Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Year Zero (album)/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 00:01, 18 March 2008.

[edit] Year Zero (album)

Check external links

Self-nomination: I feel this article meets all the criteria and covers the album as well and as thoroughly as possible. The article recently passed its GA nomination, and I believe it is ready for FA status. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Where's the info on the recording of the album? The article skips straight to "Promotion and release", so arguably fails criterion 1b. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point, good point. I'll see what I can scrounge up. Any other suggestions/comments while I take care of that? Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Taken care of, I think? There was already a little bit of stuff in there, I just needed to flesh it out a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Recording" and "Promotion and release" should be in two separate sections, in my opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. It was definitely an odd combination of stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That ugly, irrelevant box is totally unnecessary. It should be removed. NSR77 TC 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the Year Zero ARG template? I can't imagine any article that the template would better fit, except for the Year Zero (game) article itself. It's part of a series of articles on the ARG, so the template is there to tie it all together. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's unnecessary. I can't think of a single reason for it to stay. NSR77 TC 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Because there are 10 articles that have to do with the YZ ARG, all of which are organized by one template. This one of those articles. Obviously the album and the game itself are closely connected, and many of the ARG sub-articles tie directly into this article (namely the Campaign timeline article, but the others too). It's no different than say, the series of articles on Censorship. Only difference being that this particular article is about an album, which necessitates the Album infobox in addition to the series template. So, there's a few reasons right there. Drewcifer (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does there have to be a large, space-filling box, though? I assume a template at the bottom of the page would be equally as effective but less blatant and in the way. NSR77 TC 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I can see your point on this one. However I'd say this is more of a template issue that it is an FAC issue. I'll bring it up on the template's talk page and/or at the NIN WikiProject. My own opinion of the issue is obviously to keep it as is (I made the template in the first place), since at least for just about every other YZ ARG article, it acts as a infobox of sorts, and organizes a series of article together quite nicely. The only reason it looks a little bit out of place here is because this article already has an infobox. But it would be silly to compromise the functionality of the template on the other pages simply because it doesn't work perfectly in this one. But like, I said, I'll bring it up on a few talk pages and see what happens. Does that sound reasonable? Drewcifer (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Have you come up with anything? NSR77 TC 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ideally yes, but since I personally don't have access to the physical Kerrang! magazine (and I'm sure 99% of readers wouldn't either), I think the Blabbermouth report is sufficient. If I were to use the Kerrang issue itself, not only can the reader not actually read the source of the quote, but I wouldn't be able to give proper attribution (the author for instance). Closest I could get to the actual article is this, which isn't much good. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/ a reliable source? Likewise http://www.techamok.com/ (When I first went there, the front page had a bunch of skimpy photos of Pamela Anderson and Rebecca Loos listed as news on the front page, which kinda made me wonder a bit.)
I've never encountered Pitchfork being challenged as a reliable source, to be honest. It seems to fit the criteria of WP:RS. Namely, if you look at the Pitchfork Media (which admittedly is a mess), there's a ton of 3rd party external links discussing the website, its owner, its niche market, etc. And what's wrong with skimpy photos? =) Replaced it with a USA Today source. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My main problem with the skimpy photos was they were the wrong sex! I got edumacated on the Pitchfork Media earlier today, so that's cool. Just so I'm clear, you replaced the techamok.com site with the USA Today? Ealdgyth | Talk 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Drewcifer (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
All of those websites are owned and run by ZDF-Hitparade, hence the nearly identical style/format of the various sites. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The 81 link was working a few days ago, bummer. Replaced it with an archived version. As for the spiral link, I just removed the sentence and cite altogether, as it wasn't particularly useful info anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A couple of the references could be combined as they only differ on the date of access.
Could you point me to which ones you see? I can't find any. Keep in mind that some may look similar (have similar titles), but are actually different archived versions of the same page (such as #38 and #39). Drewcifer (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
38 and 39 were one, and I believe the other was taken care of with the fix to 81. (i.e. I can't find it anymore!) Looks like that's taken care of. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth | Talk 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The article is very strong, and impressively well-referenced. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • This sentence should be in the past tense: "Reznor also stated that the album is "part of a bigger picture of a number of things [he is] working on"."
Done. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Split this into two sentences: "Some reviews criticized the album, however, such as Spin Magazine's review, which summarized the album by saying "The songs drag in the middle, choruses become interchangeable, and too many tracks end with the same electronic stuttering"."
I agree it was awkward, but I think splitting it into two separate sentence would be a mistake. Instead, I reworded it and separated it all with a colon. Does it look agreeable to you? Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It was better, but I added a minor fix. Good now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Themes section should follow the Recording section.
I'm not sure if I agree with you there. The first two sections are mainly historical-type sections (this happened, then this happened). The themes is broader and more focused on the music rather than how the music came about. Better to keep similar sections together, no? Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a valid point. I withdraw this objection.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the sentence that begins "During a concert in Lisbon, Portugal, a..." be in the earlier section on USB drive promotion?
It is mentioned briefly in the section, but not the Lisbon part. I figured the two sections required different things: the promotion section required a mention the overall fact that USB drives were used, but the actual venue didn't seem especially important in the context of the section. In the tour section I'd say the opposite is true: the fact that it was on a USB drive is secondary to the fact that it was Date X at location Y on Tour Z. Does that make sense? There is method to my madness. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1b. Comprehensive? Yes
1c. Factually accurate? Yes
1d. Neutral?
  • The Music section is just an outlet for Reznor to brag about how awesome he thinks the album is. Later in the critical response section you already have a review by Ann Powers. Besides, this is probably the 100th time in the article where its been mentioned that this album is different from his others. Ditch that whole section for being at best redundant and at worst biased.
I put the section into the article in response to some suggestions made in the GA nom. I'll definitely try and improve it, but I think the article would suffer without it. I'll scour some reviews/articles about the album to get some more 3rd party sources in there. As for mentioning that the album is different, I believe it's only mentioned in the entire article three times: once here, once in the Recording section, and once in the lead (which is supposed to repeat the article). Also, I don't see the problem with quoting the same reviewer twice, especially if that reviewer is notable enough to have their own article. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the section a bit, attempting to bring some 3rd part quotes and stuff in there. I still think Reznor's descriptions are illuminating, but hopefully now it doesn't overwhelm the section. Also, I realized that part of your complaint about the article repeating itself about how the album is different was spot-on: I used the same exact quote about writing from his journal in two different sections. So, I left the full quote in the Music section, but rewrote the part about it in the Recording section. Let me know if you think this works. Drewcifer (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I really applaud your efforts with this section. But I'm afraid that my initial concern is still unaddressed. I am not even opposed to a music section. Many WP article contain them. But they usually contain info like: "This album employed a lot of string instruments...", or "The percussion used in the album was a departure..." or "The production techniques on this album employed more sampling...". But in this article, after the first half of the first sentence, the section just spews opinions....all positive opinions and, worse, opinions of the artist himself. The other good sentence begins "Many of the songs on the album..." Otherwise, here's a sampling of that section: "effective sonic tricks", "slashes of prettiness", "organic approach", "You can fuck to a lot of it." I think the problem is obvious. A basis of WP is to present information—not interpret it. We leave the interpretation to the reader. The only time we present any opinions at all is if they are from renowned opinion makers (eg - All Music Guide), and such opinions should be presented in a section that reflects the fact that this is not the opinion of wikipedia (eg. a critical response section or peak chart positions). The current section doesn't do that. It will have to be removed, merged with critical reception, or completely re-written to focus purely on the composition from a technical aspect (eg. - which instruments were used, in which studio it was made and in which key the songs are written).

(←) I can see your points, but I think it's a little hasty to say the section is beyond help. The problem I'm having with using sentences akin to what you suggest is something that came up in the Nine Inch Nails FAC a few months back. Namely, that musical descriptions of that type tend to be borderline-POV. The sentence describing the instrumental outros for instance, is a bit borderline, and I had a hard time convincing myself to include that, given the comments made at the NIN FAC. So, instead of ME describing what the album sounds like, I've attempted to attribute everything to some source, via direct quotes. And the best place to find people describe music is in reviews of the music. I suppose some of the quotes are positive, which I also suppose is a problem, but some of them aren't. I suppose Ann Powers' description is fairly positive, so I've taken it out. The Drowned in Sound stuff seems pretty solid to me, since the review (or at least what I've chosen to point out from the review) merely compares the album to previous albums. "Organic" seems like a pretty neutral description of With Teeth, and it fits in nicely with the section, I think. I don't see how that could possibly be considered a positive or negative descriptor. The AMG quote also seems pretty solid to me. It uses big flowery words like "guitars squall" and "Percussion looms large", but it doesn't describe the squalling guitars and large percussions as a good thing. In fact, the latter half of the quote is just a list of adjectives. I could easily imagine those words coming from a negative review of some crappy metal/techno album. As for the quotes from Reznor, I'd definitely say it's illuminating to hear directly from the artist, but some of them could go I guess. Of all the quotes, I think the first one is the best: "Highly conceptual. Quite noisy. Fucking cool." The fucking cool part is an obvious red flag, but since it comes from the artist himself, and is part of a larger quote, I think it's actually somewhat informative. It should be taken with a grain of salt, of course, but anything directly from the artist should be. I've taken the other two quotes out though. Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the music section again, and do see the validity of some of the critique. But I still think the section is a little interpretation heavy. For a really good example of what a music section should be like, see Rain (The (Beatles song). It too incorporates some analysis, but includes a lot of technical information to substantiate it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's definitely a good music section, but it's only so helpful to compare similar sections between a song article and an album article. Things like time signature, instruments, and specific song sections aren't applicable to an album article. I could do that for all 16 tracks, but that would be pretty silly I think. So, instead of going into track-for-track specifics, I've tried to describe the album in broad overall terms.
Look at it this way: throughout the section, I make a few points:
  • Noisy/distorted
  • Largely electronic
  • Made almost exclusively on a laptop
  • Differs musically from NIN's previous album, With Teeth
  • Overall tone
  • Many songs have an extended instrumental outro
That pretty much describes the album as far as I can tell. I'm actually quite pleased that I was able to get the above across in such a concise section. Without going into a track-for-track analysis, I can't imagine doing anything drastically different. And since describing music (specifically 16 songs of music), is inherently somewhat interpretive, I can't really do so without taking from outside sources. Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes
2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?:
Done, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far.— Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:06, 12 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.