer inspire him to change his vocals? Is it a random anecdote? etc. This being in the lead is the main problem. Minor point, I don't think block quotes need quote marks around them. Finally, can't Popular Culture be a section inside Legacy?–Outriggr § 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment addressed: Deleted the Thai rock singer fact as it was already mentioned in Black Francis. CloudNine 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Another comment: there is no criticism of the band mentioned right now and it reads a bit "glowingly". Can you find anything to counterbalance that? –Outriggr § 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment
the background section is a weird mix of details that cover the music scene before they existed and then their influence on other musicians. Wouldn't a legacy section, as in the KLF be a more logical way to present this kind of information?--Peta 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - Object — article is not comprehensive.
The "History" section is absolutely great... but it's pretty much the entire article. The "Legacy" section is especially weak, given that Pixies have had a huge amount of influence on alternative music; and the "Instrumentation" section is quite bare. Also, the article has little discussion of songwriting and musical/lyrical content (the sections on the individual albums mention these things, but there's nothing that ties it together in terms of the band's sonic qualities as whole). Additionally, the fair-use images lack rationale (per WP:FAIR),and they really ought to be "mixed up" a little: each section of the article devoted to a specific album is illustrated with the cover art from that album; why not replace a few with photos of the band in live performance in the appropriate time period, or some kind of promotional item relating to the album, instead? --keepsleeping slack off! 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Out of interest, I'm assuming the fair-use images of the albums are the ones lacking the rationale. The rationale for the picture in the Infobox seems to be ok to me. I'm currently working on the Legacy section.CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Object — While the details are fine, the format needs some work. Many of the history and Legacy headers are unnecessary, and I'm not sure dividing their history soley by albums is the best approach.
Also, the legacy section should try to convert the compartmentalized subsections into one unified section of prose. After all, they're all dealing with the band's legacy.WesleyDodds 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment — I've converted the legacy section to have less headers - although I think the In popular culture header should stay. CloudNine 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
