Talk:Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 13, 2008
Past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations.
Archive
Archives
  • /Archive 1: July '07 - January '08


[edit] GA Nomination?

Do you think this article should be up for a GA review? I think it is fairly thorough and well-researched. Any parts that seem conspicuously unencyclopedic? Thoughts? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very close. Most of the article is GA quality, but skimming through there's at least one "[citation needed]". The lead could also use some expanding and retooling. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's get on this. Oh yeah, I noticed the "Background" section needs references. Now that the album is clearly the lowest-selling Pumpkins album, something about that should probably go in the lead. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Any more thoughts on this? Editing has slowed to a standstill which is usually a good thing. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A few things:

  • "It is unclear whether the band or the record label chose to release the album in this manner, however it should be noted that some of the other recent releases on Reprise have been released in a similar fashion." Original research?
  • Personally, I despise long TOCs. Can we make some of the subsections use a semicolon and colon so they do not display in the TOC?
  • The external link to Netphoria should be removed from the artwork section.
  • "The alleged thieves have since been released from incarceration, sentenced to community service and probation.[citation needed]"
  • "F# Stomp" as an outtake? Need cite or removal until one can be found.
  • I think the lead could be expanded.

Once those things are addressed, then I think it should be good to take to GA review. -- Reaper X 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to expand the lead a bit, but I'm not too satisfied with the wording. Can anyone help me out? After that, we should take it to pper review and then submit it as a GAC. -- Reaper X 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I reworded what you wrote and I'm going to start working on a second paragraph for the lead, with reception and all that good stuff. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, good luck. -- Reaper X 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that most of the issues are resolved, anyone up for bumpin this to A-class? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean GA-Class? GA comes before A, and an A article approaches featured status. I think we still have quite a way to go concerning that. This is a good article, but it could still use a lot of work. Anyway, I'm going to request a peer review on this, and we should be well on our way to making it a GAC. -- Reaper X 03:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I've kinda expanded the lead a little, but the wording isn't brilliant. I can't think of an adequate way to summarize how the album's done in terms of sales. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the second paragraph - expanded the stuff about sales, rewrote a bit. Feel free to change anything there you don't like - this is a work in progress. And, great job, everyone.-Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good except the claim that "[it] quickly slid down the charts, and currently stands as the lowest-selling of the six commercially released studio albums." This is the most likely description of what happened, but we have to remember the policy of verifiability. Where/how can this be cited? If we can get that, we need to also cite that claim in the Release and reception section. -- Reaper X 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, album sales are not reported on very much after the first week. Last I heard it was at around 300,000. Every other album has gone gold or better. I guess we need a source directly saying that. We could say that it is the only Pumpkins album yet to be certified gold, and use the RIAA cert page as the reference. Thoughts? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmmmmmmmmaybe. Just be sure to avoid weasel words. -- Reaper X 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I added in Werideatdusk's suggestion, and the peer review has not attracted any personal editor feedback. I'm going to go ahead and make it a GAN, as reviewers will point out things that need to be improved.
I also wanted to ask you guys about what you think about the tour section. What/how many notable events should we include? -- Reaper X 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks good as a summary, though I notice that virtually the entire section is unreferenced. A summary of some of the songs they played would be nice. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the tour section, complete with references, and expanded the background section, amongst some minor tweaks including the recent announcement of the album going gold. All my edits are here. Hopefully the article looks better now to anyone reviewing it. -- Reaper X 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also added samples of "Tarantula" and "Doomsday Clock", created Image:Jeff Schroeder and Ginger Reyes.jpg and integrated it. -- Reaper X 22:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that my addition of FA Stomp ([i]with citation[/i]) was removed. Any reason for this? Rhinowing (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I guess since we can't reference forums, that information will be lost forever. Rhinowing (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of New Zealand Tour Information.

Why has the New Zealand tour information been deleted while the Australian V festival remains?

Surely 3 joint confirmed shows (a month before the V festival begins) with stoner rock band Queens of the Stone Age should be mentioned in the tour section. I added the information, and it has been deleted

Here is a reference http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=131494

Someone ((Brandt Luke Zorn)) please correct.

Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam jesse (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here was my predicament: I had an expanded mention focused on a NZ performance, which was uncited at the time, I did not see it at http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/tour, and if I listed the details of every performance (the Pumpkins probably haven't been to many countries for over a decade since their performance record since Mellon Collie has tanked), the section would probably match the size of the entire article.
But seeing as I have put so much effort into explaining myself while sounding like an asshole, I'll mention it. Forgive me mate, but you know, it's easy to be inconsiderate in my editing. -- Reaper X 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Sweet thanks man, sorry for sounding like an asshole myself - was having a trashy day when I wrote that.

PS - Article is looking well sourced and informative, should be nominated.

Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, it has been nominated, and is currently at WP:GAN. Cheers. -- Reaper X 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article Nomination

I'm failing this article for several reasons. First of all the entire "Alternate releases" section is completely unencyclopedic and there is a gross amount of fair use images. That strongly violates fair use; none are acceptable. It must be removed immediately. The paragraph at the top should be, however, merged with the "Release" section. "Fairey, whose credits include creating anti-war posters and the poster art for the feature film Walk the Line, commented on the album cover" the sentence is irrelevant. That block quote is pretty unnecessary as well, especially considering it isn't even one of the band members that is being quoted. There's absolutely no quoted reviews from the major sources (RS, EW, AMG). The picture of Schoeder and Reyes is massive and should be removed or drastically reduced. I haven't even touched on the prose, either. There's a ton of things that still need to be done before this is even close to GA standards. NSR77 TC 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the "Alternate releases" section is unencyclopedic - these are legitimate different versions of the album. In any case, this was already discussed here and a consensus was reached to keep it. I'm not really sure how authority works on wikipedia, or how strongly this user's opinion is weighed versus the community that has been active on this article. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, those are a lot of fair use images of what is essentially the same cover in different colors. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That consensus is between two editors, and lasted less than two days. No one was notified, either. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines can not be overruled by several editor's 'keep' or 'delete' (WP:FURG). It's only boosting the amount of bytes this article consumes. Some editors feel the bigger, the better. NSR77 TC 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to kick a dead horse, but it was between three editors who have been pretty active on Pumpkins articles. If there is a specific rule that says that that section is inappropriate, we'll remove it. And it's not like they're just there for decoration consuming bytes, they are alternate covers, which are normally shown in wikipedia articles and usually qualify for fair use. If they belong in the infobox instead, that's fine, though that would be pretty huge. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well how would we go about revamping it? Would it be unencyclopedic to do something like:

  • Green Cover: HMV version
    • Standard track listing[52]
  • Blue Cover: iTunes version
    • Includes "Stellar" (at track 11), 5 MySpace covers (for U.S. pre-order),[43] "Zeitgeist" (for international pre-order)[53]
  • iTunes Deluxe edition (January 2008)
    • Includes American Gothic EP,[46] as well as videos of "Tarantula" and "That's the Way"[54]

Or should we make it into terrible prose, or just chop all the details and merging the paragraph into another section? -- Reaper X 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Color text is usually avoided because the information could be lost on color blind readers, and just looks like bad formatting. I'm all for making this into prose and merging it into "Release and reception" - then reception could be split off and expanded. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we have two options: keep the "gallery" style display, or completely remove the information, having only a brief mention that various retailers had bonus tracks, and listing those bonus tracks in the tracklist section. I'd prefer to keep the gallery as it's visually interesting, shows legitimate alternate covers to the CD, and organizes the information well. If the consensus dictates that those images be removed, so be it. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm going to suggest the latter, because those images have to go. -- Reaper X 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It's the same with band pages; they can't have an overwhelming amount of fair use album covers (a few here and there is fine). NSR77 TC 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)