Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hail to the Thief/archive1
- 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 by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Hail to the Thief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. It is already a GA and has been expanded and restructured since.Popcornduff (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
It's clear you've worked hard on this article, but there are errors—both minor and major. As you wrote on the article talkpage, you should get a fresh pair of eyes to look at the article (at peer review or the league of copyeditors):
- Minor
- There are several [citation needed] tags in the article (even apart from the ones I added).
- References are occasionally incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted. There's a bare URL and I also see "NME, 3 May 2003, p.27." and "Q Magazine, June 2003" (author and article names?). I also see author's inconsistently listed as "Chuck Klosterman" and "Edwards, Gavin". I recommend a thorough re-do.
- "But personally it's probably my least favourite of all the [Radiohead] albums"—most such [inclusions] in the quotes are unnecessary. The quotes are understandable without them.
- Dead links.
- It's not hard to imagine that EMI will keep reissuing the album every five years until the end of time, with new "deluxe/bonus/exclusive" material. IMO there's no need to list all that here. Only the original tracklist is important.
- Major
- By having a subsection for every song, the Music section is too long and stubby-looking. Also when you have a lyrics section, what is the point of discussing it again? I suggest scrapping the songwise sectioning, and moving the best info to augment the music and lyrics sections.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the feedback! Popcornduff (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a question - you've put a citation needed on the claim that HTTT is Radiohead's longest album. I'm never sure how to go about citing this sort of thing. I presume it isn't enough to just state it as a self-evident truth that readers can verify by comparing running times? Is there such a thing as a self-evident truth on Wikipedia? What would be sufficient as a source for this claim? Popcornduff (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I included it because it always comes up in discussion of the album's criticisms, particularly from the band and Godrich - "it's too long", "not enough editing" etc. With that in mind, it might make sense to move it to that area, or just delete it. Popcornduff (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cryptic C62
- The last paragraph of the Background section is a bit a of a cliffhanger. What worked and what didn't?
- "a years-long process of recording and editing drummer Phil Selway described as 'manufacturing music in the studio' " Funky wording here. Perhaps insert "which" after "editing", or change "drummer Phil Selway described" to "described by drummer Phil Selway", unless I'm misreading this.
- Regarding the last paragraph of Recording: Quotes are cool here, but unfortunately Yorke doesn't do a good job of actually explaining what the arguments were about. Any clues in the sources?
- Why is the Music section subdivided by song? There's not nearly enough material on each song for separate subsections, so it does little more than clutter up the TOC.
- Regarding the last paragraph of the intro to Promotion and release: This paragraph is very short, and discusses two ideas which are completely unrelated to one another, and neither is fully developed. If these snippets can't be expanded upon, I believe they should be deleted. Catch-all paragraphs are no good.
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! All helpful. I definitely agree with both of you, now, that the Music section should't be divided by song; I only did that because I'd seen it on other FAs, but clearly it isn't justified in this case.
- Question about your last point (regarding the last paragraph of Promotion and release): it seems to me that Com Lag, the b-sides collection, should at least be mentioned. Are you saying because there's nothing more to really expand on, other than to say it exists, it should be deleted? 08:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.