Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Year Zero (album)/archive2

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 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Year Zero (album)

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Self-nomination Resubmitting the article after the previous nomination was failed prematurely about a month ago. I've tweaked the article further since then, and have hopefully addressed any and all concerns brought up last time. As always, any suggestions and comments are welcome. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments There's still some cleaning up to do, but this is largely well-written. I hope you can find someone who's fresh to the text to go through it with the advantage of distance and polish it up.

• "notable for a number of other alternate reality games and viral marketing campaigns"—"for the ?production of a number of ..."? What is a viral marketing campaign? Is there a link for it?
• Put "ARG" in parentheses after spelling out the first time.
• "although the latter was only released as a promotional single"—I seem to be the only person to say "place 'only' as late as possible in a clause"'; here, it would improve the wording (after "released").
• To strengthen your fair-use justification for the music sample, why not explain that the instrumental ending is unusual for the genre (is it?) and/or is a distinctive feature of the style of this group? Do these instrumental codas introduce new musical material (probably not)? What is their function in the overall structure of the song (would a song feel unfinished without one?)? This is all you have now: "Many of the songs on the album feature an extended instrumental ending, perhaps most notably "The Great Destroyer", where the latter half of the three-minute song features an extended instrumental outro." .... TONY (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I took care of all of your comments except for the last one. I'm really not sure how to expound upon the instrumental outros without going into POV/OR territory. Drewcifer (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments All links checked out. Doesn't look like much has changed in sourcing since the previous FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a whole lot has changed since the last FAC. Just a few tweeks here and there. Drewcifer (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The YouTube video looks to be a possible copyright violation, not something original to this "Amska" user who uploaded it. If this is the case, we should not be linking to it; is the original video available somewhere else? BuddingJournalist 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good catch! I've swapped the YouTube video out with the original source of the video. Drewcifer (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I still think some alternative solution should be made for the giant Year Zero related box in the prose. NSR77 ^T_C 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a flat horizontal box at the bottom? Much like a regular band template? indopug (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly an option, but I think it's a matter of its functionality, not just aesthetics. It seems to be more akin to templates like Template:Censorship or Template:Sexual orientation, rather then a standard horizontal band-template. The main difference being that there's x number of articles in a series. The template looks fine in every other YZ ARG article (take a look at Campaign timeline of the Year Zero alternate reality game for instance), the only problem with this article being that there's already an album infobox, so this one gets pushed down a bit. But I'd say it still serves the same purpose, and it's not that aesthetically disruptive. Drewcifer (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I still can't see the necessity in keeping the template the way it is. It takes up a large amount of space. NSR77 ^T_C 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't function be the primary concern? {{Infobox Album}} takes up alot of space (more then the YZ template in fact), but its function is so clear and so important we use it in every album article. The main difference being that the album infobox is more informational then organizational: it provides a way to standardize the most important information as efficiently as possible. But the same argument could be raised with other series/organizational-based templates I mentioned above: the space they take up is secondary to the function they provide. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be the case, but the Album infobox is truly secular in guiding any reader. Anyone. The Year Zero template is trivial to most, and maybe only meaningful to a hardcore fan. This said, I don't see the true necessity. The majority of all templates are placed at the bottom, to direct readers to further reading, which the template does. NSR77 ^T_C 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Page break) Have you put any thought into making the template a box at the bottom of the page? I'm still displeased with its current state. 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I've put thought into it, but I still stand by my previous comments. My attempts to gain further discussion on the topic (that is aside from you and I going back and forth) have been fairly unfruitful. Drewcifer (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Took out the template Ok, ok, I give in. After rearranging the article a bit per some suggestions below, I decided at long last to take the template out, since it was getting in the way with the new order of things. Drewcifer (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments On top of my above comment I have to note another flaw with the article. The lead is enormous. Enormous. It goes into far too explicit detail. A lead should summarize an article, but not become overwhelming and too specific. It should, above all, remain general. NSR77 ^T_C 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Streamlined things down a little bit. Still three paragraphs, but I took somewhere around 4-5 sentences out. Hopefully the lead's a little more concise and to the point now. Drewcifer (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed a bit more to make things more succinct. I've noticed that you use in-line citations in the lead, but only some sentences are backed with them. If you plan on using citations in the lead you must either insert them in the places that are without, or remove them altogether. NSR77 ^T_C 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I took out all of the citations from the lead except for one (which cites a direct quote). Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support (will review soon)

*I don't think the links to the Kerrang! website are useful. One is a redirect to a generic news page, the other is an "Article not found" page.

• Still working on this one.

Found an archived version of one, and the other citation I just took out. The citations for the following two sentences more than cover the first. Drewcifer (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• "produced by Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross," - the singular adjective followed by two names sounds odd
• In Recording, "...began writing material for while on tour for With Teeth,..." - the first instance of With Teeth is in italics (an album, correct?) and the third instance is not in italics (tour name, correct?). This second instance is ambiguous. Also, it's basically repeating the first sentence of the section.
• "Digit Online later reported that..." - what is Digit Online? The ref goes to the website "Digital Arts".
• There seems to be some problems with the punctuation in quotation marks. The WP:MOS suggests putting the periods outside the quotation marks.

• I think I took care of all the instances of funky quotation punctuation. Are there any in particular I missed?

• Did you come across any reference to Rush's 2112 (album) as an influence?

• After a quick google search, I only found one source. Not all that notable, I think.

• I came across it in "NINE INCH NAILS' REVOLUTION MUST BE CONCEPTUALIZED. By: Wasserman, Todd, Brandweek, 11/26/2007, Vol. 48, Issue 43": "(Numerically and in concept, Year Zero is similar to Canadian prog-rock band Rush's 1976 album 2112, which paints a similarly Orwellian portrait of the future.)" - it doesn't go any further than that and, yes, it is in brackets. I can email you the article. None of the other sources I've seen mention any connection. -maclean 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's definately an association between the two, but I'm not sure if it's really that notable if two reviewers says "the album is kind of like __." Especially since both sources imply that 2112 was a thematic inspiration, which is purely OR on their part. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Additional source Village Voice (Addendum: also [1] for insight into the marketing.)

• Cool, thanks. I'll see if I can incorporate it somehow.

Wow! That new link made me realize a gross gap in the article's coverage of Year Zero, NIN's disputes with AMG. I just added the section, so please feel free to pick it apart. Also, I'm not sure if I put it in a good place in the article. Opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but "He criticized the company's retail pricing of Year Zero in Australia as "ABSURD",[sic] concluding that..." - calling something absurd isn't a criticism, its a label or name-calling. I'm sure there is a well thought-out idea behind it but as here it is just illustrating his emotional response. It would be more accurate to say "He labeled it absurd" or "He called it absurd" or "He condemned it as absurd". Also, "After the release of Year Zero Remixed in November 2007, a remix album featuring remixes of Year Zero..." probably has one too many "remix" and it is just the begining of a very long sentence that could be chopped. maclean 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Took care of both. Drewcifer (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of Themes ends with two footnotes: 4, 25. I don't see what is referenced to footnote 4. The paragraph is almost entirely a quote from footnote 25.
• The article is quote-heavy. Some of the quotes are not necessary and we should strive to simply report, rather than repeat.

For instance, "Reznor admitted he's already in talks about a movie version of his upcoming album - a concept piece, with part two scheduled for next year." adds nothing that cannot be synthesized.

"wrote the soundtrack to a movie that doesn't exist." quote is used twice in the article.

I don't see how Reznor described as "Highly conceptual. Quite noisy. Fucking cool."[10] adds to our understanding of the music. That it is conceptual, noisy, and cool is repeated throughout the article.

Took care of the first two quote-issues. The third one, however, I'd like to keep as is. Simply because a) it is the most concise quote from Reznor himself concerning the music of the record, b) shows how he feels about it (which is actually pretty important given that Reznor's publiclly criticized his own albums before), and c) sets up what's to come in the rest of the section. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

--maclean 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead does not mention when the album was released.
• Why does the article mention where his blog is hosted? That seems very irrelevant.
• In February 2007 fans found that a new Nine Inch Nails tour t-shirt contained highlighted letters that spelled out the words "I am trying to believe".[12] Fans discovered that this phrase was registered as a website URL," - this makes it sound like someone announced one day that the shirt had the hidden message. Perhaps the first sentence should use "discovered" instead of "found out" and the second sentence should remove the "Fans discovered that this" clause?
• "soon several related websites were found in the IP range, " - were these IP-based urls or domain name based urls? This phrasing is a little odd.
• What does "it" refer to in this sentence? "how it "could be about the end of the world"."

Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Straying through at random, I hit:
  • "Critical response to the album was generally favorable, with an average rating of 76% based on 28 reviews on MetaCritic,[58] and rated #21 on Rolling Stone's "Top 50 Albums of 2007"." Before and after [58] do not match grammatically.
  • "Most of Year Zero's musical direction was devised by Reznor solely on his laptop, as opposed to the instrument-heavy With Teeth." Um ... why is a laptop (as a compositional tool) contrasted with an intrument-heavy texture?
• "perhaps most notably"—This is unencyclopedic: "perhaps" is an interpersonal intrusion. TONY (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressed all three notes. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I finally got around to looking at this article. I've finished the first part of my copy-edit, and will do the rest tomorrow. Although this article is nearly there, the main problem I find is that often ideas and facts are repeated many times; this could probaby be avoided if some of the sections were combined (say Promotion and Tour). Also, including a few more reviews in the reception wouldn't hurt. indopug (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your copy edit so far, very nice stuff. I hope you don't mind, but I un-copy edited two paragraphs, since your changes altered the meaning somewhat. However I reworded both to be a bit clearer. Drewcifer (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I think it might be necessary to sort the organisation of this article which appears a little confused to me. I believe that in an album article, fewer the sections the better (see: Loveless, Be Here Now); here merging sections might be especially beneficial to rid of the repetitions plaguing the article:

• Touring should be clubbed with Promotion and release. A considerable part of the Tour section is the USB drives , which are already present in Promotion. I think stuff like "Supporting acts included Ladytron, The Dandy Warhols, Alec Empire, and Unkle.[51][52]" is unnecessary and can go.
• Themes has "Year Zero is a concept album criticizing the United States government's policies as of 2007. and one paragraph later, "Reznor later stated that Year Zero was a concept album, 'the soundtrack to a movie that doesn't exist'". That first paragraph (Reznor talking about what the label thought about the album) seems tangential to the Theme of the album. I don't think he refers the themes at all but to the music.
• The Artwork section could be merged with Theme, as the artwork is meant to be part of the overall concept. "Reznor displayed displeasure...extra 83¢ per CD." can go to problems with UMG.
• Move Theme and Music to before Promotion, might be better that way.
• So, overall, what the template I'm suggesting is

• Recording
• Themes (incl. artwork - no need of sub-section)
• Music (I think "Reznor called Year Zero a "shift in direction"...doesn't sound like anything else out there right now"" can come here)
• Promotion and release (incl' Touring). I think Related projects can come here, while Dispute gets its own section.
• Critical reception (any reviews of Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D?)
• Dispute with UMG

Phew, cheers. indopug (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I took care of a few of your suggestions, but not some others. I merged some sections here and there, but left the Related projects seperate, since those projects are related but not actually part of the Year Zero album. So to put it in with a section describing the release of YZ would be a bit of a stretch, I think. I also left the 83 cents thing in the artwork section, since it applies directly to the thermo-coating thing, which is only described in detail here. I also don't think that reviews of YZ Remixed are relevant, that's better left to the album's page itself. I merged the themes/music/artwork sections, but I think it would be a mistake to not have subsections. I also think that recording and promotion should come first, then everything else. Namely because those two describe the history of the album, while the other ones described the album itself. Does that make sense? Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The touring and promotion are very interconnected and rewriting about them completely together might be much better; the way it is right now, a lot of things are still unnecessary repeated. Rename it to "Tour, promotion and release" and the first two paragraphs of the current Promotion could seamlessly be mixed with stuff in the current Tour section. indopug (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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