Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Charming Man

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 00:05, 24 March 2008.

[edit] This Charming Man

previous FAC

Former featured article – has been on main page

Check external links

Co-nom with WesleyDodds on a song containing the immortal line "Why pamper life's complexity when the leather runs smooth on the passenger seat". Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ support - add the section external links. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links are not a requirement for any articles or for featured articles, and per WP:EL, should be minimized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Short 'External links' section added. Ceoil (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments The 'Fan Reaction' section doesn't really talk about the reaction of fans. Only what one dude said people felt about it. I'm also a little displeased with it being it's own section, especially considering the topic isn't discussed to a great length. The second paragraph in the section doesn't even stay on topic. Please remove it. NSR77 ^T_C 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rid the article of that dudes openion. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments References - they need publisher and author information (where possible) for all the websites and books. I have particular concerns with
- ~~footnote 2 being used for the UK chart position (unless I'm missing something, the blurb on the site doesn't say it reached number 25)~~
  - Replaced. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~footnote 3 looks to be a fan site, at least I can't see who published it.~~
  - Gone. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~footnote 18, which Rogan article is it referring to? The one above it in footnote 17 or the one in the sources?~~
  - Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~footnote 19 is dead.~~
  - Gone. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~Publisher on footnote 21? Looks like a fan site to me.~~
  - Replaced. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not look at MOS/prose/etc. issues, just sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comment on the pictures. The covers should be good for fair use, but I believe (someone else correct me if I'm wrong) that if you're claiming fair use on the still from the video, you need to use it for more than decoration, the critical reception of the video needs to be discussed in the article and the still should show something significant. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Thanks for the close look, the article is much improved now. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I took out the image. It did not add a whole lot, the article is not weaker now. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I share concerns about Image:Thischarmingmanvideo.jpg:
- The existing prose of "the band playing the song in a room with a floor covered by flowers" is perfectly adequate to describe the video. The Fair Use image does not appear to contribute significantly above the contribution made by the prose (required by WP:NFCC#8).
- The image is not low resolution (required by NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I think the video still here is fine. Stills can be pretty significant in demonstrating to the reader what the video looks like, without forcing them to watch it. I really dislike that rationale. In reality, I'd say that only 10% of all the pictures on Wikipedia are vital to their respective article. The way that rationale phrases it makes it seem like the picture needs to be an integral aspect of the article, which is not true in almost all cases. NSR77 ^T_C 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    - A FU image actually must be integral; that verbiage is based upon NFCC#8. FU is, by its very nature, a violation of the rights of the copyright holder; if we’re to do this, we need a very good reason to do so. How is our understanding significantly enhanced by the grainy image of the band standing in the corner on a flower-covered floor? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      - According to United States Copyright laws, copyrighted images are permitted to be used freely for educational purposes. I.e., Wikipedia. NSR77 ^T_C 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        The lack of specificity of "educational purposes" is, in and of itself, a mischaracterization. That notwithstanding, per WP:FU, Wiki policy sets forth "strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        This isn't really the place to be having a Fair Use debate (no offense). Personally, I don't like this particular image. It's grainy and overall poorly placed. Remove it. NSR77 ^T_C 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        Agreed, on both counts. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a picture of that Top of the Pops performance might be better, if someone can find a shot. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a RS to back up the claims, so the section is gone. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment "It met with a chilly reception from fans of a band.[26]" - This is a mere opinion, and should be attributed to its author. Currently, it's written as though the statement is factual (when it's actually just a critic's perspective). LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I cut the statement. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

*Comment:

"The Smiths" or "the Smiths"? Be consistent.

"The Smiths" all the way through now. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does camp link to gay and moustachioed to Freddie Mercury. I'd rather "anthem to an 'out' moustachioed pumped-up alpha male self-assertiveness" be written maybe a little more formally; its kinda hard to understand what you're trying to say. "and alien to many UK homosexuals" seems grammatically incorrect.

Relinked, and reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

TEAC three-track tape recorder - wikilink?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"release the song as a single instead of the slated release"

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"of the song for release as a single." song is ambiguous here I think. "release" again.

I think it's ok, or I don't see the problem. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Matrix Studios, Strawberry Studios in Stockport, Greater Manchester - wikilinks?

Linked. Delighted to see the wikilink for Strawberry Studios is blue. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

punctures one of his bicycle's wheels ~~while cycling~~ on a remote hillside.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"A passing "charming man" pulls over in a luxury car to offers the cyclist a lift,"

Reworded as "stops to offers the cyclist a lift". Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Driving together the pair flirt, although the protagonist finds it difficult to overcome his reticence" Shouldn't there be a "While" at the start of the sentence? Simpler word than reticence?

'While' and 'Reluctantce' now both in sentence. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think lyrics should be in italics.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"archaistic" - is that a word? Or is it archaic?

Archaic. Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"nothing to do with fashion" - what does that mean? As in modern trends/ways of speaking?

I think its clear. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"homoeroticist" or "homoerotic"?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why 'single quotes' sometimes and "double quotes" other times? ('charming')

Done, I think. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Link faggot

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Professor of Popular Music - unnecessary capitalisations?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Does homoerotic need to be used thrice in that paragraph? I think a lot of stuff in that para is a repeat of stuff discussed before, particularly the "meeting in terms of a "brief encounter" and suggests, on behalf of the songwriter, "partly a homoerotic attraction"."

I cut all this. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

unusually danceable beat - "unusual" according to whom? What does "unusually" even mean here?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"The drums were originally programmed on a Linn Drum Computer by Peter Boita under the direction of producer John Porter who used Boita's Linn Drum programme to trigger the sampled sounds of the live drum kit, featuring a Motownesque bassline." - Simplify please. Boita's Linn drum needn't be mentioned twice. Any wikilinks there?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Marr's guitar part consists of single notes of thirds as opposed to strummed bar chords, and his guitar serves to creates a counter-melody throughout the song." - wikilink appropriately.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Link vibrato.

Linked. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"and in both videos" - huh? Which two? Why did the description of the music video completely disappear?

Cut sentence fragment. Section was pulled due to a lack or RS. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But the article would not be comprehensive without a description of the video. Like plot summaries, describing a video doesn't need a source. indopug (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored under 'Release'.

Noel Gallagher doesn't need to be qualified twice.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

UNCUT -->Uncut?

Changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Eighties New Pop World, - link to New Wave music?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why only the Peel session sample but not the single itself too? Include an image of the TOTP.

2nd Ogg on the way. The TOTP img ran it to FU problems. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you tell me the start and end times I can upload the sample... indopug (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but Im traveling at the moment and the computer here has no media software. I'll comeback on monday on this when I get back home. Ceoil (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Smiths followers" - I think fans would be better here, unless you want to imply a sort of religious following.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"the band's eponymous debut, The Smiths" - just link eponymous debut to the album and remove The Smiths.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's encouraged to avoid doing this by various music guidelines. It's really confusing to the unfamiliar reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that heavy machismo quote from the lead be repeated in the prose?

I don't see the point. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's that blah about "everything in the lead MUST be repeated in the body" indopug (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Its gone now anyway. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. What I meant was everything mentioned in the lead should be mentioned again in the prose, since the lead is the summary of the article. So Morrissey's "heavy machismo" should be in the body of the article too. indopug (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeating quotes doesn't make sence. The body section re: "then mainstream gay culture" and "'festive faggot'" repeates the substance. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll tweak the lead a bit after I go out to buy some cupcakes (in the middle of the night; I forgot it's Easter). But yeah, the lead doesn't need to contain the exact same content as the body; it just needs to convey the same information. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Might want to qualify Travis in the Versions paragraph; I had to search back to find out who he was.

Clarified and wiki linked on 2nd mention. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No Track listings of the different releases? What about Personnel?

Personnel at least added. Searching for the Track listings. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Got em. Added. Ceoil (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What about production, mixing etc? indopug (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Both producers are credited in the infobox and article body. Ted De Bono is credited in the article body. I don't have a source for the engineer of the offical version. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

indopug (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these, I have fixed most, will follow up later. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ After finally taking a long hard look at the article, I'm still disappointed with it. I really think it has some serious POV issues. First of all, the TOTP performance, while being revolutionary and notable, is in no way "famous". The Smiths are and have always been an indie band. Their fame reaches only the boundaries of independent music and, since they never entered the mainstream, the word "famous" is a bit strong. The paragraph starting with "During a famous appearance on Top of the Pops..." is shockingly POV and littered with non-neutral statements. The UNCUT quote is a sentence too long. "The Top of the Pops performance would be cited by many Smiths fans as being a key event in their musical upbringing." That is not only a blatant POV statement, but it isn't backed up by a single source. The way the article is written I can't help but feel like The Smith's changed the world with this song; unfortunately, they did not. Praise needs to be toned down several notches. There isn't even a quote from a review that expresses negativity. Furthermore, I don't think the quote where Marr explains the song's composition is at all necessary, considering there are already several paragraphs of prose that cover it. Finally, the UNCUT quote that was added to the lead is irrelevant to the sentence subject matter and overkill. NSR77 ^T_C 02:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cut your specific examples, will update when remaining instances are excised. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok all done. Except: I did not find any negative reviews, and I'm not sure there were very many/any. I've left the Marr quote as it covers aspects of the songs technical composition not else where covered on the page. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I believe it is typical to have a "References" section (containing what is now in the "Sources" section) before the "Notes" section. Is there a reason this article doesn't do it like that? Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tuf-Kat. Its a matter of preferance (I think!). Switched and retitled now....Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support indopug (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My many, many thanks for such a careful and detailed review. The article is much improved. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment "The second is from a 7 November 1983 recording at the Riverside television programme . . ." I want to rephrase this. Is "Riverside" the name of the show? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. I only restored this yesterday, but don't have the source and cant verify. I'm keen to chop it again. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support No worries. Good work! It's a nice article otherwise. NSR77 ^T_C 16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Phew! Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NSR77 you have a bolded Oppose and a bolded Support; are you trying to test my intelligence? I may fail ... can you please unbold one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry! I forgot to strike it out. NSR77 ^T_C 22:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Charming Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This Charming Man

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search