Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Frusciante

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 17:10, 24 September 2007.

[edit] John Frusciante

Self Nomination Article archived Good Article status in late July, and has undergone a positive transformation since then. Article has undergone two peer reviews as well, the second of which was very recent and yielded virtually nothing. The article has also been submitted to several knowledgeable editors for copyediting; none of whom were able to raise any notable issues. No edit-wars, no currently disputed content. Substantive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Grim-Gym 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose: Sorry I missed the peer review; I thought I had the article watched since I worked on it a while back. My one comment so far is that it is lacking a decent description of his equipment. I consider this essential for an article about a instrumental musician. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• A consensus was reached to remove the equipment section as it continued to become a disputed topic. People continued to contradict the actual stuff he uses, and I personally think it is unencyclopedic. NSR77 ^T_C 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I read the discussion. However, something being disputed is not a reason to remove it completely. It would be more appropriate to reach a consensus about what should be included in the section. Plenty of sources are available for his current and historical rigs. The section need not be detailed and should not be a bulleted list like it was before. It should just be a paragraph of prose about what he plays and notable things he has played in the past. I don't agree that such a section would be unencyclopedic. Opposing for now until this is addressed. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Currently, there are several featured articles about musicians that do not have an equipment section (including, but certainly not limited to: Frank Black, Kate Bush, Elliott Smith, Nick Drake). In all truthfulness, I can't find any FA musician biography that includes an equipment section. NSR77 ^T_C 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Truth be told, I have yet to find a way that an equipment section can be conveyed encyclopedically. Listing his equipment is so subjective that it's basically impossible to do this and simultaneously satisfy a majority (one person might think an item is not noteworthy, and another might disagree, causing an edit war). He's been documented using such a wide and exhaustive range of equipment that most items could be referenced down to the model number. As a result, there's no way to install a guideline determining what's noteworthy and what isn't. The bottom line is that there's really no way to include an equipment section that doesn't eventually turn into an exhaustive monstrosity. I feel that the majority of readers aren't musicians and probably don't care what type of equipment he uses. If someone does care, there are more than enough resources out there for them to find out. If you still object to the article for this reason, consider creating an article called John Frusciante equipment. If said article isn't speedily deleted, it would get the job done. Grim-Gym 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think really all that's necessary is if there's particular equipment he uses a lot (like a particular guitar or pedal) that should be mentioned. Definitely want to avoid just an infodump of every single piece of gear he uses. WesleyDodds 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. John uses a vast, vast array of petals and effects. So vast that there really isn't any one petal that's noteworthy above all others. He does have a few noteworthy guitars, such as the White Falcon, and that's the purpose of the "Notable instruments" section of the infobox. Grim-Gym 16:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(indenting) Well, who am I to argue with consensus. I guess I will drop my objection since everyone seems to believe the section is unnecessary. One final note though - I don't think information should be in infoboxes that is not represented in the article. Essentially you should not have something listed as a "notable guitar" in his infobox unless that is also mentioned in the article with a source to back it up. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently searching for some sources to verify his 'notable' guitars and any specific effects pedals he feels affectionate towards. NSR77 ^T_C 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We've added a few sentences in the Musical style section explaining the notability of two of his instruments. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Grim-Gym 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly pertaining to his two most significant guitars. NSR77 ^T_C 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support: prose flows well and is good, only some minor niggles, though not deal breakers, as there are some funny adjectives - somber blood infection? (sorry I'm a doctor) - agree with comment above but overall very well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Somber" as been removed. Feel free to mention any more niggles and I'll go to work on 'em. Grim-Gym 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as a significant contributor to the article. NSR77 ^T_C 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • "Frusciante supplies a strong mix of funk and rock music in his intricate rhythms and leads, which form a substantial component of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' sound." "Strong" is POV in this case. And the guitarrist is substantial in pretty much every rock band. Y
  • "As a highly respected and influential modern guitarist, Frusciante ranked #18 on Rolling Stone's list of "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" in 2003." WP:PEACOCK Y
  • "By age nine he was obsessed with The Germs, wearing out several copies of their album (GI)" "Obsessed" is not a neutral term. Y
  • One of the images is up for deletion at commons. Y
  • "For the duration of recording, Frusciante and Flea made few ventures into society, spending most of their time consuming immeasurable quantities of marijuana." "Immeasurable" is an exaggeration. Y --Carabinieri 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  I've fixed what I could, but we need a bit more input. "Strong" was removed; however I don't see a problem with "substantial" other than it possibly stating the obvious, as you said.

  I don't see how "obsessed" is POV in this case, it accurately and objectively describes his feelings toward the band at that time. I could replace it with a word like "infatuated", but that would cause more harm. If you know of a word that'll better fit here, please let it be known. I don't feel that rewriting the whole sentence to remove that word is necessary in this case though, so this issue could use some clarification from you.

  I removed "highly respected". That was a peacock term, thanks for pointing it out. I don't feel "influential" is peacock or POV, and is backed up by the Rolling Stone list. We certainly don't want to denigrate his importance either.

  The other points were fixed completely. Further input from you is required for the remainder.

  I realized that you didn't really raise any issues that couldn't be easily remedied; so I remedied them. Thanks for the review. Grim-Gym 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Let me first say I am very impressed with the article. While it is a testament to the efforts and dedication of a number of editors affiliated with the Alternative music and RHCP WikiProjects (the former of which I am a member of and which held a Collaboration of thw Week on this article that contributed significantly to), most of the credit belongs to NSR77 and Grim-Gym. Good work; I hope you two can do much of the same to other major RCHP band member articles.

Now, onto my minor objections, which I will not list as proper objects because I'm sure they will be rectified quickly and to the best of the ability of the major contributors. Firstly: Remove direct links to unauthorized reproductions of magazine articles on websites. This counts as violation of copyright. Obviously links to a reprint of a Rolling Stone article on rollingstone.com or a reprint of an article by a particular author on that author's website are fine. You merely need to delink links to unauthorized reprinting on fansites and such. Y Secondly, and somewhat more difficult: the lead is somewhat weak. It's not as substantial as it could be and some of the prose is lacking. I'll try to help a little bit on that bit though. Y

Once again, aside from those minor points, I'm giving my vote for this article to be featured. Good work, everyone. WesleyDodds 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I converted all of the reprinted links to simply the magazine article information and lengthened the lead a bit, though I'm sure you'll tweak it. Thanks for the great feedback. NSR77 ^T_C 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've copyedited the addition to the lead. I don't really see any glaring info that's been omitted from the section. Is this satisfactory or can you think of something that needs to be mentioned? Do you have any other issues with the lead? Grim-Gym 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite part of it tomorrow, when I have a more reliable internet connection available to me. WesleyDodds 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Grim-Gym 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did some reworking, will do more later tonight. WesleyDodds 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thoughts on the current version of the lead? WesleyDodds 10:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a light copyedit, but overall its great. NSR77 ^T_C 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work. I think this article has just about hit its ceiling. Grim-Gym 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to a full support now. WesleyDodds 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I like it, but I'm not sure if this is appropriate: "Although Frusciante's influences can appear ephemeral, they have each been incorporated, to some extent, into his style". I suppose you can say it's backed up by the preceding section, but then why write it at all? Hmmm. 86.137.127.139 11:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Y

• Support Fantastic, very comprehensive, very well sourced. I adjusted a couple of awkward wordings myself (i.e. "zealously agreed" was odd), but on the whole, it's great. I do want to agree with the comment immediately above -- I think you might want to strike the last sentence, because it seems to partially undermine itself and it isn't verifiable. One other thing... the following sentence read strangely to me: "Through regular practice of vipassana and yoga, he discovered one of his most vital tenets—discipline." A belief in "discipline" is a little vague. Are you referring to a particular principle or practice of yoga? What exactly does this mean? --Melty girl 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. I removed the sentence in question and reworded the one regarding discipline. If there's anything else that strikes you do not hesitate to point it out. NSR77 ^T_C 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I get what you meant. I did think "implication" was the wrong word though. I adjusted that and a few small things, and now I think it reads well. Great article! --Melty girl 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support I made edits to this article in the past, but before Grim-Gym revamped much of it! Great, great job, it's wonderfully sourced and well written. Xihix 05:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your support and input—you've somehow managed to further improve the article, even after I said that it's hit it ceiling. This is what it's all about. Grim 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.