Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anodyne (album)

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 18:19, 26 January 2008.

---

Anodyne (album)

previous FAC

Check external links

After testing the waters over Thanksgiving Break, I believe that I have raised Anodyne to featured status. The article is short, but is comprehensive. I've tried to provide a fair criticism section to the best of my ability, but the fact is that very few outlets gave this a bad review (and the good reviews failed to point out perceived flaws). I'll rapidly address comments. Teemu08 (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A few comments for now:

• Consistency with dashes: in the lead, you use spaced endashes as parentheticals, but unspaced emdashes in the main body. One or the other, I think.
• WP:SEASON: "recorded in Spring 1993" – first, "Spring" should be "spring", per the MOS. Second, "spring" shouldn't really be used at all. OK, it's clear from the article that the spring referred to is spring in Texas, but why not be more explicit?
• I'd suggest splitting the references into notes & references, and stick that Greg Kot book in the references... just to separate the notes from the referenced sources. Similarly, stick Nathan Bracket's book's details in references, and use Harvard style ref in the notes, as you did with Kot.
• WP:MOSQUOTE: not entirely convinced by the language in this MOS section, but it seems to suggest {{cquote}} and derivatives aren't good. <blockquote> without the quotation marks?
• Suggest reviewing punctuation around quotations in the main text, to ensure they meet with logical quotation guidelines and WP:PUNC.
• Ref#6 – should be "pp. 72–73", rather than "72–3"? Ref#3 also.
• Stylistic: with multiple references, try and keep the refs in numeric order in the text. So, instead of [16][1], go for [1][16]. No big deal, just a suggestion.

I'm sure others will come along with more, but those are a few things to be going on with. Best of luck. Carre (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, they've been implemented in the article. Teemu08 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Struck out the comments. I left the logical quotation one, not because I don't think you've done it, but simply because I'm not 100% sure myself of the interpretation of that MOS, so it's a reminder only. Carre (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Although I opposed the previous FAC, the article has made some impressive progress in comprehension. I wasn't concerned with the length, really (an FA can be any size in my eyes). Plenty more reviews have been added, thus negating the neutrality issues the article had during the prior candidacy. Teemu's done a nice job writing this one, as well. NSR77 ^T_C 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I picked up quite a couple of typos, so another round of proofreading might be in order. I also don't quite get the significance of the Tweedy quote to the album, especially since it seems to stem from a live gig, not the recording session. It's also slightly POV, so I would vouch for removal. (Quote moved to Uncle Tupelo bio article.) The review session is somewhat, uh, anodyne, with a plethora of non-descript indirect quotes given preference over direct quotes which put the album in context. Other than that, it reads like an article on an album should. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Btw, I disagree with the objection raised in the last FAC. While we generally don't link to YouTube since much of their material has questionable copyright status, there is no reason not to include an external link if the material has been posted legally by the label (see WP:EL). This is moot in this case of course since the video has since been removed by Warner Bros. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comments left on the talk page. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments addressed. Teemu08 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm just worried of the article's comprehensiveness. Though the process of the production is convincing, there are some overlooked informations to be added. I'm looking for the content of the album and its style. Also, did the album appear on charts? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Quality of writing, length, references, etc. are very good. I see no significant problems with the article. Good job! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.