Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Californication (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 01:10, 7 July 2007.

---

Californication (album)

This article has been extensively worked on by WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, including myself, has passed GA and had pretty productive peer review. Kamryn Matika 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments and Support - Just want to add in that this is a Self-nom. Furthermore, I give my support, but I am an extremely significant editor to the article. NSR77 ^T_C 00:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Object Audio files do not have non-free content rationales, the rationale for the last image does not explain its significance within the article, and the image from the commons is certain to be deleted so it should be removed. Jay32183 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments I added Fair Use rationales to "Around the World" and "Otherside" respectively, removed the soon-to-be deleted image, and changed the description of the remaining image to coincide with the article's text. I believe that's all you've addressed. NSR77 ^T_C 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll add to the audio files: The copyright owners of the songs need to be stated, i.e the record label, or whomever. Also, the descriptions need to be cited within the sample box, and I believe the same text needs to be included in the section where the samples are provided. Cricket02 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Several comments:

• see 1999 in music. I'd remove this link; I don't think it's of high-value.  Done
• "High School" -> "high school" surely?  Done
• Release and critical recognition doesn't hold together well as a section in my opinion. It talks about what single would be picked for the album to the excessive distortion of Californication.  Done
• You may want to include some of the critics' reaction to the album; what did NME, Rolling Stone, Q et al say? (see Doolittle (album) for an example).  Done
• Ref 21 (about "Summer Time") is a link to trivia on TV.com. Are you sure there's not a more reliable reference?

• It's a good article otherwise. If you disagree with any of my comments, let me know! CloudNine 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's all! If anything else still persists, just point it out. NSR77 ^T_C 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can come up with that can replace reference 21. If you wish, I'll remove it. NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support well-written and referenced article about a nice album. igordebraga ≠ 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks - and the name of these are?  Done
  • song in 2000 - 2000 should not be wikilinked unless it provides context (which it doesn't here)  Done
  • Anthony Kiedis recalled - only refer to their second name after the first mention  Done
  • Some web references are missing date retrieved while others lack a publisher or date (ref 35 has a date)  Done

looks good otherwise, however Rick Rubin is only mentioned as producer in the credits section, a producer is important to list under some sort of recording/production section. M3tal H3ad 07:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtually no words were spoken about Rubin during Californication, even in Kiedis' Scar Tissue (other than a note that he actually was returning). If I come up with anything on it, I'll be sure to include it. Otherwise, I think all the other things you have addressed, so far, has been dealt with. If anything else still strikes you as incorrect, please, point it out! NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, however the image of the band has the caption "John Frusciante's return to the Red Hot Chili Peppers marks a change from their previous album." Could you tell the reader who John is in the picture like John Frusciante's (third from left) return to the. Some references are still missing retrieval dates 9, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 42. References 35 still has no date. The article gets quite listly towards the bottom, might want to consider converting the album's chart position into a paragraph under 'release', as it is not mentioned it hit #3 on the Billboard chart aside from the lead and the table. Also did it debut at number 3? that would be mentioned in the paragraph. M3tal H3ad 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed all the references and incorporated the charting into the prose. Should be all done, but if there's anything more, just pick it out. Thanks again, NSR77 ^T_C 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 12 needs to state author and format for consistency with the rest of the references.
• Over the years Californication has remained popular; in 2003, the album was ranked number 399 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time and, in 2006, the Chili Peppers recorded a five-set playlist for AOL Sessions that included "Californication" and "Scar Tissue".[26][19][27]. A bit of a run-on sentence, maybe split?
• Planning to get to the venue one hour before they were set to perform, the band was informed of the hectic situation only minutes before arriving.[36] The situation escalated, however, when the Chili Peppers performed a tribute to Jimi Hendrix's song "Fire", from several casual bonfires to rapes and beatings.[38] Maybe I'm blind, but I was completely lost in this section. What situation? The casual bonfires etc occured because of the song "Fire"? Maybe further clarification or expansion is needed here.
• Please see WP:MOS regarding quotation marks before or after full stop depending on full sentence or sentence fragmnets.
• I might be wrong here but isn't LastFM more of a spammy type of link? Not sure where its informational.

Cricket02 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected reference 12, cleaned up the run-on sentence and clarified the Woodstock paragraph. If possible, could you point out a<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ny specific infringements to WP:MOS? Also, I removed the external link to Last.fm. If anything else still persists please point it out. Thanks! NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I found it easier to fix the minor quote mark fixes than to list them here so that is done. Good job on the clarification. Only thing for me is to list copyright owner of the songs sampled in the file info (Example here) and citing of descriptions within the sample box(comment above). Cricket02 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! NSR77 ^T_C 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: features a repeating guitar riff that was deliberately recorded backwards (hence the title "Emit Remmus", "Summer Time" backwards).[21] Do we really need the word 'deliberately' in there? Its not as if he recorded it backwards by accident. Also, someone mentioned earlier that the ref for this sentence isn't very good. Does that matter so much? 'Emit Remmus' is clearly 'Summer Time' backwards - it's not like an external source is needed to confirm this. Milstrom 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you were mean, and removed "deliberately" from the sentence. NSR77 ^T_C 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose with comments:
  • List who produced the album and where it was recorded in the lead section. Done
  • The lead in general should be more expansive. It's worth mentioning that the album was a commercial revitalization of the band after their popularity dropped off in the late 90s. Conversely, the fact about the title doesn't seem like it belongs in the lead. Done
  • Remove "Alternative rock was tangible in tracks like "Easily" and "Emit Remmus"". The source doesn't say that, and it's a silly thing to comment on since technically everything on the album is alternative rock. Done
  • More detail about the recording process would help. Explain where the album was recorded in the body of the article. Particularly important: Rubin is only mentioned in the Credits section and infobox, but not at all in the prose. Done
  • The fair use image of the band is unnecessary. Remove it.
  • Is is necessary to note that the album was released on the CD format? Done
  • The sentence "Around the world, the album peaked at #5 on the UK Top 40[23], #1 on the Finnish, Austrian, Swedish and New Zealand charts, and #2 on the French Top 40" needs to be restructured. Done
  • Move the paragraph that begins "Over the years, Californication has maintained its popularity." to the Critical Recognition section. Done
  • Can you find more critical commentary? This is the section that suffers the most right now. It needs to be more substantial. Make sure to look for reviews on site like Time.com, EW.com, NME.com, and other major media sources that might have a review. Done

Overall the article's ok, but not outstanding. It's mainly the article's lack of comprehensiveness in certain areas that I'm voting a weak oppose. However, the points I've illustrated, when fixed, will improve the article substantially and I'll be glad to strike out my oppose when those points are addressed. Look at featured album pages like Surfer Rosa, Reign in Blood, Kid A as guidelines. The basics of an FA-worthy article are present in this article; it just needs to be built upon. WesleyDodds 06:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-tooled the lead to be more appropriate to the article and coincide with the prose, and have added information about Rubin in the prose as well as the lead. The minor cleanups and adjustments you have identified have been addressed. Personally, I believe the image should be kept, as it does show the reader what the Chili Peppers looks like as of 1999, since only two years prior, Navarro was in the band. I've added critical commentary from NME and EW. Time had a pathetic review that isn't worth including, as it gave no indication of being for or against the album. Please, if there is anything else, just contact me. NSR77 ^T_C 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with the picture if it were free, but it's not. The screenslot further down in the article serves the same purpose somewhat but has a stronger rationale, being from the accompanying tour video. Even then there are a number of free images available featuring Frusciante with the band (not fron the Californication period, granted, but that's not that big of a modifier). It also just clogs up the Music section, which also has two soundclips that are more relevant and necessary to the accompanying text. I feel strongly that the image is unnecessary and replaceable, and should go. WesleyDodds 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the picture could be replaced with a fair use one, although it doesn't need to be. The image has, therefore, been removed. NSR77 ^T_C 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment Reading the article again, I really think the prose needs to be spruced up. The article could stand to have some sentences reorganized, and lines like "it became known that he had developed a heroin addiction that left him in poverty and near death" and "And while many critics found the band's new sound refreshing, NME simply wanted the funk to return" are just some examples of text that needs to be rewritten for grammar and tone. I'd advise asking someone who's a very capable writer to go through the article and try to improve on the prose. WesleyDodds 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I second this; there are several awkward phrases and redundancies. I edited "Californication was a commercial revitalization in comparison to their previous album, One Hot Minute, which had sold a considerabley fewer amount." as the last part is redundant; a "commercial revitalization" already implies Californication sold more than One Hot Minute. I'll copyedit soon. CloudNine 11:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support per igordebraga. Cliff smith 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support a very good article for a very good album. Milstrom 21:28, 6 July 2007 (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.