Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Disintegration

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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 2 September 2008 [1].

Disintegration

Nominator(s): NSR77 ^T_C, WesleyDodds (talk)

Disintegration is a 1989 album by The Cure. After some delayed promises in May and June to work on the article that was pushed back to July, it is finally complete. It was promoted to Good Article status prior to the addition of the final section. Several editors have given it a copyedit. All questions, comments, (and) or concerns will be dealt with in a prompt and timely fashion. NSR77 ^T_C 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: excellently written, an engaging narrative as well as strong prose, well rounded with both good and bad reviews, nothing trivial or overly "fannish", properly cited. Well done. --Davémon (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments on images~~ ~~Oppose until fair use rationale is strengthened~~

~~Image:CureDisintegration.jpg - Who owns the copyright to this image? That information needs to be included in the fair use rationale.~~
~~Image:TheCure-Disintegration-30s.ogg - It would be a good idea to explain specifically why this excerpt is important to the article in the fair use rationale. It would make it much stronger.~~

This is not really sufficient yet in my opinion. Why this particular song? Why this particular excerpt? What is it about this song that makes its inclusion necessary to understanding this album? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song is discussed at length and the section used displays the overall theme of the record, as explained in the sound-box excerpt. NSR77 ^T_C 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale has to explain these details, however. "The sample is of a song that is discussed at length, and will help the reader to comprehend such" is not sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently unavailable to make these corrects (extremely busy in real life); I asked WesleyDodds to finish the outstanding comments, but he has not done so yet. NSR77 ^T_C 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the rationale a bit. Does that work better? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is better, but it would be even stronger if you could say specifically what style the clip was illustrating. I'll strike the objection. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Image:RobertSmith89.JPG - The fair use tag says this image is from a music video, but the description says it is from a concert - something needs to be fixed. Is Fiction Records the copyright holder? If so, could that be made more explicit?

What is the source for this image? Also, copyright holder has not been made explicit. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed. NSR77 ^T_C 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been rectified. NSR77 ^T_C 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I've watched this article grow as part of WP:ALM collaboration. I took a look at the prose two days ago and it was great. No concerns. —Giggy 03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm co-nominating this with NSR77, so there goes my vote. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The text is a little terse for my taste, and I sprinkled in a few random words, but otherwise nothing significant. jimfbleak (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~Image:RobertSmith89.JPG doesnt seem to significantly increase the readers' understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and therefore its usage may breach FAC #3~~ Fasach Nua (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed image. NSR77 ^T_C 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose spot-checks reveal problems:

"Disintegration was Robert Smith's thematic return to a dark and gloomy aesthetic that The Cure had in the early 1980s. Smith deliberately sought to record an album that was depressing, as it was a reflection of the despondency he felt at the time.[9] As such, the record company's first listen to Disintegration was that of shock." "Had" is a bit of a clunk. "that characterized The Cure in ..."? Same for "listen to"; why not "impression of"?
... according to journalist Jeff Apter by "unravelling ever so slowly ... Comma would be good.
A purist in logical punctuation would still put the period after the closing quotation marks, but you can probably get away with it as is: ... sees Thompson and Smith "treating their work to heavy duty flanging, delay, backwards-run tapes and more to set the slow, moody crawl of the track." But more importantly, please check whether you're permitted to link within quotations. Last time I looked, you were not. This is important to WP's ideal of being true to original source material.
"While Disintegration is mainly made up of sombre tracks, "Lovesong", "Pictures Of You" and "Lullaby" were equally popular for their accessibility.[27] Smith wanted to create a balance on the album by including songs that would act as an equilibrium with those that were unpleasant." "composed of" would be nicer. "Make up" also means to contrive, which leaks out a little here. Does "equally" mean that the three songs cited were equally popular, or that taken as a group, they were as popular as the rest of the album was sombre? Either way, I don't think you can justify with precision that equality was true. This is a loose, oral-mode expression (even when not ambiguous grammatically) that should probably be avoided on WP. "A balance" and "an equilibrium"—you're not repeating the concept, are you?

Now, I find much of this article well written. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be scrutinised carefully by a good copy-editor (like Deckiller); we want to be proud of this on the Internet. Tony (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a very well written and organized article, and it's worthy of the best album ever.

My only issue is the possible search priority/disambiguation. I feel like the physical act of disintegration, being the actual definition and the origin of the album title, should be the default link. Oddly, there is no entry for the physical process, but it seems a bit unusual (since other such physical processes, such as combustion, have full WP articles). The current state is, in my opinion, similar to having the default result for "Milky Way" retrieving a page about a candy bar.--Elred (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't necessary for dictionary definitions. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a request for Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty WP:DASHes in the page ranges on the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a reason this article's title does not use parentheses? I strongly believe that the disambig page should be moved to this title while, this FAC article be moved to something with parenthesis. Nergaal (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.