Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Svenonius/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 not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

---

Ian Svenonius

check links —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

After a fairly straight-forward GA nomination, I am confident in the overall quality of this article and would like to give FA a shot. Ian Svenonius is a somewhat unknown/obscure musician, and this article represents the sum total of all the information I've been able to find. To my knowledge it is easily the best resource available anywhere on the subject. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - As per my (rather extensive, I like to think) GA review. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: there are too short sections (such "background"); it's GA. --Brískelly 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. "Too short" isn't really an actionable criticism, nor does length have anything to do with the FA criteria. To quote from the criteria directly, an article must be " "Comprehensive" [meaning] that the article does not neglect major facts and details." In my opinion the article covers all the bases without going into unnecessary details that don't relate to the person. The article could, for instance go into more details about his individual bands/projects, but most of that content is better suited for the bands' pages, not this one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This Oppose is not actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm changing my vote to neutral. I'm not familiar enough with some of the remaining sources to judge how reliable they are. I think the improvements that have been made to the article make it flow better, and it reads clearly. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC) *Oppose. I am concerned with the quality of the sources listed, and I think the article does not flow very well; too many short paragraphs and short sections break up the flow.

• • Too many of the sentences begin with "Svenonious". Can some of them be rewritten to vary the word choice and improve the flow?
  • After the first time you refer to him, he should only be referred to as his surname, not his full name or first name.
  • I don't think "posthumous" is the right way to describe the compilation of singles; that is generally understood to mean that a person is dead.
  • There are a lot of very short paragraphs. Can some of these be combined? Better! Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Discography section needs to be expanded. For the section which include only a Main article link, try to summarize the other article in prose (possibly by taking some of the lead sections).
  • Many of your sources don't appear to be reliable sources. For example Brightest Young Things appears to be a fansite with random postings, as do some of the others, while the record sites are not third-party sources. Has he been covered in other secondary sources?

Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Karanacs. Many of your comments echo similar concerns I have with the article, so any suggestions you might have for them would be helpful.

• • Fixed some cases of the sentences starting with Svenonius. Now there's only 4 sentences that still start with his name, and those are sentences that would've flowed awkwardly if I had changed them too much.
  • Fixed all the cases of "Ian Svenonius" after the first time.
  • I combined some paragraphs here and there. There's still a couple small ones, but they don't really flow into any of the surrounding paragraphs. If you think its still a problem I could do some more editing here and there.
  • For some reason posthumous is a word that gets mentioned in every FAC/FLC/GAC, anything! Yes, it is the correct word choice, since the album was released after the "death" of the group. See Category:Posthumous albums for plenty of similar examples.
  • The Discography section did seem a little strange. I expanded it a bit to include major releases, and I think it looks much better.
  • As for the sources: I cited the Brightest Young Things source not so much as a source in and of itself, but as a transcript of the original Sassy article which isn't available online anywhere else. If you like I can take it down, but I think it's particularly helpful to be able to read a transcript of the article. As for the other sources, and whether or not they are reliable, I think the sources strike a nice balance. Sure some sources are from the labels, but there are also many from All Music Guide, eNotes, Washington Post, Vice, Pitchfork media, etc. In all, there are about 15 first-party sources, and 15 third-party sources, which seems like a pretty even balance to me. That said, I could rely on the third-party sources a bit more, so I'll see what I can do.Drewcifer (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You did a lot of work quickly, thanks! It's already looking better. Let me know if you are able to use more third-party sources. For the reprints of articles, I would reformat the source to mention that it is XXX article from YYY magazine, reprinted at .... Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of work with the sources, and although it's a subtle difference I think it's an improvement. (diff) The majority of what I did was just find info cited to 1st party sources, and wherever possible swapped it with a 3rd party source. There's still some instances of 1st party sources (mostly quotations I think), but the balance is a little bit more towards 3rd party sources now. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments: Support all of my comments have been addressed. Good work! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "These groups have all been based in Washington, D.C." could be efficiently merged with the previous sentence.

 Done

• • I don't think that the term "militant vegan" is backed up by the reference.

 Done

• • The first time in the article's main body that instruments are mentioned they should be linked.

 Done

• • Sassy Magazine should always be italicized.

 Done

• • The Sassy paragraph really ought to be expanded. It says that Svenonius went "into some depth about the band's sound and political motivations." Care to elaborate on what those sounds and motivations actually were?

 Done Expanded the section a bit.

• • "The Make-Up" section seems a bit short, especially considering how much detail is present in that article. Some more information on the group's politics, sound and live performance style could help, particularly any aspects centered more around Svenonius.

 Done Expanded a bit with an extra paragraph.

• • "Svenonius, Mae, and Minoff are now part of Weird War." redundant sentence, explained later.

 Done

• • As David Candy is actually one of Svenonius's solo projects, a bit more detail could be added.

I wish there was more to say, but as you can see from the David Candy article itself, there really isn't alot of information. Besides, most of the David Candy article is borderline OR - the David Candy material presented on the Svenonius page is pretty much the only sourceable stuff there is.

• • A specific section encompassing Svenonius's political views and musical style would be nice, but it isn't really necessary so long as that information is presented elsewhere.

Well, I'm not really sure a musical style section would be relevant, since all of his bands/projects sound vastly different. But a political views section might be worthwhile. I'll see what I can do.

I added a little bit along those lines. I'm a little hesistant to go into too much detail, since these things are so closely tied to the bands, and I could just see the section turning into a rehashing of what the band's were about, which is already explained above.

Otherwise the article looks good, and very deserving of featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check the dead links report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what the check links thing is used for. Is this a new feature I'm not aware of? Drewcifer (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the link at the top of this page;[1] it indicates a 404, not found error on a Vice TV [typepad.com] source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—This is not nearly well enough written. I've picked out random issues at the top to illustrate why a complete and thorough copy-edit is essential.

Thanks for the suggestions! These are the kinds of minor things it's difficult to notice after I've read the same words a million times over, so I appreciate you pointing them out.

• MOS breach: see logical punctuation under Quotations. Audit throughout, looking for quotes that start within a Wikipedia sentence.

 Done This is one part of the MoS I really disagree with, but I know better than to argue with the MoS.

• "countless singles"—too many to count? Great pity to avoid giving at least some indication (more than 30?).

 Done Replaced it with a much more useful tally of singles, EPs, and splits.

• "Currently"—one of those chronological terms that will become a distortion soon.

 Done

• Remove both "alsos" from the "Background" section. The last sentence in that section combines apples and oranges.

 Done Kind of. Removed the first also and split up the last sentence. The last also seems necessary though, since it wouldn't flow as well without it. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the word, right?

• "musical formation"—vague. Then "formation" "formed" repetition.

 Done Kind of. Fixed "musical formation". I'm not sure what you mean by formed repetition. You mean how each section says soemthing like "The _ formed in 1999"? I don't see what's wrong with that, unless you have suggestions.

• "And WAS known as".

I'm not sure what sentence you are referring to. Is it "and known simply as "Ulysses"."? There's nothing wrong with either way or saying it, really.

Nearly every sentence requires surgery. For example: "Nation of Ulysses was known for their extremely physical performances, during some of which Svenonius recalls breaking his arm, his leg, and breaking his head open on numerous occasions." Tension between "some" and "numerous". "Breaking" twice, but missing from the second item. Needs recasting. Tony (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I believe I originally worded it the way it was because any other way didn't really work. I redid the sentence a little bit, but it's a difficult sentence to make any less awkward.

• "going into some depth about"—what exactly does "some" add?

 Done Reworded.

Comment - Is it neccesary to have the record label names in the discography section? The first sentence of the lead is really awkward - what about his nationality etc? Why does it start "IS has been..."? (more later) indopug (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I don't think there's much of a consensus as far as the label names goes: some FAs have them some don't. I'd argue that it is helpful in this case since his output spans many years, projects, and labels. I worked on the first sentence a bit, hopefully it reads a little better. If there's more stuff, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Change from British to American prose: "the band were" to "the band was". I don't understand what "The Make-Up dissolved early in 2001, and a year later, Svenonius formed the band Weird War, who are also known briefly known as Scene Creamers, in which he is still active." is supposed to mean. The lead has gross overlinking. "He attended the Corcoran College of Art and Design, where he studied fine art" to "He studied fine art at the Corcoran College of Art and Design." "The Nation of Ulysses described themselves as a rock and roll group in the traditional sense, but "as a political party"[2] and as "a shout of secession"." - is that right? Why is there a "but"? I think you missed a "not" or somewhere. I dont get the "In 1991, before the band had released any official recordings...: paragraph, is that supposed to be sarcastic/ironic or something? "Between his projects, Svenonius has released.." reads as if in-between his different groups he released all that. indopug (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're referencing with the band were/band was thing.
• Fixed up the Weird War/Scene Creamers sentence in the lead.
• Removed about half the unnecessary links in the lead.
• Reworded the fine art studying sentence.
• You're right, the NoU sentence was missing "not."
• I'm not sure what you mean with the "In 1991.." sentence being ironic. Just pointing out the chronology is all.
• Changed "Between" to "With" though I don't think that's the ideal word for that sentence...Drewcifer (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I find the usage of parenthesis generally objectionable and that flow can be improved by removing them. Example 1: "Svenonius formed the band [Scene Creamers, later renamed] Weird War[,] (also known briefly known as Scene Creamers) in which he is still active." - is this accurate? Example 2: "featured Neil Hagerty [,](of Royal Trux[,]) Example 3: "Thomson[,] (of the group Trans Am[,]) on drums," --- if this doesn't work, it is because the information is truly superfluous, with few exceptions, especially in the case of shorter parenthesis. I am very amenable to elaborate and expound on this comment. Thank you for reading, Kiyarrllston 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I went through the article and did various things with various parenthes. However, I did leave one, since gramatically speaking, parenthesis aren't neccessarily a bad thing, and in the one case I left it was gramatically appropriate (a fact as an informative aside). You were right about the others though, most of them read much better without them. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

objection Addressed, you're very welcome.--Kiyarrllston 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying me regarding this FAC. I have re-read the article. -I Weakly Oppose the promotion of this article to FA status. The complaint I have is regarding a feeling that the article could be more comprehensive and better organized. A clue to this is the number of citations - I would expect at least around 50. The organization is unusual for a biographical article - Background is hardly ever a part of a Biography, and more common in History articles; it in fact talks about Early life, Family, and notes that he is a vegan. These do not quite constitute a background to the story of his life... Is no account of his early life available?- "Politics" would be better titled "Political Persuation" or "Political Views" as it doesn't describe political actions but political leanings. - What do you think of splitting up the "Other projects" topic into: "Disc Jockey" "Writer" and "Actor" or similar? - thank you for reading this comment. I very much hope you will feel free to notify me whenever I can be of assistance.--Kiyarrllston 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. I'll try and address everything. As I said in the nomination, this article is an amalgamation of pretty much all of the information out there about Svenonius. So unfortunately additional information about his early life just isn't available. However, as another editor of the article has pointed out on a few occasions, Svenonius is notable for his roles in various musical formations, not for being a vegan and not for who his parents are. That said, I see the early life stuff really as extra information: not necessarily notable, but nice to have to whatever extent is possible. And really that's what a similar section in any article is, FA included: somewhat irrelevant information about someone notable for something else, to the limited extent that it is available. Would knowing what elementary school he went to, for example, really make the article more comprehensive, in the sense that it covers all the important bases, or just add extra padding? I would argue the latter. I think that looking only at the number of citations is a bit of a red herring, as well: the true test is the quality of the sources, not the number. I believe there is a pretty good mix of reliable sources here: some interviews (ie direct quotes), some 1st party (record labels), some 3rd party (NY Times, All Music Guide). And really, altough there is only 33 sources provided, the number of in-line citations is much more (54 in total, I believe). As for the other stuff, I've changed the name of the Politics section to "Political views", per your suggestion. I'm not sure about splitting up the Other projects section though, as you suggested. That section covers alot of miscellaneous bases, and to split everything up into numerous sections and subsections would result in a very fragmented, strange read, in my opinion. For example, a "Disc jockey" section, as you suggested, would be one sentence, as would a "Writer" section and "Actor" section. Drewcifer (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your warm reception to my comments.

well - let me see - regarding the organization:

"Disc Jockeying" would probably fit well within musical projects, and Writer section would include the "Soviet" collection of things he wrote, - leaving just actor - don't you think so? - i think you exagerate on them all being one sentence affairs.

I don't know where the fact that he is a vegan fits exactly, but - the background section does look fragmented and truly on "miscelanea" rather than background

I understand that it might currently be an amalgamation, I think FA quality means better writing style in the form of better organization than currently.

I previously said to change the name of "Politics" to "Political beliefs" (or similar) - what did/do you think of this?

regarding the comprehensiveness:

As to early life - I mean obviously important things from his childhood - things that would be encyclopedic. - growing up in the suburbs vs. in the city, in homogeneous vs. in diverse, in a traditional envirionment vs. in a free one - I don't know - stuff that's not trivia.

I said the number of citations was a clue - I didn't mean to stress the clue - ummm... - red herring is a pretty interesting article. - umm I do think the number is useful - in this case it might be only regarding the fact that Ian Svenonius is not regarded notable enough by the world community to have a large amount of work regarding his life...

If he's a vegan - and he's notable for being a vegan - couldn't this be elaborated on? - why is he a vegan? 'Could this be part of a section called "Political beliefs" or "Personal beliefs"?

I hope I am clear - please feel free to ask and/or discuss anything. Please let me know if you consider my comments helpful in improving the article

--Kiyarrllston 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Retracting FA candidacy Svenonius himself contacted me today, and he expressed some dissatisfaction and discomfort with some of the information in the article. So, I've edited the article to ease his worries, but done so to an extent that a shot at FA seems impossible now. Thanks for everyone's comments. Drewcifer (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Should we really exclude information because of his personal preference? If he thinks that the information is inaccurate, that's different, but if he thinks that the information is private then that may be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problem. I mean, I'd hate to be involved in a perceived violation of privacy. However, if this information is freely available in the sources you used then it really doesn't make a huge difference. But anyway, I'm not really involved with this article, so I think that whatever choice you make is the right one.

Additionally: You removed the mention of Svenonius's veganism from the text but didn't remove the article, and you should either remove or keep both. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

agree with Brandt Luke Zorn--Kiyarrllston 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by didn't remove the article... Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Brandt meant the American vegans category. Not sure what the position is on removing personal information on request though. CloudNine (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please review the unresolved external links; there are problems with southern.net and southern.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 22 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.