Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghosts I–IV/archive1

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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [1].

[edit] Ghosts I–IV

Self-nomination This article recently went through a very easy GA nomination and a more in-depth peer review, so I am confident in its quality and thoroughness. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, that'll help with future FACs. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Drewcifer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments That Release versions section resembles a shopping catalogue. The whole thing seems to be just unencyclopedic detail. How is the fact that the Two-Disc release "includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release" of any interest/importance to the lay reader? I think the whole section should be replaced by a sentence, "the album was released in many different formats such x, y and z." indopug (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest comparing this article to FA In Rainbows, which had a similar release and varying formats. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that such detail is useful to the lay person. For example, I'd say that the fact that the 2-Disc release includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release is actually quite remarkable: as far as I know, no album in history has ever been offered as a physical package AND as an included immediate high-quality digital download. In Rainbows included. And don't take it from me, a ton of 3rd party, reliable sources have also found this fact worthy of mentioning. And to respond to Wesley, I take it what you were pointing out from In Rainbows was that the release versions were explained via prose rather then list/tables? I'm not sure if such an approach would be the best here, since there's so many differing versions each slightly different content. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I picked an awful example to prove my point. How does "If downloaded from the official site, it also includes a 40-page PDF and additional wallpapers, web banners, and icons." not resemble an advertisement? In any case, of these release modes were so revolutionary, why not discuss and analyse it critically? That'll be quite interesting and encyclopedic. indopug (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with you on the web banners thing, took it out. As for your other suggestions, I agree with you in theory, but I'm afraid of going into OR-territory, as well as just repeating stuff that's already mentioned in the same section (what's in each release) and/or the second paragraph of the Critical reception section (what critics thought about the release methods). Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Or in other words: critical analysis is already in the article (just in a different section, dedicated to Critical reponses, including their analysis to the distribution methods), and any other analysis (ie non-critical, ie coming from me), would be OR). Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - this page isn't nearly ready. The whole price list and features section is repeated twice, one as text, one as table. It's also self contradictory, starting by saying that "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license", then saying later that (surprise) it's only some tracks from Ghosts I. And with a lead-on like that, why isn't at least one representative song (or even a sample from it) listed as an .ogg image like one of the other music articles above? Worst, there is virtually no discussion of its significance. There are some immediate news articles yes, but no indication if the practice of differently pricing various grades was copied by others or what the results were. Sure, the article says the very top grade sold out, but it doesn't explain whether these were purchased by speculators or die-hard fans. It says the site clogged from downloads, but not whether the downloaders went on to buy the full album, whether marketing analysis was done (or by who) to determine whether sales were lost or gained by the practice, etc. There's no depth here. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments. I'll try and address or respond to all of them. Unfortunately I don't agree with many of your comments, but hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement. So:
  • I personally don't think I see a problem with saying the same thing twice, especially since the info is presented in two different manners. And, both ways are relatively small space-wise, so it's not like I'm wasting a ton of space repeating myself. That said, if you had your way, what would you suggest removing or changing? I'm definitely up for concrete suggestions.
Redundancy is a recurring problem I have seen in articles you have brought to FAC. If things are presented twice in two different formats, choose one format over the other, or a find a way to combine the two. This will make the article more concise and better-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, took it out. I guess I just like pretty tables and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The table was pretty - it was just the duplication that was the problem. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's what I liked about, since it's summarized some points graphically. But hey, you can't win 'em all. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you were confused by the CC thing. Which is probably a fault in the prose, but not in the way you're implying (a bait and switch). The whole album is CC-licensed, it's just Ghosts 1 that is free. There is a big difference. What exactly was it that lead you to believe otherwise? Perhaps the Creative Commons thing wasn't explained clearly enough?
I'm under the impression that any CC licensed thing can be freely peer shared. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. CC-licensed stuff can be freely shared (within the limits of the specific licenses), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily free from the original source. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean the band charges money but anyone could put it on their Web site? I'm confused. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much exactly what it means. It's definitely an a-typical business model, and kind of depends on good-faith, but it looks like Reznor made out alright for himself regardless. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as including a song sample, I'm a little worried that you didn't actually read the whole article, since there is indeed a sample included in the article (in the Music section).
Sorry, I was unclear. That is a fair use sample from Ghosts IV, but so far as I understood not freely redistributable. But then again I'm not sure how Wikipedia regards the "noncommercial" restriction on the Ghosts I license anyway, so maybe it's not as clear a point. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the non-commercial thing that forced me to use it under Fair-use. Wikipedia does not allow the free use of non-commercial CC stuff, so I had to treat it as fair-use (ie non-free). I've updated the image page with an additional template that hopefully clears this up. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the significance of the release, again, I'm left wondering if you read the article in its entirety. The second paragraph of the Critical reception section discusses critical reception of the article in relation to its importance to the music industry as a whole. 5 separate critics are quoted, all of which in some way discuss the releases larger implications: artistically, business-wise, etc.
These all seemed to be forward looking predictions. The real problem is that there is no overall idea of the long term significance because you're pushing a freshly released album. What I was getting at is that I don't think you can have a stable, comprehensive view of an album that has just barely been released ... not until after it has been out a while. It'd be a pity if that diminished its financial value...Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
By criticizing the article for being too soon, you seem to be going down a few slippery slopes: 1) an article cannot be an FA until a designated time after the event/release/whatever since it may prove to be influential in some way, 2) the potential for the album to be influential necessitates the article to mention such influence in past-tense terms, and 3) if a potentially influential topic is yet to be influential, it is incomplete until it does so. The problem here is that you're judging the article based on the topic's potential 2/5/10 years down the line, which is bordering WP:CRYSTAL. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, could the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 be featured? This product likewise is facing a popular vote. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that right now, the primaries article couldn't be featured because it's not finished yet. But once they are, (I suppose around the time of the Democratic convention), then yes, it could be featured, since the event has happened/is over. Any long-reaching effects of the primary (such as whether the Dems rework the primary system or whatever) should be included if and when these effects happen, but I don't believe you can fault the article for something that may or may not happen sometime in the future. The same goes for this article: the album was released (which means the event in question has happened), and it may be influential, but we really don't know until it is. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As for distinguishing between whether hard-core fans/speculators bought the Ultra edition, I'm not really sure how one would know that or find it out. Exit polls? Tracking down each customer? Besides, how does one define a "hard-core fan" versus a "speculator"? Does one have nose piercings and the other wears a tie? Obviously I'm being facetious, but it seems like a very vague undertaking. So, along those same lines, how would a newspaper/magazine/other reliable 3rd party source have any chance of finding that stuff out then publishing it? If this is an unreasonable expectation of the New York Times, surely it's an unreasonable expectation of the article?
  • As for specifics about sales, marketing analysis, etc, that is entirely dependent upon whether sources with access to that information (ie pretty much just NIN and its management) decides to disclose such information. If they had/do, then great, that info should certainly be included at the risk of not being comprehensive. But assuming like 99.9% of every other album ever released, that info is not disclosed, then it's an unreasonable expectation to insist on it being included. I can't include information that is never made public. The fact that the album was released in an unorthodox/potentially groundbreaking manner does not change this fact. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are many articles on Wikipedia that don't make it to featured status because enough is known about the topic, and I see this in the same position. Saying that "comprehensive" includes only what can be found out from crystal ball gazing and the company that owns the album because you're trying to feature the album two months after its release just doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What you seem to be saying is that no album article will ever be comprehensive without some form of marketing analysis. Whether it's two months or two years after an album is released, 99.9% of albums released don't have such information released. So based on this assumption only an exceedingly few album articles will ever be FAs, and all other album articles are un-comprehensiveness because such data is never released. And again, the fact of how this particular album was released doesn't change this fact. It seems like a mistake to fault an article solely on the fact that it's missing information that is very very rarely released. And it also seems like a mistake to fault the article on it being too soon, with the assumption that such information might be released later. (WP:CRYSTAL) Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Oppose for now. The criticism section is very short and is about two different aspects; the music and the way the recording was released. The shallowness of the critical appraisal is a big worry. If this article were to appear on the Main Page as of now, it would seem at "best" promotional, at worst an advertisement. Can you not find more reliable critical reviews and balance this section? Lastly, why are Trent and others constantly stating rather than saying or writing? GrahamColmTalk 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm finding this one difficult to judge. It's well-written and interesting for sure, so I'm changing to neutral and I will follow the discussion here for now. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Your point about "stating" is well-taken, I've tried to address it in the article. As for your other criticsm about the Critical reception section, I'm not sure if I completely follow you: do you think you could offer me some more specific suggestions? I've done my best to provide a wide range of critical opinion (positive, negative, about the music, about the release), and they're all from well-known, reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc). I could add more, of course, but I'm afraid that that would just be more of the same. I can't imagine adding anything else that hasn't already been said in that section, but if you have some suggestions I'm certainly open to them. Drewcifer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "with an average rating of 64% based on ten reviews on Metacritic" - I wouldn't call that generally favourable... more mediocre. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's actually now 66% based on 11 reviews (I've updated the page). And "generally favorable" is what MetaCritic calls it. Check it out: link. Drewcifer (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's cool. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that ship has already sailed. I rearranged the citations to fix the problem, however. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies also commenting favorably on the unorthodox release of the album" - do without the "also" DONE
  • "Much coverage of the album has compared Ghosts I–IV to the releases of Radiohead's In Rainbows as well as Saul Williams' The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!." - might want to say why (the way they were released, right?) DONE
  • "that the band had completed its contractual obligations to the band's record label, Interscope Records," - "their" instead of "the band's"?
Reworded to "its", since "their" is a tricky word to use for a semi-psuedo-one-man-band. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "to use or rework the material for any non-commercial purpose" - could this be said in lay man terms? Otherwise, it's obvious from the license title.
Changed "non-commercial" to "non-profit". Does that make it a little clearer? Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • May wish to say in the infobox that it was released online (under the release date)
I don't know, I'd rather not. A release is a release, especially in terms of the infobox. If this is a deal breaker I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the Halo numbers in the Release versions section be in italics?
I don't think so. They're essentially catalog numbers, which as far as I know are usually written in normal typeface. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the lead it's in italics, that's why I ask. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that was a mistake. 5 words in an there was something wrong! I fixed it to be unitalicized. Drewcifer (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Washington Post stated "There's too much here. Yet it's the most interesting NIN in years." The Washington Post review" - bah, repetition... FIXED

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed/commented on all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Have fun and ... be creative" — The ellipsis do not appear in the reference.
The ellipsis bridges the gap of stuff I've taken out since it's not as relevant. The full quote is "Have fun and I’ll see you in a few hours.” And he said, “We could go the traditional drum route but be creative—See where your mind and your ideas take you.”" Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at "just have fun and be creative". But still, use [...] instead of ... Gary King (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "26) – US$5 to download" US$ already stated once before so no need to link again; just $5
Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What is the deal with those genres in the infobox? Can you make it more general? How about Industrial rock and Ambient? indopug (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the talk page (or the talk page for the main Nine Inch Nails page), you'd see that NIN's genre(s) are a hotly debated topic. I can see about changing it if you really think it's necessary – and by see I mean bring it up on the talk page, since there's a note in the article saying any changes will be reverted unless discussing on the talk page – but I honeslty think it's an uphill battle. I myself am satisfied with the genre descriptions up there now. A little too specific I perhaps, but they get the point across. Drewcifer (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a and 1b. I stopped noting problems after getting bogged down in the lead, which indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit. Also, the article is not comprehensive. The information on composing and recording is much too light. Almost nothing about the tracks themselves. You'll have to move beyond Google and hit some indexes of print journals, newspapers, etc. Samples of prose problems (from the lead):
I expanded the recording section a bit, but I'm not really sure what else there is to say. The album was started and finished in a very short time span, so there isn't alot of history to catch the reader up on. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Opening two sentences mix tenses. Instead of "The album contains 36 instrumental tracks and was recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007." why not "Recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007, the album ..."?
I reworded it, but not in the way you suggested. But I think it does work better now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "The team behind the project included ..." Why "included" if you list everyone? REWORDED
    • "The album was initially released digitally ..." Released "in a digital format" and released "digitally" mean two different things.
I agree in theory, but in practice I don't see how the two could possibly be mutually exclusive. You can't have a digital release in any other format other then digital. And the reverse is true, if it's released digitally, I can't imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be a digital format. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments? Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "The album was initially released digitally on the Nine Inch Nails official website, without any prior advertisement or promotion." What is the comma doing? I dunno, FIXED
    • "Via the official Nine Inch Nails YouTube profile, a user-generated "film festival" was announced, where fans were invited to visually interpret the album and post the results." Passive voice eliminates the subject. The final phrase is confusing... what does "visually interpret" mean? Look at the album and write about it? Also, "post the results" is confusing as the "results" of the film festival would really be the entire body of work produced.
Reworded slightly, hopefully to rectify the problems you've pointed out. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies commenting ..." The "with ... (verb)" construction is poor grammar. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, in part because I tried to think of a better way to word it, but am unable to find any better solutions. The sentence is most clear in my opinion using "with". Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Check out User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, exercise 2g. --Laser brain (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing like a paint-by-numebrs exercise to take you down a few pegs! Well, I changed the sentence a bit, given the valuable lessons I've learned from the exercise. Personally I think it's worse off because of the change, but it's one sentence, so I'm willing to let it go. Drewcifer (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.