Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/This Charming Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This Charming Man

Article is no longer a featured article.

Oh dear. This is on the main page right now and I think it's a poor, poor article at the moment that should never have been featured.

  • It's riddled with POV. Examples include Asides from being a fan favourite (which is also grammatically incorrect), Fan reaction was similarly ecstatic, The "New-York" mix by DJ François Kevorkian was not a fan favourite, Predictably, it met a chilly reception, provides an unusually danceable beat.
  • Because it was a single, the song originally wasn't included on the UK and European versions of the Smiths' self-titled debut - non sequitur.
  • the popular Smiths theme of sexual ambiguity - popular according to who?
  • The Top of the Pops performance would be cited by many Smiths followers as being a key event in their musical upbringing - a wildly unlikely claim, backed by just a single quote.
  • the song has received nearly unanimous critical acclaim - only glowing reviews are quoted so either 'nearly' is wrong or the writers have only quoted reviews which praise the song.
  • Musically, the song is defined by Marr's bright jangle pop guitar riff and Morrissey's characteristic vocals is not supported by the reference cited, and what, in any case, is meant by characteristic vocals?
  • Opinions in references are quoted as fact in the article. The sentence above is one example, another is an unusually danceable beat, featuring a Motownesque bassline.
  • The article is very short, with just 10kb of writing. A good chunk of this is direct quoting from articles and reviews. I make it about 6.5kb of original prose, and this makes me seriously question how comprehensive the article can be and how it can be seen as an example of the very best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved the conversation mostly related to the policy of this listing to the talk page. See the WP:FARC talk page also. - Taxman Talk 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with your comments. There's way to much opinion asserted as fact. As the the length though, for pop culture topic, I'd much rather cover 10kb of it if that is comprehensive and covers the available verifiable information, than fluff the article out to 32kb just to look larger. See the various way too long Pokemon etc, articles for what I'm talking about. - Taxman Talk 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree completely that articles being puffed out is bad, but I think that 6.5kb of original text is just too short to be able to represent the very best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
1. I don't understand how the examples you brought up are POV. It is biased to say that its a fan favorite? Statistics show that its the most popular Smiths song. After several sources of professional critics remarking on the Motown influenced bass-line, we are not allowed to note that for a Smiths song it is unusually danceable? It is unacceptable to call the general fan rejection of the remix "predictable" when we take into account that the group was clearly seen as at odds to the dance music of the time? Perhaps these are not straight facts of the type "the sun is hot and the sky is blue", but this is an article on a widely-acclaimed piece of popular music, not a scientific theory. I think a little leeway with the prose is acceptable and the nature of the article perfectly fine.
'Unusually danceable' is pure opinion, unless you're quoting what someone else has said in which case you should attribute it. Same with fan favourite - according to who? Predictable is the opinion of the authors, not a verifiable fact. All these make it read more like a fan piece than an encyclopaedia article, and I think all our articles need to be held to the same standards, not given leeway for being on certain subjects. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed "fan favorite". "Chilly reception" stands though. The fact the mix was quickly deleted and that you have the singer defending and denouncing it in interviews, not to mention its referencing as such in books about the band makes it a fact to me. --Hn 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
2. A "non sequitur"? You do realize that in that time it was customary for lead-singles to not be featured on full-length albums? See Joy Division, the Stone Roses, etc.
It occasionally happens that a single is not featured on an album but to my knowledge it's never been customary. In any case, the sentence doesn't make sense as it is and needs further explanation for clarity. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Popular according to anyone who's actually heard the band's music? Popular according to several of the professional critics listed as sources in the article? Please just glance through the band's lyrics on the internet and come back if you still think this is a valid objection.
So cite your sources. The word popular in this context is inherently biased unless it's backed by a source. It would be better to omit it - it makes it read too much like a fan piece. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Widely unlikely that band's strongly influenced by the Smiths music - adolescents at the time - were influenced by their famous first appearance on national television? So widely unlikely, in fact, that a brief BBC feature on the song deals nearly completely with this performance, while John Harris' "Britpop" - the most comprehensive book on the mid 90s music phenomenon - features a good page dealing with its influence on the following generation of indie rockers.
Yes, I'm sure lots of people saw the show but to say it was a 'key event in their musical upbringing' is a very strong claim. The problem is that you've only cited one person who has said such a thing. If Britpop talks about that performance's influence, then cite that. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
5. This is a single from 1984. Today it is widely considered a classic. In an extensive search I could not find a single negative review. "Nearly" was placed there because it is obviously impossible to state that all the reviews of the song were negative, but it seems clear from the contemporary reviews at hand that the great majority were favorable.
'Nearly unanimous' sounds biased. Maybe replace with 'a great deal of' - probably more accurate and certainly more neutral sounding. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
6. It would help if you actually listened to the song. A heavily-accented croon occasionally erupting into falsetto that is almost always brought up in texts about the singer (as it is in the reference cited) qualifies as "characteristic" from where I'm standing - but maybe that’s just me. The reference adequately reinforces the perfectly fair description of the song.
I know the song, and I know that Morrissey's voice is distinctive. But, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a magazine piece or a review, and requires a different tone. You're writing for an audience a large proportion of which will never have heard of the Smiths, let alone this song, so you need to explain in the article what you mean by characteristic. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
7. As I wrote above: this is an article about a single from 1984, not an astronomy topic - which, as I can see, you are most familiar with. Astronomy is a science. A 1984 single is a popular art form. Trying to evaluate articles on pieces of popular music based on standards for scientific texts is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Perhaps we can not scientifically determine that (for instance) the bass-line in "This Charming Man" is influenced by Motown - but when numerous unrelated professional critics make a key point of this, I don't see anything wrong with stating it in the article.
I'm not asking for a scientific attitude to popular music, I'm just asking for an encyclopaedic attitude to writing style. Some things you can say in the voice of the encyclopaedia, as it were; solid, incontrovertible facts, like, the Smiths were a band from Manchester and Morrissey was their lead singer. Other, subjective statements, you need to say things like 'according to critics...' or 'commonly described as...'. Here, you're reporting as fact something which is not a fact, as if it's something an encyclopaedia can definitively say, but you should be using the latter form. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Your assertion that the article is not comprehensive is entirely unfounded. This article references and addresses nearly every reference to the song in books/magazines available, and is easily the most comprehensive text on the topic on the internet right now. The topic itself - an indie single from twenty years ago - doesn't quite lend itself to a 32kb article either. Live Forever 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't like it puffed out and bloated to be 32kb long, I'm just not convinced that such a short article can really be called the very best of Wikipedia, even if all my concerns above were addressed. If it really can't be expanded any more then I would prefer it to be listed at WP:GA than at WP:FA. Worldtraveller 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The length is perfectly acceptable for an article on a song. I presume this means you want practically all the featured articles on songs removed from that status too, as they're all comparable in length? It's a pop song, of course there's going to be a limited amount to write about. If there's any comfort, I have no doubt that it is one of the most comprehensive articles written on the song to date. I'd much prefer a shorter, more concise article than an unnecessarily long one. --Hn 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute...Worldtraveller complaining that an article is too short? First time for everything. I thought our readers were all 7 year olds who couldn't digest more than 1 or 2 paragraphs of text? Well, anyway, keep featured and expand if possible. Everyking 06:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • remove per worldtraveller Zzzzz 16:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove There is a good amount of detail here, around which a better article could be fashioned. Particularly, the composition section has interesting production detail, and the discussion about remixes covers an IMO important area that most pop song FAC noms fail to cover. As it is here, however, it is filled with subjective, unsupported and (for an encyclopedia) sometimes bizarre-sounding assertions, like:

  • cited by many Smiths followers as being a key event in their musical upbringing
  • It can be taken as a good example of a number of genres
  • The single's artwork is fitting with the song's general theme: actor Jean Marais, shown on the single’s sleeve, was homosexual.

This needs a rewrite. --Tsavage 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove per others. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)