Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cut the Crap/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2019 [1].

Cut the Crap edit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career disastrous album by the second most important of the late 1970s foundational English punk bands. There is a good, but very unfortunate story here. The level of inter-band and band vs management warfare during its recording would make Joffrey Baratheon blush, and alas lead to their eventual demise, with many careers and reputations destroyed along the way. Although the album was at the time uniformly critically maligned (to put it mildly), it contains, according to more recent critics, and myself, at least three seminal tracks - "This Is England", "Dirty Punk", and "We are the Clash".

The article represents a long lost project between myself and the much missed WesleyDodds. There was a very rewarding PR, during which User:BLZ was invaluable, outlining a structure and and digging up many of the sources, and Moisejp made many copy-edits and salient observations before the final expansion. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • The_Clash_This_is_England.ogg: 28 seconds of a 3:50 song would be over 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Ok, big picture - an engaging read and a thorough dissection of the album and its (sad) story, so quite comprehensive. Although engaging, the prose does have some POV language and overuse of quotation that needs tweaking. I'll post some queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and they weren't really communicating - a tad informal. I think can be rewritten.
He sought novel and radical ideas... - could chop this and just start the sentence, " He replaced live musicians with synthetic sounds at times and layered the tracks with audio from TV programs."
In the same way, [the highly accomplished and well practiced] White - bracketed bit sounds POV....

Late here and I need to sleep. There are some other examples I came across on first read but I can't find them now. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Cas, reworded per your suggestions Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Haven't listened to this album for probably ten years, will have a listen and return soon. I wonder if other Clash albums will get the treatment later on? Would be a bit sad if this remains their only featured effort... FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mick Jones of Big Audio Dynamite, in 1987" Seems an odd caption (especially for unfamiliar readers), how about implying more specifically that it is post-Clash? Like "Mick Jones with his new band Big Audio Dynamite" or similar. Also confusing because you don't even mention (except for a footnote) that he formed this band subsequently, which would probably be good to add.
?
Went with "Founding Clash guitarist Mick Jones in 1987". The BAD stuff is already better cover elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes this is a excellent point. I'm researching the whoe Topper/Mick/Bernie firings and will add a para to the background section shortly. Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bits and pieces about grandiosity and drug addiction added. A description of BAD's debut by Strummer as one of the "worst pieces of shit I have ever heard" moved from the notes to the body. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jones admits that by this point" How about "later admitted"? This article will probably exist long after any of us have died.
    haha :( Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fayne shares White's belief" likewise, not sure if present tense is the most appropriate?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "met Howard in a pub" You have not introduced Howard yet in the article body.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also don't explain the circumstances of Headon's dismissal from the band, and don't even mention it outside the intro.
I think this needs elaboration. You also explain why Mick was dismissed, so why not Headon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    done Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Strummer said he had fired Mick Jones" Why full name for Jones when he has already been presented?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link names in the image captions.
?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in part due to the latter's use of a recently acquired synthesizer" How did Strummer react to all the synthesizers that were added to this album then?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over album's production" The album's?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "down a stairs" Is this correct? Or "down some stairs" or similar?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disillusioned and lacking reinforcement or direction from Strummer" Do we know why Strummer was apparently so apathetic at the time?
    Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a song which Rhodes allowed the musicians give significant creative input" To give?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1986, the singer recalled how he likes a few of the tunes" Why present tense for a 1986 statement?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for that sentence, Strummer was arguably more than just "the singer", so why not just use his name?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "former Blockhead Norman Watt-Roy" A bit esoteric and one continuous blue links. Why not just "Norman Watt-Roy, former member of the The Blockheads?
    Good point. Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lamented by may critics" Many.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chris Knowles describes him" Who is this person?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a electronic percussion" An, surely?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he may have filled the need to fill" Felt?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The drums are most criticised" Are the?
    Now The drums have been the most criticised aspect of the album's sound Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Howard described the final drum sound as, rather than like hip hop and wanting to making you want to dance, came across as" As... coming across as?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the text at the beginning of the Music and lyrics sections seems to be critical rather than just descriptive in nature.
    There is a reason for this. Music journalism is famously vacuous, and is quite rare for critics to go in dept into an album's sound. In this case number of them did, so enraged were they by its production. But I take your point, the section could be better couched. Ceoil (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so the wouldn't appear" The what? A lot of missing words in this article.
    Indeed - this instance is done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Against this, the playing is tight and cohesive; each of the new recruits were skilled musicians" This sounds like someone's subjective opinion, so a name should also be attributed here.
    This is a commonly held view, that they were skilled seems like a matter of fact to me, so would prefer not to attribute, as then it would seem like opinion. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had just come off a tour where they had been instructed" By who?
    Now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The linear notes credit" Liner?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vic Godard believed" Present him.
?
  • Thanks have most of these, working through. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "point of view a young punk" Of a?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lyrics have been changed in parts the tempo has been slowed down" Missing comma, it seems.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clash biographer Chris Knowles disliked" By this time, he has already been introduced earlier.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""No your not ... you're a pale imitation" Is that first "your" (instead of "you're") in the source?
?
  • No, but now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writer Bill Wyman (not to be confused with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones)" Hmm, I'm not sure if this is really needed. If it was him, I'm sure it would have been specified that it was the band member.
?
This came up a lot in the PR. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According Jucha" To?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jucha is never introduced.
?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin Popoff is presented twice.
    Done Ceoil (talk)
  • "Similarly, Epic records" Capitalise Records? Also, I think the company needs to be linked at first mention outside the intro.
?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but also at the omission of stand-out live tracks "In the Pouring Rain" and "Ammunition"" Do we know why?
    No, and have searched. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was genwerally dismissive" Stray w.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More recently, critics tend to see the album more favourably" You give a 1986 and 1991 opinion as sources for this, I'm not sure how "recent" that is when the album is from 1985? Maybe say "subsequently" or something?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructured this. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jon Savage praised" Introduce.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Cromelin viewed" Introduce.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Pogues and Oi! are duplinked.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thought that he was the producer "Jose Unidos" was him rather than Rhodes" One of the bolded needs to go.
?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "band's recently reinstated manager Bernie Rhodes" Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, could need some background. Had he been fired?
Yes. There was a battle to the death between them, and once Jones was out, Bernie was back in. Have clarified this. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not just about it not being mentioned in the intro, but about elaboration. It is important for the story to know why there had already been problems with Rhodes and how it was handled. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and its rather salacious - working on this. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with three unknowns" You only state in the intro they were unknowns.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One writer described the sound as brash and seemingly "designed to sound hip and modern—'80s style!"" Again unique to the intro, wonder if it is better moved to the article body, as the intro should be more of a summary.
    well, I don't want to repeat a quote in both the lead an article - but choose this for the lead as I think its a attention grabbing summation of the conclusions in both the the "recording and "reception" sects Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as "one of the most disastrous [albums] ever released by a major artist and a complete failure artistically and commercially"" Likewise.
    Well, this is the whole point of the article, which goes into some detail to back this claim, but I take your point, its not stated as clearly in the body. Hold tough and will add down further. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the often-mocked album title" Only stated in intro.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simonon refused from the outset to take part in any activity involving Rhodes" Only stated in intro, could need elaboration.
Here, the issue is not just that it is unique to the intro, it also begs for elaboration. What was the circumstances? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "planned an expensive video" Only stated in the intro it was expensive.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a recent critical tendency casts the album in a more favourable light" Again, 1986 and 1991 is so close to the actual release of the album that I would hardly say "recent".
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album" Only stated in intro.
  • i'm not so sure I agree with some of these "only in the lead" complaints. Many of the points are subtle, and are explained in the body, in so many words, and often in far more detail. To take an example, I say later about the album title; "Nevertheless Jucha found the title "awful". It seems that you are looking for exact replicas of claims, where as I want the lead to to be a tonal, overview. Have fixed the (many) typos, my somewhat embarrassed thanks ;) Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there are still a few issues left that seem to have been overlooked/not replied to (hard to see if there is not something like "done" or "not done, reason" under each point). I'll mark them with question marks above. I have also elaborated on some of the intro stuff; it is not just about "duplication", but elaboration and missing context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know - had actually posed updates, but we edited conflicted - [2] ps, had a rather manic week at work, hence did not give updates, and also - agree with 99% of your non-typo suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, whoops, just ping me when you're ready, so I don't bust it up again, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, and thank you so much for helping to draw out finer detail. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk can you take another look please; I am about done. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks much better overall, and the background section now has a more comprehensive introduction. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I really appreciate the in dept and helpful trawl. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise edit

I participated in the peer review and believe there was lots of good expansion and good improvements made by Ceoil throughout the PR. As Cas Liber mentioned above, I also believe the article to be quite comprehensive. I didn't have a chance to do a final reading of all the latest changes before the PR was closed, and I'm noticing a few other points I would like to comment on during this FAC:
Lead:

  • It may be confusing to mention both Munich and its suburb Unterföhring as the place it was recorded. Maybe just mention one of them?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of this content in the lead overlaps, and it may be good to trim some of it: "After Strummer lost control of the final mixes, he disowned the album and split up the Clash within weeks of its release ... Strummer was so disappointed with the manager's production choices that he disowned the album and fled for refuge in Spain ... Strummer had moved to Spain, in part due to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album." Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "In all, the Clash Mark II had written around 20 new songs before entering the studio to record the band's fourth album." Should this be their sixth album?
    Final Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "The songs were mostly written by Strummer. During its production Rhodes seized the vacuum left by Jones, and took control of arrangements, track sequencing and the final mix." But the Background section says "Unknown to the band, and especially Strummer, Rhodes had already conceived his own solution to Jones's departure—he would write the music." These bits seem somewhat contradictory, and it may be confusing the extent of Rhodes' role and how much he "wrote" the songs vs. produced/arranged/mixed. Later in "Recording and production" it also talks about Strummer's demos (meaning presumably he wrote them) vs. Rhodes not having experience songwriting (possibly suggesting he was also doing songwriting here—not clear).
    Yes, good point. The way it worked was that in the original Clash Mick wrote the music, then Joe wrote the lyrics. In Mark II, the new musicians wrote the music, increasingly as they went on, under the directorship of Rhodes, then Joe added the lyrics. Thinking how this can be made more clear in the article. Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments soon. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this section it may also be unclear or quasi-contradictory that it says Strummer and Jones were the "two principal songwriters" in the band but later that "Jones had written virtually all of the band's recorded music to this point". Moisejp (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now clarified that "While Strummer remained the principal lyricist, Jones had written virtually all of the band's music to this point" Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production:

  • "after suddenly ending the recordings, Rhodes physically removed the master tapes from the studio[5] so as to have total control over the final mixes and mastering, and added further samplers.[n 2] The musicians suspected that the sessions were cut short so that Rhodes could spend more time mixing the album alone." I'd argue the second sentence here doesn't seem to add much that the first sentence doesn't already say. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1986, Strummer recalled how he liked a few of the tunes but "really I hated it ... I didn't hear Cut the Crap until it was in the shops." " For "really I hated it", I'd suggest replacing "it" with something like "[the album as a whole]" for clarity and flow.
  • I've re-read this bit now and am less sure my idea is an improvement. Feel free to take the idea or leave it. :-) Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This came up in the peer review too, where I know you rewrote this bit some, but is there no more information surrounding Simonon's not appearing on any of the final recordings? You've got quite a bit about Howard and White's being pushed out of the band in this section, but very very little about Simonon. Moisejp (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat contradictory: "He remembered that Strummer had at times stood up to the producer, but "not nearly enough"" and "Strummer was unable to stand up to Rhodes". One sentence suggests he sometimes stood up to Rhodes, and the other that he didn't at all. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a loosing battle, so to me these point of time claims make sense. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now re-phrased as "Strummer ultimately lost control of the album to Rhodes" Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now " I didn't hear [the album as a whole] until it was in the shops" Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've read to the end of Recording and production, and all my concerns are pretty much addressed for these sections. The only remaining point is about giving more information about Simonon not being on any of the final recordings. But I noticed it mentions in the lead that he refused to work with Rhodes, which is not mentioned in Recording and production. At the very least, I think adding mention about that would do a lot to give background about Simonon's lack of involvement.
From now I'll start looking at your changes for the next sections. Moisejp (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics:

  • "Reflecting this, Jucha summed up the album as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were over stretched by lack of experience and talent." This sentence definitely feels unnecessary as these points have already been well established in the paragraph. Also "as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were ... lack of ... talent" is a word-for-word repeat of the first sentence in the paragraph. Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side one:

  • "Never a live favourite, writer Mark Andersen described it as "one of the less successful of the new tunes"." Here "Never a live favourite" feels like a dangling modifier (not sure if it fits the absolute definition of one) but also I'm not sure it adds much or is relevant to to how successful the recorded version is. Possibly consider cutting it? Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems relevant to me that the track was disliked from its outset. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read through the rest of the Side one section, and it mostly looks very good. One suggestion:

  • "Dirty Punk: The song that best represents Strummer and Rhode's attempt to return the band to its punk rock origins." Sounds subjective. I suggest adding something like "Critic Bill Wyman [or just Wyman if he's already been mentioned—I didn't check] has argued that this song best represents..." Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see Wyman is first mentioned a little below. You could easily move the "writer Bill Wyman (not to be confused with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones)" bit to the "Dirty Punk" caption. Moisejp (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to over attribute. My view is that Wyman was not alone in his thinking. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side two:

  • "The track was an early live favourite, when it was often played as a straightforward punk song." I'm just curious how early "early" was, and if this means the song was around as an unrecorded Strummer song in their repertoire from long before. Or maybe "early" just means in the last couple of years before recording CTC? It could be interesting to give more information about this, or clarify the question, if the information is available. Moisejp (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well spotted. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

  • Hmm, I haven't spot-checked hardly any of your refs, but I just happened to look at the Christgau source and noticed "take effect, some persistent, exuberant, melancholic, and even-keeled, particularly 'We Are the Clash' " doesn't seem to be there, although he says somewhat similar things and does mention "We Are the Clash" as a standout. Maybe there's another version of his review around that you saw (I couldn't find one with a quick google search, though)? Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno what happened there - did a lot of chopping and changing to that sect in last few days, looks like the attribution was mangled. I dont really like Christgau anyway, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've finished reading through the article again and believe I'm close to supporting. I think I'd like to come back to it in a couple of days and do one more read-through with fresh eyes, and check all your changes for my last batch of comments. BTW, I see you replied right away to some of my comments today but I wasn't sure if you might have missed seeing the other one a little higher up about my suggestion to add mention in the main text of Simonon's refusal to work with Rhodes (it is mentioned in the lead). I'd like to say I medium-strongly disagree with you about your decision not to attribute Wyman in the "Dirty Punk" caption, but if you feel strongly that it's better as is, I won't push the issue. Cool, so I'll be back in a couple of days. This article is making really good progress. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was the case that he couldnt be bothered messing with Rhodes. Ceoil (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it that I take everything you say into consideration, Moisejp. I'm listening, just swamped here, and trying to catch up. Hold tight. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm ready to support now on prose and comprehensiveness. There may be a few small points throughout the article that I might handle differently if I were writing it, but overall it's well-written, engaging, and informative, and (note that I haven't looked at the sources at all within the scope of my review), I believe it satisfies the criteria for FA. Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from BLZ edit

I was involved fairly early in the PR and, as Ceoil indicated, I provided a lot of sources only accessible in databases behind paywalls. As such I'll recuse myself from doing a source check, although if necessary I'm be happy to assist with verification of those sources during the source review. I've been checking in every now and then on Ceoil's progress and the article has expanded considerably since I last went through it line-by-line. I'm going to start working on a copyedit of it, leaving notes and queries on bigger issues here. —BLZ · talk 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • —'80s style!". – The exclamation mark followed by a period are sort of nonstandard, although there are usually a few different ways to handle this. This pops up again later with "... Now, how to take that idea to the next level!". What's good is that it's consistent, and I like that the period emphasizes the ! as part of the quote itself rather than adopting it as the "actual" end of the sentence, if that makes sense. But I thought I'd run it by you one more time.
  • "Strummer had moved to Spain, due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album." – I think this sentence could be slightly restructured but I'm leaving it for now since the contents may change. I don't believe the family issues are brought up below, leaving this topic in suspense. The threat of litigation is mentioned later, and may be worth mentioning in the lead. Unless I missed it, it might be worth briefly unpacking the nature of Strummer's family issues in the article itself.

As I'm going through, I'm also changing some present-tense verbs to past-tense, especially words like "recalls" —> "recalled", etc. I find this is easier to keep consistent and is technically more accurate (i.e., a person recalled something at a particular place and time in the past like a cited interview; past tense for verbs like "recalled" also works for both the living and the dead alike, whereas "recalls" only works for the living). Let me know if you object. —BLZ · talk 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to take a pause on changing tenses because in some instances it may be trickier and it'd be better to hash out a consistent approach before I make further changes. It looks like you generally prefer present tense for writers' statements—"describes" instead of "described", for example. I'll allow that this makes more sense than a statement given in an interview, which to me feels more bound by place and time, whereas an opinion or statement given in writing exists in something closer to literary present tense (as used when writing plot summaries). I want to run it by you because there are a few instances where you use past tense instead of present; for example, "Gary Jucha dismisses" and "Popoff describes", but "Robert Christgau said" and "Stephen Thomas Erlewine described". —BLZ · talk 23:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with moving to past tense throughout. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. —BLZ · talk 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and production
  • Small point but File:JoeStrummer1980.jpg is probably a better choice for a Strummer photo. Higher resolution, closer in time, same show as the Simonon photo. —BLZ · talk 05:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent, this is much better. done Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • "Writer Gary Jucha dismissed Cut the Crap as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were compromised by a lack of talent." ... then "Reflecting this, Jucha summed up the album as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were over stretched by lack of experience and talent." I think it's probably better at the end of the paragraph rather than at the start; makes more sense to open with "broad consensus" than conclude with a single writer's summation to put a bow on it. —BLZ · talk 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, now it seems like you've cut both sentences; I thought one could stay, I just felt it would be better at the end of the paragraph rather than the beginning. —BLZ · talk 20:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus I'm having a bad week. Now restored. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, Vulture placed it as number 136 in its 'All 139 the Clash Songs, Ranked From Worst to Best' survey". – I brought this up in the peer review, but I still find this to be an odd choice of fact to single out from the Vulture ranking. It's not wrong exactly, but why highlight the 4th-worst song when the 1st-worst is also on the same album—and indeed, the bottom seven are all from this album? Maybe a footnote is the way to go here. You can still note that "Dictator" ranks terribly low, but a note can clarify that the author ranked most of Cut the Crap at the bottom.
  • "a piece of unconscious self-parody" that is quite probably the worst line ever to appear on a Clash record" – the middle quotation mark makes it unclear where the quoted portion begins and ends. While copyediting I just took out the extra quote mark, presuming that the entire portion is one full quote, but revisit this to make sure that's accurate.
    My bad. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album closes with 'Life Is Wild', which had not been played live before." – is it the only track on the album that had never been performed live? Context overwhelmingly suggests yes, but if that's true it's worth drawing out (or otherwise indicating which other tracks had gone unperformed, if any).
Your right, and have clarified. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Title and sleeve art
  • A (perhaps harebrained) suggestion: remarkably there are not just one, not just two, but three free-license photo portraits of Mel Gibson in 1985 on Commons. Truly an embarrassment of riches; I feel the synchronicity is too tempting to ignore. I think it would be funny (yet also, not inappropriate) to include that first image of '85 Gibson with a caption like Mel Gibson in 1985. The title Cut the Crap was borrowed from a line delivered by Gibson in Mad Max 2. On the other hand, Gibson is such a toxic human being that I would understand not wanting to associate the Clash with him any more than is strictly necessary (besides, the line comes from the fictional Max Rockatansky and not Gibson as a real person). —BLZ · talk 05:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have wondered about this, and yes toxic and a serious arsehole, for the ages. And yet - have just watched Dragged across Concrete, as dark, noir, a film as there has been in the last 30 years, and was reminded...almost...we do have S. Craig Zahler. How does a man go from so cool to such a prick in just a single human life time. Dunno. Ceoil (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • Somewhat unusual: the actual release/release date is nowhere mentioned in the main prose. Maybe the best thing would be to retitle this section "Release and reception" and include it there? Since the first paragraph already provides much of the same contextual content that usually goes in a "release" section.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Defendorf of the Orlando Sentinel" – this review is in the retrospective section, yet it was published in 1985 only days later than some of the other contemporary reviews. Which actually bolsters your overarching thesis, since it seems Defendorf was overwhelmingly negative.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christgau is missing! Particularly noteworthy as he was always a staunch promoter of the Clash in the US and a rare dissenter as to this album's quality.
  • The reciption sect is full now asiac. Its not about headcount, and I think gets its point across. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth quoting and/or summarizing Jon Savage's take in more depth, since he has combines authoritative weight and contrarian-revisionist/positive take on the album.
I am inclined to take Savage's opening with some weight, however he doest go too deep in England's Dreaming. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fricke's Jan. 86 review in Rolling Stone
  • Totally optional, but you could use the book copy of All Music Guide to Rock (2002, 3rd edition) via Google Books to pin a date on the esteemed S. T. Erlewine's review of Cut the Crap. (The more general pan-genre [All Music Guide] (2001, 4th edition) only includes a star rating for Cut the Crap, no review.) It might just be me, and I kinda get why they do it, but it nonetheless drives me bananas that AllMusic's site doesn't date its reviews. —BLZ · talk 05:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. the article is already long, not sure I want to add more. There are a number of points you have raised that I will address. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has 27kb of readable prose, and can be significantly large (up to 50kb) before anyone will fuss too much BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think 100 kb is the current split limit (due to better Internet), and it is hardly ever enforced. More context can't hurt, in my opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading through this section a few more times, I've slightly reconsidered my comments. I still think you should add a little more on the contempo critical consensus, but I've given some thought as to what I'm asking for beyond a bare request for "more critics pls". Your summary style is already quite good as-is and doesn't necessarily need to be bogged down with an exhaustive accounting/unpacking of all major critics' opinions (which tends to be my approach). The critical quotations you've already included deftly, purposefully weave together some major points of critical consensus.
Still, specific in-text mentions of the major rock publications/critics who ran bad reviews would help to substantiate your summaries and give a more comprehensive picture. I don't think there would have to be too much more text, and there wouldn't have to be any further quoting from reviews. I'm thinking of something along these lines (green text is what's there now, regular text would be my additions/modifications):
... generally viewed the album in an unfavourable light. Melody Maker and NME both ran sharply negative reviews, the latter of which was titled "No Way, Jose" in sarcastic reference to the "Jose Unidos" production credit.[cite: Anderson, Heibutzki (2018), chapter 9] David Fricke panned the album in Rolling Stone, while longtime Clash proponent Robert Christgau offered restrained praise in a Village Voice blurb that alluded to the negative word-of-mouth.[cite: the '86 Fricke review, Christgau, maybe Anderson, Heibutzki (2018), chapter 9 again for "longtime Clash proponent"] Reflecting the critical consensus at the time, ... [insert paragraph break here] The absence of Jones and Headon ... Rolling Stone's Fricke remained dismissive in 2016 because, he believed, ...
Let me know what you think. —BLZ · talk 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • Overall, really good. The section could use an image. I think Joe-Strummer.jpg would be a good candidate. The description says he's backing the Pogues in Japan (in 1992, I think—I did a little research to pin a date on it), so that syncs up with the Straight to Hell tidbit. Plus it's black and white, so it's somewhat of an aesthetic match with the earlier photo portraits.
    Good call. Now in place. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was omitted from some Clash box sets re-issues,[footnote] including 2013's Sound System." The footnote goes to the RS "22 Terrible Songs by Great Artists" article, which doesn't talk about box sets or reissues or anything along these lines.
  • I think it would be better to enumerate the box sets/reissues that excluded Cut the Crap. There are certainly sources that mention these omissions with specificity.
Track listing
  • Not sure about subsection headers for ===Side one=== and ===Side two===. Bold text in the same style as the personnel section would probably suffice.

Last comment, which I give in any FA review: I'm strongly in favor of archiving all links in the references. There aren't that many online sources here, but I'd be remiss not to suggest it. Given the tedium involved in such labor, and give that I'm in the habit of archiving as I go, I'll gladly go through the trouble and archive them for you. Let me know if you have any strong objections to doing so. —BLZ · talk 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this yes, and any help appreciated. Thanks man. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived all the sources and did one more round of copyedits. Some final thoughts:

  • To tie a loose end from my earlier comments, I'm cool with skipping a quote from Savage. The sentence that's already there implies the authoratitiveness/weight of his approval.
  • I added a PopMatters article as a source for which comps omitted the album. Incidentally, that article backs up your overall characterization of the album's reception virtually point-for-point, so it could be peppered almost anywhere throughout if you happen to feel inclined to reinforce anything. Not necessary tho.
  • That article also draws a direct parallel between Cut the Crap and Squeeze. Earlier I had found a handful of lists with titles like "Worst Albums Released by Great Artists" (see e.g. "40 Terrible Albums by Great Artists" from my local SF Chronicle). I ultimately decided against recommending any of those for the article. Still, part of me wondered whether it would be good to connect the dots to any of the other so-called "trainwreck" albums by otherwise legendary artists—if only for the benefit of rock novices who don't know the proverbial bargain-bin anti-canon (stuffed with the likes of Self Portrait and Music from "The Elder").
But if there's just one of these albums that might be worth referencing, it's gotta be Squeeze. The album is so similar in so many ways: final album before disbandment ✓, often regarded as a covert solo album ✓, disowned and disappeared from retrospectives ✓. It's not mandatory by any means, more historiography than history, but I think it'd be cool and figured I'd at least see what you think. (P.S.: I may finally understand how you feel about Cut the Crap after seeing the SF Chronicle "Terrible Albums" list Monster, my first R.E.M. album and a sentimental favorite to this day. It's not that bad!! It's actually really good!!)
  • Squeeze seems the closest and most apt comparison to me, so in it goes. Monster is in my top 6 REM albums, and dont get me started how journalists turned on them then through to "up", all good albums, and then fawned over later shite that made up their later career as, over and over, for 10 years, "a turning point, this time we mean it". Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe worth noting that the cover art design is uncredited and the designer unknown. I hadn't given this much thought until stumbling upon the entry for a 58.4 x 58.4 cm lithograph of the Cut the Crap cover in MoMA's collection. Up to you; you're the paintings guy, so you know better on this point than I.
    Nice find indeed. You didn't seriously think I wasn't going to mention that it's in the MoMA. Its a bIt puzzling; I always guessed Rhodes, who was a designer to begin with...but is not one to go uncredited. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the above and check out my last edits. I'm ready to support but figured I'd let you review my last changes/comments before doing so. (P.P.S., I've made a note to check out Dragged Across Concrete. I saw Brawl in Cell Block 99 a while back and enjoyed it. Over the top, but very fun; exactly the kind of schlocky flick I can get into.) —BLZ · talk 21:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dragged Across Concrete" is great, a slow burner with an amazing shoot out at the end. Also, by the way, your edits are on point and thank you so much! Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – at this stage I have no further comments, it's about as good as an album article can possibly be. I'm confident that no stone has been left unturned: this is an exceptionally fair and thorough accounting of what went wrong with a very important, albeit "non-canonical", record. Once again, Ceoil's writing does justice to the great traditions of British punk on the one hand and over-produced rock&roll disappointments on the other. —BLZ · talk 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian edit

Recusing from coord duties, I commented early in PR but haven't added anything since so am looking at this from scratch. FWIW I might add that I'm no particular fan of the Clash and have never heard this album...

  • In the lead I wonder if we could rejig to remove some repetition:
    • "Strummer disowned the album ... Strummer had moved to Spain, due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album"
    • "The tension with Rhodes left the newly recruited band members disillusioned ... by the album's release the band members were so disillusioned...".
  • Under Background, "The two principal songwriters no longer trusted each other, due to the latter's frequent absence from rehearsals and use of synthesizers" -- ah, something missing here, like who the two principal songwriters are? I mean I know, and they have been mentioned, but not labelled as such.
    • Now specified. Thanks for edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 3:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Still under Background, consider dropping a couple of (IMO) trite quotes: "a fucking cunt" (no issue with language but we know their animosity by now and I daresay Jones had his own ideas about Strummer too); and "Name me one cool guy called Greg" ("Simonon complained that he would prefer to quit than play in a band with someone named Greg" says enough).
    Strongly disagree. I consider these key, revealing details and in both cases its best to capture the voice of the band member. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I see you've compromised on the latter quote, tks for that. I won't press the matter re. the first, I accept that it'd be a little difficult to render this depth of feeling in WP's voice...! Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking again, your right about both. Gone. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it re. prose from me -- copyedited as I went but nothing major. One spotcheck (I may do more if I have time):

  • Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. In 2016 Rolling Stone's David Fricke was dismissive because, he believed, "too much of Cut the Crap is Strummer's angst running on automatic, superficially ferocious but ultimately stiff and unconvincing" -- couldn't see this quote in the cited source. One reason I checked is I wanted to see if the general statement you make before the quote is directly supported by the source, as editorialising based on a single source is a trap we can easily fall into -- will reserve judgement on that till you sort out the supporting source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source should have been David Fricke, rolling stone. I did a lot of cutting and chopping before the nom, trying to get the flow right; looks like I need to do a full audit. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe -- this is the same RS review at FN66, apparently contemporary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming, I can see now that the Fricke source matches the "stiff and unconvincing" quo now, so that's fine, but we now have Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. Music journalist Richard Cromelin found the album's uptempo songs less effective than those on earlier Clash records, but concluded that Strummer's singing is compelling and "This Is England" and "North and South" make the record "more than passable" -- this paragraph this comes from seems to be about retrospective views like the AllMusic one that follows this, but Cromelin's review is contemporary, so it doesn't really belong; it certainly doesn't appear to support the bit about the album's 'enduring reputation'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, Ceoil, I made my last edit to the article 15 minutes before the promotion and opened the FAC from the saved article page so I hadn't seen the promotion -- this last issue wouldn't be enough for me to have opposed but I'd like to see it dealt with, ideally before FACbot runs at midnight GMT. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Sorry about that! What a timely edit conflict... --Laser brain (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really should've returned earlier -- Cass' support presumably promoted your promotion the same time it prompted me to take another look... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto edit

No crap to cut from this. Thoroughly enjoyable. CassiantoTalk 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cut_the_Crap/archive1&oldid=1138458311"