Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 00:00, 11 February 2008.

[edit] Alice in Chains

previous FAC (16:32, 20 December 2007)
Check external links

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per my previous nom. Primarily, this article suffers from comprehensiveness issues due to the nominator not using 1990s magazine articles/interviews as sources. It doesn't really matter how these articles are tracked down; browse your local library or find reprints on the internet. The article is also guilty of sub-standard prose, but that would better fixed after the additional info is added (outside FAC). indopug (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, the article is good/decent/featured/whatever coverage of the 90's. It looks comprehensive enough to me. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My comments from the previous nom,
  • it lacks information why the band toured so sporadicaly in their career, i.e. Staley's substance abuse.
  • it doesn't mention that there were very strong rumours (maybe even true) floating in the 1990s about break-up and possible fighting between Cantrell and Staley.
  • has no information like what inspired the albums, why the albums sounded the way they did. There are very few quotes from band members themselves about their music.
  • has no mention about how Alice in Chains were pioneers of the "alternative metal" genre. In fact that term isn't even used throughout the prose of the article.
indopug (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Read these sections, they are stated by User:J Milburn (an administrator) that those sources are un-reliable: [1] and the reply is here Please read them, I can not use those sources. My local library is the size of my hous almost, it is a small library. If there is nothing else I can possibly do reliably, shouldn't it be featured? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to go out of your way to get sources for an article. On R.E.M., two of the books referenced were bought at used bookstores (one in New York and one in San Francisco), one was checked out from my university library, and one is cited using Google Book Search. The question is: have you used all the sources available, and if you haven't, why? If they're unreliable, that's one thing, and also if they just regurgiate information contained by other sources you use. But I don't think that this article utilizes enough of the information available out there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've tried going out of my way, I care for this article, they are one of the best bands of all time and diserve FA. There are no books published on the band, there are on Staley with a mix of an autobiography from the author, but no serious books. I am 14 so I don't have university books or 90s magazines. The sources indopug wants are unreliable as stated by an admin. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, admins are just "Wikipedia editors who have access to technical features that help with maintenance." That doesn't make them an authority on stuff like sourcing. indopug (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have access to a university library and have some old articles. As I said I'm willing to help you, but right now this article isn't FA material. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be apreciated if you would. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - One note - of the four sound samples, only one contains a ref in the description. Suggest streamlining this (ref everything, or nothing). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Indopug. The article still has some reoccurring issues. NSR77 TC 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Indopug. I'm willing to help the editors of the article find reference material (actually I'd been hoping to add some sources available to me, but I've been busy lately). But right now this article is not the best it can be. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Indopug has told you like 3 or 4 times, and you still don't understand. He doesn't want you to use those sources as web sources, he wants you to read reprinted versions of those magazines on the internet and then cite them as if you had read the actual magazine (cite the magazine, not the web page where you read it). Also, WesleyDodds can help you, too. It's a '90s band so it's obvious there is a massive amount of offline sources. Gocsa (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, I feel like an idiot. You mean to cite the article, not the web? Can you do that? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I did with The Smashing Pumpkins (although now that I have a greater grasp of what sources are available, I've been able to compare the reprints to the original sources). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind finding those sources so I can use them? The page doesn't need a re-write but maby the minor expansions that are needed. The FAC doesn't need to be closed either, i could get it all done in one day, i have an extra day off from school this week. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be able to do a lot of work today (see User:Xihix, who made Dookie a GA in a day, and then took it to FAC), but I personally won't be able to help you today, probably not until the weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I also brought an article to GA in a day. (Shadows Fall) I won't be able to today, but after school tomorrow I will be able to. So would you be able to work with me on Friday or Saturday? Thank you by the way. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I can help when I can, but I doubt we'd be able to get the article up to FA material during a regular FAC nomination period. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If I can get the sources I could this weekend. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the hurry, why is it so bad if the article reaches FA status next week or later, or by the fourth nomination.. Gocsa (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I. Too much has already been done during the FAC period; more would be an insult to articles that are actually up to standards when they first arrive here. NSR77 TC 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But what is wrong with a day? I If can do it, why not? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt you can do it in a day, with the resources. But you said yourself you don't have all the resoruces available. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I found them. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support—Well written, well referenced, everything looks fantastic. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Support - Concise, well-written, neutral, this is a great article. I don't see any reason why it isn't featured already. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Oppose [I trust] per Indopug [will be resolved shortly]. --Kiyarrllston 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also: "In 1986, Layne Staley's band Sleeze had disbanded"? - badly phrased

    • Thankyou for notifying me on my talk page. I do not at the moment see reason to change my previous status of neutral. What do you think about creating a section with a heading "Bandmembers"?--Kiyarrllston 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this sentence: "The band opted not to tour in support of Alice in Chains, adding to the rumors of drug abuse,[4][33] and tension between Cantrell and Staley." -was tension caused by rumours or by not touring? I looked at the source for "tension between Cantrell and Staley" and while it shows an occasion when they're tense it is not caused or added to by not touring according to that reference (please correct me if I'm wrong).--Kiyarrllston 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You will have to ask Skeletor2112 about the sentence. What do you mean a "bandmembers" section? Do you mean Alice in Chains#Band members? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a list - I am asking as to how you feel about a section - there is much talk in the article on relationships between the bandmembers and on the individual bandmembers, I think a nice 1 paragraph summary of each member's bio in the article would be nice.--Kiyarrllston 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that can't be done. This is the band's article, not the members. That is why the members have seperate pages. There has to be mentions of relationships between band members because it wouldn't be a band without members. It has been mentioned before, that delving to deep with members is against guidelines. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the sentence in question, but as far as a "band members" section - I cant find anything comparable in any other music FA's - can you give an example of what you mean? Thanks Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No - but I don't like in band articles that there are very few real sections other than the overarching "Chronology"/"History" Section. I thought perhaps there would be in Nsync or Pixies articles.--Kiyarrllston 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (In the interst of staying neutral, I am removing my vote, as I have worked significantly on the article in the past few days.) Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

- a few small phrasing and prose issues aside, a very well done, in depth article. I must take issue with some of Indopug's points, however. Specifically:

  • "it doesn't mention that there were very strong rumours (maybe even true) floating in the 1990s about break-up and possible fighting between Cantrell and Staley."

Why would any old rumors need inclusion? (or any rumor for that matter?) And how do you source a rumor? I thought Wikipedia was fact-based. Nothing to do with "oh maybe they were gonna break up in the 1990s and maybe they didnt get along" - how is that wiki-worthy? Other than a minor mention like "Amidst break up rumors, the band returned with ____", as long as it is sourced, but I dont see how that is holding the article back in the least.

  • "has no information like what inspired the albums, why the albums sounded the way they did. There are very few quotes from band members themselves about their music."

Hmm, I dont see the point, or the manner in which you would even include how the albums are inspired, on a factual basis - barring that the album's inspiration is a major factor, such as a concept album. Aside from saying somthing small like "Man in the Box, which features lyrics about censorship" here or there. Or somthing classy like: "I was really stoned when I wrote it."[1] (from the Man in the Box song page.)

Although I admit I am not a huge AIC fan, it is possible they have a deeper inspiration for stuff, (aside from the typical "dark themes" or "drugs/drug abuse"), but the "Musical style and influences" section makes mention of lyrical themes, uses quotes from members, ect.

I cant imagine how you would source "why an album sounds like it does" while staying neutral - what, from a technical aspect - like what recording gear or guitars they used? The article uses ample quotes from noted reviewers as to the critical response.

  • "has no mention about how Alice in Chains were pioneers of the "alternative metal" genre. In fact that term isn't even used throughout the prose of the article."

Taking a look at the alternative metal page, AIC is barely mentioned in passing as a "grunge" band. At least in the metal community (where I dwell), I rarely, if ever, hear the term "alternative metal". Of course most bands fit under 15 labels, and aside from possibly an infobox mention, I again don't see how that is holding the article back from FA.

  • "this article suffers from comprehensiveness issues due to the nominator not using 1990s magazine articles/interviews as sources."

Really, this is an absurd statement. How are facts different if they are taken from a 1993 Spin magazine article or from the bands official online bio? Facts are facts, and should not change due to the publication year... Some editors above saying that Indopug meant using hard-copy sources, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the articles "comprehensiveness", I think it is very comprehensive.

I think people that are opposing based on these points should take another look at the article, or other similar music FA's. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's strange you say these things, as you promoted Megadeth to FA status, and it's (or was) a whole lobt better article. :) Gocsa (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Megadeth is a better article, but theres more to it because they have a lot more history, Alice in Chains only released 3 full albums (Megadeth 11) and AIC was defunct for a long time... Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice in Chains has much much less history than Megadeth or newer FAs (such as Radiohead, U2, Nine Inch Nails). They were inactive from 1997-2005 and I'm not even sure if now they are active. The meat of their career lasted from 1990-1996, as opposed to Radiohead's 1992-present, U2's 1976-present. Look at Godsmack, they started in 1996 and are still going, that is longer than AiC, and that is a featured article. Seriously, if I can't get hold of information that wasn't there, then what is holding this back from being promoted? Six years, is the length these guys were active. And how the hell did they pioneer alt metal, that genre has been around forever, they did not pioneer it. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, if you can't get sources that is not an excuse for this article to be featured; Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and an FA is the best we can make it. Wesley's offered to help with the sources hasn't he, so I don't understand what the problem is. The only mention AIC has in Heavy metal music is as an mega-selling/influential alt metal band; I only assumed it was necessary to illustrate that in this article too. indopug (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It isn't that fact that we can't get the sources, it is the fact that there are no sources that we can get. Sorry for making it sound like I was the only one editing, I didn't mean to. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, when is the last time you read through the article? When i set up the FAC it was 32KB now it is 37KB. It got longer, especially the "Dirt and Jar of Flies" section. Just check it out. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing somthing, but what exactly in the article is unsourced? Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutly nothing. And that is pretty much the point of this conversation. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Skeletor2112 performed a thorough copy-edit of the article, and looks a lot better. So far there are six supports, four opposes, and two nuetrals. I encouraged all opposers to take another look at the article and re-comment here. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you addressed the Opposes over sourcing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There wasn't anything wrong with the sourcing, and the copyedit vastly improved the comprehensiveness. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Have you asked the opposing editors to revisit and indicate if the opposes are addressed? They are significant opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My oppose still stands. it's a decent article, but it's not the best, or even the best it could possibly be. As I've said before, I can help look up sources and do some copyediting and prose revision. However, I am busy these days and any work I can contribute will be slow. I don't think we should rush this; this could be a very well-done article but I don't think enough has been done yet since I first commented here. Take a couple of months on the article before nominating it for FAC again; the article will be all the better for it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with it still? You misspelled something and it confused me. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the copy-edit has greatly improved the article but a great deal more information could be added if you used the sources I asked you to refer. That the nominator refuses to even acknowledge their importance in this article is what baffles me though. Surely you accept that referring that contemporary magazines will improve the article. Hence, if the article could be improved: its not the best it can be right now. (I think Wesley misspelled "or" as "oe"). indopug (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I did use the sources you provided, look at the dirt section. I used the one where Jerry talks about Dirt but Skeletor2112 removed it, I asked him to put it back in. There were a couple that I didn't use; such as the one on Boggy Depot (that is about Jerry's solo album—no need to be in the article) and nothing could really be used from the Layne written piece. Seriously, what do you you mean by "the nominator refuses to even acknowledge their importance in this article"? I do too, there is a whole section! What else do you want! You give me such broad topics, yet never state exactly what it is you want. I think the article is the best it can be, I'm not just saying that as a nominator. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there hasn't been enough research done. Look through nytimes.com and time.com for possible resources. I've got books I can read through at my local library. The prose is more subjective; it's workmanlike but with some work it could be "brilliant prose". There are some problems like the use of "their" when referring to the band (Alice in Chains is singular, so it should be "its"). And I just noticed, ref-22 is mistitled. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, can anyone give a practical exapmle of what more the article needs? Other than saying "its not ready" or "it doesn't use 1990's sources" (which it does - see the RollingStone.com articels used as cites?) The FAC page says "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Other than the its/their comment, and prose issues, Wesley, when you say "there hasn't been enough research done" - what exactly is missing from the article? Every tour is adressed, albums all have critical blurbs, chart info, all points of the band's history are adressed, the band's influence, the musical stlye, the formation/demise/reformation, ect are all adressed. The band only released 3 full albums, and really only toured 2 times. They were on drug hiatus for 3/4 of their career... as was said before, they are not comparable to bands with huge histories and 150 million albums sold, like U2 or Metallica. The article could go into way more detal about hiatuses, more on solo albums and the like, but the article is on Alice in Chains. People are making it sound like there is somthing left out, like the writer forgot to mention an album, or a tour, or somthing, but it's all in there. It seems like people want fluff, or non encyclopedic information? Like what the band members did on their downtime when the band was on forced hiatus?(and even that is mentioned with solo albums) Or what their favorite football team is or somthing? Seriously, just anything specific would be helpfull. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There's lots of short paragraphs, some only one-sentence long. The musical style section is lax. It's more about what the band is classified as, rather than its concrete musical traits. I do have a Guitar World article where Jerry Cantrell talks about the band's music. I can go to my local library and review sources on grunge and metal (as I did when I was working on the FARs for Grunge music and Heavy metal music). As I've said before, I want to add material from it, but I really don't have the time right now. There are sources available that with some dilligence we can track down and review for information, but despite the work BurningClean has put into this article, he has admittedly not perused much of what is available. Thus I have to continute to oppose this article primarily on grounds of comprehensiveness. With time we can expand the article to something more closely resembling band articles by those with similiar success and notability (ie. Wilco). But I don't think this rush is helping matters. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for the use of "their" - are you sure that usage is incorrect? I think of Alice in Chains as a group of people, a "them" - like The Smashing Pumpkins article, the lead says "The Smashing Pumpkins broke into the musical mainstream with their second album". You wouldn't say "The Smashing Punmpkins broke into the musical mainstream with its second album", would you? Maybe you are talking about using their in different places? Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Smashing Pumpkins" refers to more than one individual (ie. a band of "Pumpkins"). "Alice in Chains" is a singular name. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But talking about the Smashing Pumpkins, one is actually referring to the group of people named The Smashing Pumpkins, not the actual "pumpkins". How can a group of people be an "it"? I started changing all of the "their's" to "its", but most really sound weird... Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In American English, collective nouns are singular, whereas in British English they are plural. Compare R.E.M. and Radiohead. Bands of individuals, however (ie. Smashing Pumpkins, New York Yankees--essentially group names that end in a plural "s") are plural. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Skeletor2112 and I have been working on the article the last couple of days, and I truely believe that all oppositions have been taken care of. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ref-28 is unformatted. Also, don't link to websites that don't have permission to reprint old articles (see the Guitar World article referenced). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. I just formated them properly. Those are one of the few sources I didn't retrieve. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
When you add so much text to the article, newer and newer prose/MoS/sentence flow will obviously creep up. Why are (((these things))) in the reeferences? Why are both # and number used wrt chart positions? Why is 7 used instead of seven? Why does the men in a box RS reference not contain a publication date? Where is the cite for "The EP was released while Nirvana 's Nevermind was number one on the Billboard 200, resulting in an explosion of Seattle based bands, and the term grunge music."? Why is that ghastly logo which is not discussed in the article and supposedly (no cite) "resembles the sun" even there in the article? That Guitar World article is still linked to a copy-vio site. What do the lists of bands AiC toured with add to the article: Primus, Tool, Rage Against the Machine, and Babes in Toyland; Iggy Pop, Van Halen, Extreme and Poison; Metallica and Suicidal Tendencies? What is "Steattle"?
Do you still "truely" believe this article should be FA? indopug (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's awesome that you can point out typos and stuff, but why not just fix a misspelling that was just added? (and if you notice, that was added after Burningclean posted above) By the way, what are "wrt chart positions"? Nitpicking aside, the Nirvana reference is in there. The "Man in a Box" Rolling Stone reference is fixed, as is the Guitar World one. ((()))'s are gone, 7 and # are too. The logo has been removed. The bands mentioned are notable, because they show the vastly diverse bands AIC toured with,(like the article says) from speed metal to funk, to punk to glam rock. Metallica and Suicidal is a famous tour they pulled out of the day before due to drug use. Metallica was touring on the 25th biggest selling album of all time in the US, which would have had a huge impact on AIC.
And for the record, I do "truley" believe the article is "wrt" (aka, FA) Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
wrt is "with respect to" (its a common acronym in my part of the world). After one and a half months of FAC, an article shouldn't have typos and stuff. I just sought to prove that due to all the additional work thats gone into this article, new problems will inevitably creep up, and another thorough copy-edit (from fresh eyes) is required. Also, one month into an FAC is not when you should be rewriting the article significantly. Oh, and the rockonthenet Alice in Chains FAQ is unreliable. indopug (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats cool, I have never heard that acronym before - but what I was getting at is there is no need to mock someone's typos here when the article is what is in question - and "Steattle" was a typo I had just added. While I agree that all of this kind of work is best done before the FAC process, I am not the nominator, I just came apon this article and thought I could help improve it. Regardless though of how long it has been a FAC I do believe it is now up to par with other music FA's like Megadeth or Slayer. Can you explain how the Rockonthenet.com FAQ is unreliable? The author used it to reference a Grammy nomination and the Clash of the Titans tour. Two facts that can be referenced other places I am sure, but is there some reason Rockonthenet.com is "unreliable"? Skeletor2112 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I haven't really followed the improvement of the article since I opposed, and I don't really have the time or interest to read and check the whole thing again. I see it got better now, although it still hardly uses offline sources, like magazines from the 90's. So I agree with the people saying it could use a little more research, as magazines and such are more reliable, and (more importantly) neutral than say a biography on the band's website. Gocsa (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, indopug + NSR77 + WesleyDodds = 3 opposes. indopug (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, sorry, I overlooked NSR77. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Well constructed article. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dead links still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Also, three oppose, seven support, three nuetral. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I see six supports, three opposes, and no indication that the opposers' issues have been addressed since I last asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Two people were nuetral from the start (one was a support but was changed because he worked on the article) and one opposer changed his to a nuetral. I strongly belive that all the article needs is a good copyedit from fresh eyes, therefore I contacted WP:LOCE. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


I have to add that I do think the opposers' issues have been adressed. Here are indopug's issues:

  • "Primarily, this article suffers from comprehensiveness issues due to the nominator not using 1990s magazine articles/interviews as sources."
Many new quotes and info from magazine articles from the 1990's have been added, although I don't see how the year of the source matters that much. a glance at the references sections shows there are now 9 1990's magazine sources.
  • "it lacks information why the band toured so sporadicaly in their career, i.e. Staley's substance abuse. "
Info on substance abuse and lack of touring has been added throughout the article - see Dirt and Alice in Chains for examples.
  • "it doesn't mention that there were very strong rumours (maybe even true) floating in the 1990s about break-up and possible fighting between Cantrell and Staley."
Although I don't see how rumors are even remotely encyclopedic, a sourced mention was added to the Alice in Chains section.
  • "has no information like what inspired the albums, why the albums sounded the way they did. There are very few quotes from band members themselves about their music."
Quotes have been added all through the article, info on the band's intentions for albums, ect. See Facelift and Sap, Dirt, and the Jar of Flies sections.
  • "has no mention about how Alice in Chains were pioneers of the "alternative metal" genre. In fact that term isn't even used throughout the prose of the article."
Again I have to say that the term is not often used, (the band is barely mentioned in the alternative metal page as a grunge band) AIC is primarily identified as a grunge/hard rock or metal band.

These are the points that people "opposed per indopug." Maybe I missed what you are talking about Sandy, is there somthing specific we have not adressed? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked WesleyDodds's issues:

  • "There's lots of short paragraphs, some only one-sentence long. The musical style section is lax."
All short paragraphs have been fixed, musical style section has been expanded - info on the bands distinctive traits(harmony vocals, guitar sound, ect) have been added.
  • "I have to continute to oppose this article primarily on grounds of comprehensiveness."
Although not a really specific issue, the article has a lot more "meat" now, and I think it is very comprehensive. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "two number one albums"—a hyphen, do you think?
    • "a high charting song for the band and is thought to be one of the band's heaviest songs to date by All Music Guide." Hyphen missing. "For the band" might be a put-down. Specific reference for the "thought to be"?
    • Most of the quotes use the required "logical" punctuation, but ... Staley said, "I know I'm near death, I did crack and heroin for years. I never wanted to end my life this way." and "Drugs worked for me for years," Staley told ... etc.
    • Four music samples is bumping up against the maximum justifiable under our NFC rules. Not all are couched in educational terms.
    • Pity so many of your references have no author. Can we trust their authority? Tony (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the notes - can you explain the 3rd point you listed? Should those quotes use somthing else for punctuation, or some other format? I'm not sure what you mean by "logical punctuation".
Pretty much every reference without an author is a general fact reference,(the Rolling Stone article "Men in a Box" doesn't list an author for some reason...) like chart positions, release dates, ect. Anything specific that jumps out at you? The other notes have been adressed, Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Any hope of accessing old copies of The Rocket to add quotes and cites for details? I believe that no article on the Seattle Grunge scene should achieve Featured Article status without use of this important source. The only reason I don't try to argue that this requirement is essential & unavoidable is that I don't know if more than the odd back issue is accessible beyond private collections & maybe a research library or two -- or if any collections of this periodical exists. -- llywrch (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I kind of doubt any would be available considering it has been out of publication since 2000. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • llywirch brings up a valid point, referring The Rocket would give an excellent contemporary overview of the band, especially before its rise to stardom. I'm not sure about the absence of reprints on the net though; I managed to find some while researching for "Touch Me I'm Sick", so some digging would be welcome. indopug (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, a quick look at the Nirvana, grunge, and Pearl Jam articles shows no cites from The Rocket, and all three are FA's. I think AiC's "rise to stardom" is pretty well covered in the Formation and Facelift and Sap sections, using the July 1990 "Link With Brutality" Circus Magazine interview, along with the band retrospectives in the Music Bank biography, and the AMG biography. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK cool then. It was just a suggestion,as I thought it would shed a new perspective on the band's origins. indopug (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose looks reasonable, and shouldn't alone stand in the way of promotion. But why is there an en dash in "Seattle–based bands"? And "follow–up album"? These should be hyphens. Please read MOS on this. This quote starts within a WP sentence, yes? Cantrell said, "We deal with our daily demons through music. All of the poison that builds up during the day we cleanse when we play."—So the final dot goes after the closing quotes. Needs checking throughout. Tony (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I took care of the en dashes, and fixed the quotation punctuation throughout the article. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • One thing I just noticed, the article uses the All Music Guide bio as a source 12 times. While AMG is reliable, its bio is a tertiary source (This means that the overview was written by compiling information from interviews/articles--primary/secondary sources). Since Wikipedia is also a tertiary source, I think it would be risky to rely so heavily on another one--notice how other other new band FAs don't use it. It might be apt here to source whatever information you do to the AMG bio to magazine articles themselves where ever possible/feasible, for added reliability.
Other than that most of my concerns have indeed been addressed; as for alt metal, I was referring to Heavy metal music (an FA) which mentions AiC's Dirt as a best-selling alt metal album, which lead me to believe AiC was a defining alt metal band. The style section could use a ce; the last, 3-sentence, paragraph uses the words "lyrics" and "vocals" four times each. (Shouldn't Seattle based be Seattle-based?) Rockonthenet.com is not a reliable source, its alright for a list of Grammy noms but something like an FAQ might be dodgy.
Fix these and I look forward to supporting, this article has come a long way :) indopug (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I took care of the redundant words in the style section, the hyphen, and the rockonthenet.com sources are only used for grammy nominations, and vh1/mtv awards/nominations. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll get on that, I have the weekend now anyway. I have to say though, I am not very good at all with copyediting. would you mind doing that one? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I got the AMG down to six uses, all for good purposes and replaced the rest. I also got rid of the FAQ source. that means that all that is left is the section copyedit. O-3 S-7 —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The nominator has asked me to do a ce, which I intend to do in detail. However, since I really believe it is necessary to again go through the article completely (fact-checking, cross-referencing, prose improvement... the whole shindig.) since it has been pretty much rewritten since I last reviewed it (in the old nom), this will take me around a week or so. Plus, I am swamped off-wiki. Considering the length of this FAC already, I wonder if it may not be better that this be taken off-FAC so that I can bring forth my concerns in leisure. (And I still sadly have quite a few serious concerns, for eg: "Alice in Chains' has cited many musical influences, including... Van Halen." - Firstly, the band doesn't say anyting in the ref; the AMG bio author says AIC "Draw[s] equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal". This has COMPLETELY different meaning from the band saying that they were influenced by Van Halen.) However, if the noms still refuse to withdraw the nom, I will try to do my best over the next week. Peace, indopug (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is very long, I'm debating if it should be closed and a new one opened. I shall ask Skeletor2112 on that. Also, I belive he is the one that provided the source for the Van Halen deal. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This one has been a FAC for a looong time, I think it's close, so why not just finish it up here? I took out Van Halen as an influence, that one has been in there forever and I dont think either of us sourced that to begin with, but yeah, that was definitely a bad cite. I went through and rechecked all of the sources, and after a few more fixes everything looks good, every magazine source is good, the biography, review, grammy/award, and interview cites are all double checked. Ceoil has just done a copyedit as well. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it does need closure. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 13:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm very busy off-wiki now, so I'm sorry but I can't devote any time to fact-checking (despite my promise to). All my initial comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed but I would suggest withdrawal because the article and the nominators deserve an FAC free from arguments and fighting; also, neutral non-music reviewers too will chip in with valuable advice. Besides, Wesley promised to add his source which would only improve the article and dare I say it, maybe even make it perfect. Thank you, indopug (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Indopug, I would like to thank you very much, because you pushed me to get this article to the very best it can possibly be. Weasley has admitted that he has not been able to collect the source, therefore I do not belive that this article should be without promotion. Once or if weasly does retrieve that information, i would like for it to be added, but I do not belive that should hold this back. Information will be added to articles as the band or whatever it my be get older and progress, featured or not. SandyGeorgia has stated that if we come to an agreement on sources, that she will close the FAC. Thank you, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support My long list of suggestion were addressed. --Efe (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note There are eight supports (seven if I am not included), two opposes, and four nuetrals. It seems as though all concerns have been addressed, although the two opposers that are left have not seen this progress. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[2] unreliable for biographical information; and that too it is the first cite!! A reliable source has to be "scholarly", this brief concert bio is not. "Alice Mudgarden, Music and lyrics: Jerry Cantrell:" why is that in italics? (don't pass it off as minor and expect me to deal with it, such problems would've been quickly handled in a normal FAC) I wonder if I was a bit too hasty in changing my vote... indopug (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Okay, the source is gone. "Alice Mudgarden, Music and lyrics: Jerry Cantrell:" is in italics because that is the format of the citation, it isn't something an editor did. Look at it if you don't believe me. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.