Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Depression (album)

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 16:04, 4 November 2008 [1].

No Depression (album)

edit
Nominator(s): Teemu08 (talk)

If you've heard of Uncle Tupelo, this is probably why. Despite low sales, its acknowledged as very influential on the alternative country subgenre. It's short (not very many sources out there), but short articles are all the rage these days, right? Teemu08 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Who are the "Some sources" in Note 29 that "attribute the song ['No Depression'] to James David Vaughan"? The talk page says this version (with that problem) passed GA; I think the reviewer should've asked for elaboration on that note (or its removal) before promotion, as it implies that the song was misattributed or stolen. --an odd name 00:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, one source of that is cited in the song's article. --an odd name 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • I'd like to see the lead in two paragraphs.
  • Audio in the Recording section needs a more descriptive caption (the FURG claims it's used "as part of a historical and critical examination", so more historical/critical detail would be good)
  • "Uncle Tupelo recorded the tracks for their first album, No Depression" - you've already made it clear that it's the first album (this phrasing would be find on, say, the band's article, but here you can remove the extra words)
  • "with little overdubbing, with only a few banjo and acoustic guitar parts added to the songs" - can you avoid the "with" repetition?

Generally looks good, just some minor nitpicks. Giggy (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed up prose issues. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind in regards to the FUR, I've elaborated a bit in the song description in the article why it's an appropriate song in regards to a description of the musical style on the album. Let me know what you think. Teemu08 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks much better. Giggy (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Giggy (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 6 (Dechert..) is lacking a last access date.
  • Current ref 22 (Bowers..) is lacking a publisher
  • You need to attribute the "Is cited as one of the most important albums..." to the one saying it, as it's opinion and from a review/opinion piece. (current ref 23 (Shea))
  • The last sentence "Spin listed the album... and Amazaon named it... " is cited to a site I'm not sure is reliable. What makes this reliable? And wouldn't it be better to cite directly to the source articles?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed citation issues. acclaimedmusic.net is used in quite a few other featured articles (a few of them: [2] [3] [4]). I cannot link out to the Amazon list because it has since been removed and is not archived. I have been unable to find an issue number for the Spin list—if I do, I'll replace the citation. For the meantime, I've mentioned in the text that the information is from acclaimedmusic.net Teemu08 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I think this part of the lead is too detailed? "Uncle Tupelo was formed in the late 1980s by Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy, and Mike Heidorn. The band produced a demo tape entitled Not Forever, Just for Now, which garnered a positive review by the College Media Journal.[1] The rave review enabled the band to sign with Giant Records (later renamed to Rockville Records)." --Efe (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switched out the last part of that sentence to something more generic. Teemu08 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the other lines? I think they should not be in the lead. It seems like its a bio. --Efe (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see anything wrong with it. The sentences in question summarize the Background section, which is one third of the entire article. Teemu08 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • although its in the article, what does the line "Uncle Tupelo was formed in the late 1980s by Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy and Mike Heidorn." has to do with the lead? its significance or anything that adds up to the fullness of the lead? --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The review lead to the band's signing with an independent record label. - Can you say which label and in which year (late 80's is too vague). More soon. Ceoil sláinte 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a year to the review. Teemu08 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did they sign the same year? Ceoil sláinte 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and it's now mentioned in the text. Teemu08 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Huge work needed on prose to the extent that the nom might be premature. Eg: The band added drummer Mike Heidorn to the band after Jay Farrar's brother Wade left the band.. And then the next sentence: The band changed their name to the Primitives and toured the St. Louis area. Why are these two statements part of the same sentence, and why is neither dated. Too much work is need to bring this to standard in the time allowed for an FAC, although given his past FA record and ability, I'm sure Teemu can return later with a sucessful nom. Ceoil sláinte 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just ran through the article with a thorough copyedit. You might want to revisit. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happily striking oppose after work. Will revisit. Ceoil sláinte 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some book refs are harvnbs; some are plain text. Not all that important, but annoying. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ceoil that the prose needs some serious work. The discussion of the Plebes/Primitives history is mostly redundant to the main article and it is unclear why it is being replicated here. Also, the timeline is unclear: why is the signing with Giant/Rockville discussed before the recording if it occurred afterwards? This creates unnecessary confusion. (Did Rockville sign them based on the demo even if the album was already recorded?) In addition, the authorship of the original songs is disputed. jayfarrar.net attributes them all to Farrar-Tweedy-Heidorn. Who is authorative here? Where are the bonus tracks from and shouldn't the info on the re-relase be included in the infobox? I like to see this promoted to FA just like Teemu's other great work on UT/Wilco articles, but I don't think it's there yet. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll probably take another look at it to tighten it up further, but I took out some of the redundant background information. I also cleared up the timeline and added a bit about the bonus tracks (I can really only mention the covers, since there aren't any RS's that tell me much about the other songs). The song authorship is a bit tricky. The authors attributed in the article are the ones who wrote the lyrics of the song. The music is attributed to Farrar/Tweedy/Heidorn on all of the songs, but as far as I know, we only credit authors on track listings. Also, based on other articles I've seen, re-release info is not mentioned in the infobox. Teemu08 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is that the authorship reflects the authors as they are given by the music publishers in order to claim royalties, and as far as I know this is still F/T/H for all original songs, or at least I'm not aware of a RS that contradicts this (although I don't have the re-releases). If there are contradicting RS for both (original release vs. re-release?) this should be addressed, maybe in a footnote. All other concerns have been addressed. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I stuck in "All music written by Farrar/Tweedy/Heidorn" in the track listing section. Hope this helps. Teemu08 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what the difference is between "songs" and "music". If you mean "lyrics" and "music", that's a different animal. Now it is generally known that Farrar and Tweedy did not in fact collaborate on their songwriting, but like Lennon/McCartney they submitted their songs as collaborative works for royalty claims (F/T/H for the first three albums, F/T for Anodyne), and to my knowledge this agreement still holds. Now if there is a RS that established who in fact wrote which song it should be discussed in the text, but for the track listing the relevant information is what is submitted to BMI or ASCAP. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - The fair use description for the album cover looks sufficient, but I would include the sentence "This song exemplifies the band's start–stop song technique, which was influenced by the Minutemen" in the fair use rationale for the audio clip. It is currently too vague, as it says only "as part of a historical and critical examination". Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added to rationale. T&E, I'll hopefully get to your comments this evening. Teemu08 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (As member of WP:ALM)

I've copy-edited most of the article (feel free to revert whatever changes you don't like), but some small problems still remain.

  • The third sentence of Background has "The Primitives" coming out of nowhere. Do you mean The Plebes?
  • "No Depression in Heaven" is not mentioned in the article body.
  • Does Christgau's "dud" icon review thing (whatever that is supposed to be) need a mention in the prose? I don't think so; the "review" seems so un-subjective and . . . random.
  • "The album is associated with alternative country, so much that "No Depression" is sometimes used as a synonym for the genre" - clunky sentence; can you reword it slightly?
  • I think you can remove most of the "(Farrar, Tweedy, Heidorn)" and put a "All songs written by Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy and Mike Heidorn, except where noted" at the top of the track-listing. It'll give a neater, more uncluttered appearance. indopug (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments addressed. As for Christgau, Homer Simpson said it best: "Brevity is... ...wit". All of Christgau's reviews are very short (even those that receive comments are usually only a few sentences long), but he's renowned as one of the greatest critics of all time. Plus it's one of the only reviews of the album that's genuinely negative—I just wish he would've stated why. Teemu08 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article seemed comprehensive and competently written to me. It covered all of the major topics related to an album: history of the band, production, musical sound, and reception. Although unfamiliar with popular music of any kind, I could follow this article's clear writing. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Following the copyedits the article has undergone, I feel it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:35, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/No_Depression_(album)&oldid=1138467922"