Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

[edit] The Smashing Pumpkins

Self-nomination. This article was nominated for FAC a while back here at a point where almost everyone agreed (including myself) that the nomination was premature. However, after much work I feel the article fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for Featured Article consideration. WesleyDodds 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like how the article has shaped up. I'll be glad to help addressing any concerns other editors have with it. I'd love to see more on bands influenced by SP, but Wesley and I had a stab at that and it seems the statement in the article about the Pumpkins being an "island unto themselves" holds true to some degree. - Phorque 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article seems very extensive and cites sources very well. It doesn't seem to be lacking in any areas. Good use of photographs and soundclips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.35 (talk • contribs)
• Object images and soundclips need fair use rationales, when that fixed i would comment further. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now added fair use rationales where I felt they fulfilled the criteria and contacted the uploaders when I had questions. WesleyDodds 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks very thorough... although I do think that the post breakup section should include Darcy Wretzkys mugshot. -- UKPhoenix79 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support A comprehensive and well-written article. However, my only concern is that the infobox picture doesn't seem to have a fair use rationale. CloudNine 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support It's been a pleasure seeing this article come together--it's a well thought-out, well sourced history with a fine sense of appropriate emphasis and detail. Per CloudNine's observation, a fair use rationale has now been provided for the unobjectionable infobox picture.—DCGeist 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, 8 fair use images and 7 fair use sound clips, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. Please reduce the amount of fair use media, many of the images serve simply as decoration and make no contribution to a persons understanding of the article (WP:FUC 8). Has any attempt been made to contact the management of the group to ask for free images?--Peta 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These are for historical context, and given that the band has just reunited (although only with two of the members confirmed), getting free images is difficult, if not impossible. As for the audio clips, there's no way we'll get free soundclips until the band's material enters the public domain in a few decades. All other musician FAs rely on fair use soundclips, and we've tried not only to include the clips relevant to the release of each album, but also included additonal musical or critical comments.WesleyDodds 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They historical argument is very weak. We can read in the text how the number of members changed, we don't need photographic proof. --Peta 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the point of these images is that the band has changed their image a number of times. I'll try to make that clearer in the image descriptions. Looking at some recent music FAs like Pixies, Megadeth, and Frank Black they rely on a mix of images to illustrate the bands at various points in their careers as well as relevant album covers. Would a mix such as this be more acceptable? WesleyDodds 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to ask, can the reader understand this text without images? The answer will be yes; why not just make a timeline table to make sure the reader doesn't miss that the lineup changed? The articles you mention don't need those album covers for the reader to understand whats going on, they shouldn't really be there.--Peta 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which ones do you think the article can definitely do without? WesleyDodds 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is little evident basis for your argument, Peta. All of the images currently included in the article fall clearly within the boundaries of well-established fair use precedent in general and Wikipedia fair use practices in specific. If you have any good faith reason to believe that a particular image is being used in violation of defensible fair use practices, please (a) identify that image by name, (b) state why you believe it's in violation, and, if you can, (c) cite one single case of the presumptive copyright holder contesting fair use of the image or any similar one on Wikipedia or any similar noncommercial educational platform.—DCGeist 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific issues.

1.Image:Smashing pumpkins 1990 promo.jpg fails FUC 8, we already know what the band looks like from the infobox

Arguably illustrates nothing not already illustrated by infobox picture. WD, can we find a more informative image here?—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

2.Image:Smashing Pumpkins melloncollie promo.jpg, as for the previous

Picture illustrates major change in band's image. No case made that it breaches well-established fair use practices in any way.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3.Image:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg, same as the previous

Picture illustrates major change in band's lineup. No case made that it breaches well-established fair use practices in any way.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

4.Image:Todaypromo.jpg, some guy and a van, this image does a poor job of conveying anything

Supposed description obviously misrepresents image and its significance.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the samples go, consider FUC 3; The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. <snip>. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.--Peta 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally established practices are not necessarily the best precedent to go by, see this; we should limit all fair use media as much as possible.--Peta 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you completely ignoring the fact this band has a hugely diverse sound which is discussed at length in the article? Each clip serves the purpose of illustrating the musical progression of the band at that point in time, and each clip has its significance illustrated in the description. - Phorque 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, all the images in the article do not "clearly" fall within those boundaries when someone is expressing concern that they don't. Good faith concern alone should be enough to prompt a serious reassessment. It certainly establishes that the usage isn't "clearly" unproblematic. It's up to the person wanting to republish unfree content on any Wikimedia project to make a persuasive claim that it is absolutely essential. As for your "c)" point, please keep this focused on improving the article. It's not Peta's obligation to defend our fair use policy. Jkelly 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What is most unclear is the case you're attempting to make. My "(c)" point is entirely focused on the quality of the article: if a known or putative copyright holder has a history of challenging fair use claims of identical or similar material on Wikipedia or similar media, then there is a strong rationale for subjecting such material to a higher level of scrutiny. And of course it's not Peta's "obligation" to defend our fair use policy (no one asked Peta to do that, by the way). Just as it's not my "obligation" to defend the article's adherence to that policy. None of us are "obliged" to make any sort of effort here--we're all volunteers, right? Each of us can choose to be more or less helpful, more or less proactive, more or less responsive, more or less precise, etc.

Also, please recognize the conceptual flaw in your argument that "Good faith concern alone should be enough to prompt a serious reassessment": as in all walks of life, good faith does not equal good reason. By your own logic, the fact that someone (me) is expressing concern about the images' proposed removal obliges you to "seriously reassess" your following claim that "we don't need" these or similar images. The precision of your observations below is appreciated; I now look forward to the results of your "serious reassessment."—DCGeist 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the case, simply because we treat unfree media differently than we treat media that is part of our mission. Don't approach this as if it were a discussion over whether or not something that is free content belongs in an article or not. It's really unclear to me why you keep asking about whether or not we get complaints from copyright holders or not. Are you just curious? Our goal is to be so conservative in our use of potentially infringing media that the issue doesn't come up. If I say that we're not always successful in meeting that goal, does that answer your question? Jkelly 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It had always been my understanding that, in a practical sense, the heart of the mission was the creation of free encyclopedic text, in particular, and the creation of a freely available and highly useful encyclopedia in general. As I have acknowledged below, it does appear that the Wikimedia Administration Board is intent on establishing that totally free media is also at the heart of the mission. In the context of Wikipedia, this saddens me, because I believe it unnecessarily complicates, frustrates, and in many cases undermines the creation of a highly useful encyclopedia. I keep raising the issue of whether or not we get complaints from copyright holders—not in general terms (I know we do), but in specifically relevant terms—because I wish to demonstrate that the devotion to totally free media unnecessarily makes the creation of a high-quality encyclopedia much more difficult.—DCGeist 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how does one create a featured article about a high-profile band under these kinds of rules? Almost anything to do with them holds some kind of copyright. In our case, trying to convey the sound and image of the band is near impossible without using copyrighted images under a fair use claim. If I'm not mistaken, most of the Smashing Pumpkins live shows would not have allowed an audience member to carry in a camera of any kind, because there would be official photographers making (once again) copyrighted images. How could we ever hope to find free photos to convey the things we are trying to illustrate in this article? Is there no solution along the lines of "keeping pictures (a), (b) and (c) would be enough, and audio clips (x), (y) and (z) would suffice and still keep this article featured." What about my suggestion of making the pictures smaller? I haven't heard one complaint about this article's prose or referencing. Once again, where is the solution, the middle ground in this debate? - Phorque 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object until the unfree images we don't need in this article are removed. Image:Sp1991.jpg doesn't have any verifiable copyright holder information and nothing at the source indicates the implicit license to redistribute of a promotional photo from a press kit. It should be deleted. Image:Smashing Pumpkins live seattle.jpg fails WP:FUC #6, as it a screenshot used to illustrate the subject being shot, not to discuss the video the screenshot came from. Image:Smashing Pumpkins melloncollie promo.jpg is sourced to a random fansite and fails WP:FUC 10. Image:Smashing_pumpkins_1998_promo.jpg has been apparantly been altered to remove copyright holder information and should be speedy deleted, along with Image:Smashing pumpkins 2000 promo.jpg for the same reason. They're also large enough to print and sell. Image:Todaypromo.jpg comes from an likely-infringing Flickr upload! Image:Smashing pumpkins 1990 promo.jpg is actually a promo photo. Does Image:Billy Corgan - Tribune Ad reduced.jpg give the reader anything that couldn't be accomplished by an external link? Judgement call, I suppose. There is not a single freely licensed image in an article about a band currently active, and two of the images might be okay, if our standard is "business as usual" after the recent announcement. Jkelly 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: the band hasn't been active since 2000, and while they have recently reunited, they have yet to make any public appearances. WesleyDodds 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The images here appear to be taken by the uploader. I've been mainly focused on the prose and research of the article, so I'm basically in the dark about photos. How would I go about asking permission for photos and uploading (or if someone more knowledgable could do it instead, that would be helpful)? WesleyDodds 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wesley... I'm sure Billy Corgan has some kind of contact address, I guess it wouldn't hurt to drop him a line and ask where you could obtain promotional images of the band more "officially". - Phorque 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His website is down for the moment. I do have the band's MySpace page on my friends list. *ducks* It used to be Billy Corgan's personal page (the one where he posted his autobiography) so the band for sure has some direct involvement with it. I was about to send a message asking for promotional images, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase it (and I sure as hell wouldn't know how to upload or detail them). The goal would be to ask for images that illustrate the band's history; we don't want to just end up with that flag promo icon they have on the website right now. Additionally, it's very likely the request might get lost in the shuffle of all the fans that message the account. WesleyDodds 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to replace Image:sp1991.jpg with a cropped version (to remove the "smashing pumpkins" at the bottom) of the clearly promotional photograph used in the early days paragraph. I think this is fair. Hundreds over other websites (eg. Allmusic.com) and magazines use promotional photographs with the copyright info cropped out... that's what they are for, it's not going to make any copyright holder angry. We are not denying that the copyright is there by cropping it out. There's no need to get quite so pedantic about copyright rules... at this moment I'm almost tempted to use a bit of WP:IAR. - Phorque 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, please don't crop out copyright holder information from images we're claiming fair use on. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Jkelly 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment "That's what they are for"?! "It's not going to make any copyright holder angry"?! Reference to widespread precedent?! Phorque, you've clearly spent too much time in the real world—your analysis is way too sensible for this process.—DCGeist 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fear we must concede, comrade! Us damn kids and our "punk rock" are simply not what Wikipedia is about anymore! (Dear objectors, please excuse my sarcasm! Have a sense of humour will ya?) - Phorque 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody just hit a nail squarely on the head :) It's already a lost battle, the fair use cops have won I'm afraid. --kingboyk 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object per Peta and Jkelly, who follow Fair Use about as closely as anyone on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure they do. Unfortunately, their vision is circumscribed. To understand the issues, they need to be contextualized, seen in a broader perspective. I follow copyright-related legal matters fairly closely (Entertainment Law Digest is one excellent resource), and I am aware of not a single case in which EMI or any of its associated labels or The Smashing Pumpkins or any of the band's individual members has ever contested the use of any still image of the band in any noncommerical, educational medium such as Wikipedia. I have invited the previous objectors to cite a single such case. If there was even a single one, we could say that there was a reasonable basis for their concerns about the defensibility of one or more images in the article. But there is no such case, because EMI and its bankers and the band and the band members' financial managers are surely more than pleased to see the band well represented in a medium such as Wikipedia. That's the real world in which fair use law in general operates and to which those of us who defend Wikipedia fair use policy should remain mindful of if we're to best serve the project.—DCGeist 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• But Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL so its content may be used for commercial purposes and all content therein must follow the same premise.↔NMajdan•talk 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The latest notice from the Wikimedia Administration Board does, however insensibly, support your position. Ah, well.—DCGeist 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, where is the solution? If we removed every promotional image of the band, removed all the clips would you feature this article? Personally, I wouldn't. I really don't get it... there are simply no free alternatives! How does the Foundation ever hope to illustrate and inform people about copyrighted subject matter that is highly significant to human history and culture? But perhaps DCGeist has hit the nail on the head... Wikipedia is not the real world. It's supposed to be some kind of GFDL utopia where everything is free and capatalism is no more. With a heavy heart, I fear that the objectors to this article are right. If there is a solution to this dilemma, please enlighten me, or just be honest and tell us that this band is not notable enough to warrant this amount of "fair use" tomfoolery. - Phorque 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article has some free images already, so how can you claim that there can't be free images of the band or their concerts? Yes. There isn't going to be free copies of their music, ... I wouldn't oppose the FAC on the basis of some short fair use audio excerpts, although there should not be too many... this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan site. --Gmaxwell 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been able to find one free image that we could use since this FAC started, and even then that might be a problem since it's licensed for non-commercial use through Creative Commons. It's very hard to find free images this band on the Internet, not to mention ones that list the copyright. I browsed fan sites with image galleries an the hopes of finding suitable photos nd was consistently frsutrated that not only do they not list who owns what, but they mixed untagged fan images with promo photos. WesleyDodds 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wesley's comments, yes, we found one image, and it turned out to be non-free in the end. Yes it was live, and the author of the photo himself said "1991, when you could see them play on a stage two feet away from you." because after that the Pumpkins subsequently got wildly popular playing stadium gigs most of the time. I also think my assumption that fans wouldn't be able to bring a camera to shows after the band reached a certain level of popularity is fair. For instance: the other live show shown wouldn't have allowed fans in with cameras because they were filming, and wouldn't want flash photography messing it up. It's not that we don't want to find the free images, we're trawling the web and finding next to nothing, and still nobody is telling us what media in the article could go/stay in order to satisfy fair use and get the article featured... I'm really running out of ideas here! - Phorque 09:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Non-free headline image. Non-free concert image. I could possibly see some role for non-free media in this article: For example if we are discussing the bands copyrighted works we could include some excerpts of their works, but the current state of the article is pretty sad from the perspective free content. Until that is fixed, this is not the among the best that we have to offer. --Gmaxwell 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While we get the image situation sorted out, I'm having trouble determining the amount of proper soundclip usage for an FA these days. In the past (that is, about a week ago) musical FAs were expected to have a number of pertinent audio samples, per the examples I've listed above. After all, we're dealing with a professional band who lives off of releasing copyright material for sale. We've tried to make clear the significance of each soundclip being there; certainly there's more uploaded to Wikipedia, but we've purposely tried to keep it to the bare essentials needed for an overview of the band. What are your thoughts on each clip used in the article as of now? WesleyDodds 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the featured article criteria mentioning that being "pretty sad from the perspective [of] free content" should stop an article being featured or that including free media makes an article "our best work". You also admit that non-free media should play a role in this article, but do not state which media we could do without. Please be a little more pro-active and get specific as to what can help us fix this article! Those non-free images have rationales, are they not good enough? - Phorque 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Considering that the band were so popular for so long, there should be many free images available out there, they just need to be tracked down. This debate is distracting from the fact that the article very easily qualifies on all other criteria; with bells. If a few images are lost, well that won't take from the fact that this article is easily "one of our best." + Ceoil 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your comments. We have looked on the commons, flickr and several other websites and fansites to no avail. I have also posted a request in a Smashing Pumpkins forum for free images. Can you suggest any other sources. - Phorque 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Many photographers would be willing to grant permission to use their work on a high profile site like this, provided they are credited. However, you need to state explicity the implications of GFDL (There are sample image request templates here). Here are some starting points, I'll let you know of others as I find them: Mike Rynearson, Bob Masse . You can find others by searching online fanzines, venues, and local newspapers. How many of the online source are illustrated - would they be willing to grant permission? Have you considered using flyers or ticket stubs, bty. + Ceoil 12:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have begun sending out requests to Flickr photographers and will see what can be done. I'm not sure flyers or ticket stubs would add significantly to the article's text, but I will keep my eyes open for relevant content. Thanks for all your help! :) - Phorque 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a point: if the image already exists on Flickr, you can ask them to change the license to Creative Commons... just make sure they're aware they can't use the no derivitives or non-commercial tags! Ceoil is right in that a lot of people will agree to use their stuff on Wikipedia in a free-use fashion - I run around 50% success rate in my efforts. See my User page for some additional info - specifically the Luke Ford permissions page. Tabercil 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I got one photographer to do, the other decided he wasn't cool with commercial redistribution, so your 50% success rate holds true for me too. =P So at this point I'm not sure where this article stands. We've gotten a free image in to replace another, removed one of dubious source, and replaced all other promo shots with copyright info present to better satisfy fair-use. The objectors don't seem to be coming back to say how they feel now. - Phorque 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection iff the first image becomes a free picture of the band and the audio clips get converted into -Q0 or -Q1, ideally Q0 but if there are any artifacts -Q1 is okay, they are -Q5 oggs right now. I'll gladly do the latter part of my suggestion so long as no one will be mad at me. I'll change to support if we do the above take it down to one audio clip per album unless we're really going to have an indepth discussion about more than one... and if we use only free pictures for concert images. I've been trying to find some free images for the article, but wow there is a lot of copyvio (and smashed pumkins) on the internet. If I support I'll see if I can swing the other folks who have opposed. Obviously when writing about something mostly known for it's production of copyrighted works we're going to need to excerpt from some... but an article isn't among the best we have to offer if it's not as free as possible. The work we do to find free images will be useful to everyone else who needs a free image. --Gmaxwell 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about how to edit soundclips so if you can do that that would be great and much appreciated. WesleyDodds 10:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Have replaced the soundfiles with lower bitrate versions. I'm not familiar with -Q0, -1Q terminology, but the program I was using helpfully informed me that I was compressing from a bitrate of 128 to 112. Whatever that means. + Ceoil 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See Vorbis#Technical_details. Vorbis' performance is much better than MP3, especially at lower bitrates[1]. Outside of situations involving trained listeners and pathological difficult to encode source material Vorbis at 128kbit/sec should be difficult to tell from the original CD audio. I went and changed the files to -Q0 ones, and fixed the vorbis tagging. Any luck with free images of the band? Perhaps we might want to try something unconventional such as putting a "Have you taken pictures of The Smashing Pumpkins? click here" *in the article* for a little while? --Gmaxwell 07:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The one I'm particularly worried about is the infobox image, because it's been pretty impossible to find a free image of the four "classic" band members. This is before widespread use of personal digital cameras and it's not like the band went walking around together in their free time. However, this is not the current line-up. In fact, we won't find out what the current lineup is until summer when they perform at European festivals. I've put in image requests here and at Wikicommons, so hopefully when they do finally perform live we can get a free image. Basically what it comes down to is that the infobox image is a stopgap measure until we finally find out what the new lineup is. When that happens, we'll most likely change the image anyway to reflect that new lineup. I guess what I'm asking is if it's ok to use the infobox image until we find out what the new lineup is. Another solution I suppose could be using the one free image we have of Billy Corgan as the infobox image. The problem with that though is that it only shows Corgan. WesleyDodds 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We also had questions about using soundclips from the last album Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music. It was released only in the form of 25 vinyl copies with instructions by the band for fans to copy it. So any copy of it would be obtained free and with the permission by the band. Would that qualify as free media? WesleyDodds 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly convinced this hits the same stumbling block as everything else because Machina II was not licensed for commercial re-distribution. Any samples from it would still have that problem, so unless a Machina II sample would be a better example of the band's sound, it's not worth uploading one. - Phorque 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object as per others who have cited fair use concerns, if it were to be used for a featured article, why not contact the Band's Representatives/Management or Record company, to see if free media (such as sound clips and images) can be authorised for use on Wikipedia by them? Then the problem would be solved and the article would likely get the green light all round. - Deathrocker 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  Doubtful since the original band with the original members is no longer together. We will find out if more than 2 original members are back together in June/July 2007. -- UKPhoenix79 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed that the sound files are again an issue. Are you implying that a stricter interpretation of fair use, over and above the current guidelines should be applied to this specific article, in a break from precedent. Ceoil 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like the way the article has improved since being nominated, and besides the fair use issues, it seems to be fine. The only other problem it had were with numbers under 100 needing to be spelt out, but I fixed that. So I support it and the editors endeavours to get it this far. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, comprehensive, well-cited and well-illustrated by images, with extras like audio samples and more.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Minor object Image:The Smashing Pumpkins - The Everlasting Gaze (sample).ogg needs a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected this so that it reflects the other samples' rationales. - Phorque 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. ShadowHalo 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Arguments against the images and other media not being fair use are, I see it, simply looking for a reason to object. Nearly all, if not all, the images are promotional in origin and thus they qualify for fair-use. Additionally their removal has never been requested by the band or it's affiliations. Not to mention that pictures are always wanted on Wikipedia yet people bitch when they're used. It's obviously very hard to contact Corgan or the band for images so we have stuck with promotional ones. AgentA (Matt) 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article, and like many other users, I have seen the proggression it has made in the past while, and I feel the final product if one of Wikipedia's finest articles. The only thing is the images, the articles weakest point. It isn't fair to harp on fair use images like Image:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg, and Image:Smashing pumpkins 2000 promo.jpg, which show the band's distinctive image at a time before Wikipedia and dedicated Wikipedians and Commons people existed. It is just a shame there seems to be such a deficiency of free-use images taken by concert goers, or even images like Image:Billy Corgan pic.jpg under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence. I'm sure flickrhas been thoroughly combed through for any more. Besides that, there is the issue that SP is releasing a new album, subjecting the article to instability created by die-hard fans. But I have no worries, as I know dedicated users like WesleyDodds, Phorque, and others are there to keep shit in line. Two thumbs up, even though the right one is sprained. -- Reaper X 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see another high quality article about a musical group. The lead photo is absolutely fine: no free alternative from that era with that quality is going to be available, and the record label released the image with the express intent that it be published in the media (including the commercial media) - that's what promo packs are for, folks. --kingboyk 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - one of the finest, most concise articles on wikipedia. very well kept and updated. the pictures, although many fair-use, are a welcome addition. --ThrowingStick/Talk 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Probably one of the best band articles in general on Wikipedia, well cited, and the images are vital additions. Fair Use covers the images when necessary, and I think that the bald Billy Corgan image is the best and only image that a search for a free license image can find - any further searching would most likely be fruitless. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:57, 12 March 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.