Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song of Innocence/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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Song of Innocence edit

Featured article candidates/Song of Innocence/archive1

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is written well enough and comprehensive enough on the topic to be promoted. Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had good experiences reviewing your articles, so here's some comments from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Support on prose and media; another good (although by Dan's standards, downright short) article on a release I'd never heard of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. Good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have concerns about a couple of the book sources. iUniverse is a self-publishing house,and Visión Libros appears to be one as well. Is there a reason the Méndez and Scaruffi sources should be considered reliable or authoritative? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything on Mendez, so I replaced it here with one of the sources from "Further reading". Scaruffi's had enough independent coverage (GoogleNews, nytimes article, to cite a few) and books published (on music and the other fields he's been in). Dan56 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I can't support yet on prose. One beautiful example: "Song of Innocence was one of many concept albums recorded as rock music was developing in various directions during the late 1960s, following in the wake of the Beatles' 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Is that a good sentence? Is it brilliant prose? Also, what does "however" mean here: "It received exposure on both AM and FM radio stations, who played songs such as the title track and "Holy Thursday", which became the album's best-known song. However, the album was not a commercial success, and by October 1969, had only sold 75,000 copies."? There are more, and probably others I haven't seen yet. --John (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, It may have some errors, as John says, but those can be easily polished in a matter of minutes. Beyond that, it's a fairly comprehensive article which has all the relevant. It deserves rank of a featured article. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "was one of many concept albums..." line was a recommended revision by Crisco 1492 from a previous version here, which was slightly rearranged. "However" is used because promotion and sales usually have a direct relationship. Here, it didn't sell well in spite of this. Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? --John (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found these after a quick search for "direct relationship" and "promotion": [2], [3]. Although I assumed this to be a common belief: more promotion = more sales. Is "however" really this argumentative? It seems like the prose wouldn't flow as well without the conjunctive to connect the two ideas. Otherwise, why would the radio bit be followed by the line about the album not being a commercial success? Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However" isn't a conjunction. It's an adverb and it means there's a contradiction. Unless that is explicitly stated in the source, using it in this way falls foul of WP:NOR. WP:EDITORIAL may also be of interest. --John (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, conjunctive adverb. But WP:EDITORIAL says that words such as however "may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists". There's a relationship between marketing and commercial performance. Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? --John (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard ([4]), National Association of Broadcasters (study, p. 5), books ([5]), people in the music industry ([6])... This isn't a fringe theory. Dan56 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting this, are you? For it to appear on this article, we would need a source making the connection in relation to the subject of this article. For you to bring together stuff about Song of Innocence and other stuff and put them together like this is classic synthesis and out-and-out isn't permitted. At this point we aren't talking about Featured Article status any more but about a fundamental tenet of editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's simply about removing "however", or something more? Subtly implying Dan56 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done? Dan56 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is an exemplary article that Wikipedia should laud on this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Flawless article I really don't have further comments. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK

Infobox image - OK. Fair-use for identification of article topic.
PD-art/PD-old-100 image - OK. Source and author provided.
Audio sample - OK. Appropriate length. Fair-use for detailed composition section, song is specifically discussed in section. GermanJoe (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (there had already been a media review) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't see the talk move. Maybe it's better to leave a one-liner summary on the main page in such cases, just for the sake of us shortsighted people :). GermanJoe (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My shorthand was "Support on ... media". Guess I'll make it a bit more explicit next time. No harm in having a double check though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN1: formatting error
Fixed. Was missing a "|". Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN14: should use more specific location
Done. Specified "London". Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include locations for magazines
Per Template:Citation, locations are usually only included if the location is not already in the title of the magazine, such as "New York Times". Added the two that were missing. Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's rarely helpful to include anything more specific than a year of publication for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I should remove the months and days from the bibliography sec.? Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially that's what she's saying. But only for books. Magazines and newspapers still need dates and months, if available — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 18 April 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.