Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One Tree Hill (song)/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 promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 [1].

One Tree Hill (song) edit

Featured article candidates/One Tree Hill (song)/archive1

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. You know the drill by now; I feel the article is at the FAC level, it's been through GAN and PR, etc. But of course, what I think of the article is not as important as what you think of it! I bring you yet another U2 article; this one a single from The Joshua Tree. The song was written in memory of a friend of the band, who quite sadly was killed at a very young age. "One Tree Hill" is about his funeral. I hope that you all enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback! Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Leaning to support~~: Melicans normally does these song articles well, and this is no exception. Just a few points for action or consideration:-

~~A caption to the music sample, explaining what part of the song the sample relates to, would be useful.~~

"On a courier run in the rain, a car pulled in front of him; unable to stop, Carroll crashed into the side and was killed instantly." Needs rephrasing; it was Carroll, not the car, on the courier run.

Third paragraph of the "Inspiration" section: The reason for including the stuff about Castro and Jara is presumably to explain the inclusion of certain lyrics in the song, but this doesn't become clear unril the end of the paragraph. In my view there is rather too much background detail before then, which I found distracting (it seemed temporarily as though I had strayed into another article).. What is missing at this point (though there is a partial explanation later) is why Bono thought the reference to Jara's martyrdom was appropriate to a song dedicated to Carroll's memory.

~~Finally, I'd echo a concern raised in the peer review, concerning the amount of directly quoted material. I think there is still too much, and that some paraphrase and/or reduction might be in order.~~

I look forward to an eventual full support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review (and for the compliment)! I've made the following changes:

I've moved the file down to Composition and added a brief description. I didn't include a reference as both events are mentioned numerous times in the prose.
I've rephrased it to "On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. In the rain, a car pulled in front of him; unable to stop, Carroll crashed into the side and was killed instantly." It might need further tweaking (prose is not my strong point), but I think it does at least clarify that Carroll was on the courier run, not the car.
I've tried to rephrase this also so that it is more coherant. Please let me know if there is more needed on this aspect.

The paragraph is better now, but I think it still needs an extra sentence indicating why Bono felt inspired to add a lyric referencing a Chilean resistance hero in his tribute song to Carroll, who has no obvious connection with the Chilean resistance. Was it simply that he was moved by the story of death, albeit in different circumstances, of another young man of principle and promise? This seems to me to be the only thing of importance still missing from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, none of the sources explicitly state why that connection was made, they simply have a variation of "The song also references Victor Jara..." I'll definitely double check them all for it though once I have a chance to go to the library for the books I rented when crafting a few articles in September/October. Should have a definitive answer for you within the next few days for that point. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it a little, and shifted the order in the section so that the Jara material comes at the end rather than in the middle of the narrative. That way, it is clear that the Jara lyric is one element, not the central element, in the song. I think this works better, but if you feel otherwise, please revert. Can I also suggest that you reword "after the hill he saw the first time he visited Auckland" to "after a hill he remembered from his visit to Auckland"? Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that shift was absolutely spot-on; the way it was before made it seem as if it was central to the song, rather than just a passing reference. I've also made your suggested tweak, along with a few other minor adjustments. Thanks again for your sharp eyes! Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly have a habit of overquoting, both on Wikipedia and in my school work, out of an ingrained fear that by not rewording/paraphrasing/etc enough it may be construed as a copyright violation. I tried to reword a bit during the PR and just prior to the nomination. I've since done a bit more in Reception. Are there any specific quoted parts that you think would do better as regular prose? I'm a bit leery about attempting anything on the religious theme as I admittedly know nothing of the subject.

Thanks once again for your comments! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed my concerns, and I'm happy to support now, subject to sources and image clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the improvements and for your support! Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the changes identified above. I did the GA review of this article and agree with Brianboulton's proposed changes that the article will meet FA standards. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly a sourcing point, but be sure to check WP:MOS details - I noticed some spaced emdashes, for example
Ranges should consistently use endashes
Are the album notes paginated? Also, not sure the "Canada" is really helpful, unless the Canadian version is different. Applies also to subsequent album citations
FN 17: pages? Print sources without web links need page numbers in general; there are a few others missing
Live Nation or LiveNation? Check for naming consistency
Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers or not
Where is Longwood? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sourcing review, Nikkimaria.

I think I have caught and fixed all the em/endash mistakes, but it is something I am unfamiliar with so there may be some hyphens that should be endashes and vice-versa.
The album booklet (more a short book that was included with the boxset) does not have page numbers inside. I could count them though if that is necessary for that citation template.
The content is not different, but the publisher id number (PID) is. These can vary from country to country, even when the record label and album contents are identical. The same is true for the singles. Because of the PID I also included the location for accuracy/completeness.
FN 17 was a reprinted article in a magazine cobbled together by the editors of Uncut 2 years ago. Said magazine contained old articles from numerous other magazines, as well as fresh reviews on the albums themselves (FN 12 is an example of the fresh review). I'm unsure how to represent the reprinted article in that though, as it was originally published in Melody Maker, not Uncut. Do you have any advice for that instance? The remainder were obtained from a U2 fan site that reprints the articles without page numbers, and which I cannot link to directly due to potential copyright infringement concerns on their end.
I have fixed both instances to Live Nation; I think it was a simple spacing error that I missed.
I only saw one instance of inconsistancy regarding the use of publishers for newspapers and that has now been fixed.
Florida added after Longwood.

Thank you again for your comments! Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For FN 17, you could use a "Republished from..." with a nested cite template / citation (haven't checked whether you're using templates). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've nested this correctly (I don't see any errors cropping up in the Reference section from this change), but it is my first time trying to nest something like this. How does it look to you? Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. My only comment on that would be to be consistent in whether editors are listed first or last name first (actually, looking again, this applies to authors too). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that is all taken care of now for the print sources. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is this how we really right a chord progression as in this line "...chord progression of C–F–B♭–F–C..."? I have seen some FAs and its written in roman numerals, for example in "Hey Ya!. --Efe (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the current format is fine. I don't know of any MOS policy saying it has to be written a specific way, and other song FAs I have been the primary contributor to ("City of Blinding Lights" and "Mothers of the Disappeared") are done the same way as this article and had no issues in that regard during the candidacy process. If I'm honest, as someone who is barely literate in music (I can make out time signature and tempo and that is about it), I wouldn't even know how to convert it to Roman numerals (another editor helped me out a great deal in that particular paragraph). Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals are one of several ways to represent chords and chord progressions, but there are other accepted ways. See WP:MOSMUSIC. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is is correctly written then? --Efe (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (at least given the source we have for it). Sheet music from other sources may vary in some details, but what we have in the article is correct according to the source that I have. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - no concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support - Hello, Melicans. This article is looking great and few people know how to write a song article so well. A few concerns and I'll be happy to give a support:

I am not fully satisfied with the first two sentences, the first of which is very short. May I suggest putting them together so that we have a more complete thought? How about: "'One Tree Hill' is a song by rock band U2 and is the ninth track from their 1987 album The Joshua Tree." This also helps deal with the two consecutive sentences that start with "It..."
"It was released as the fourth single from the album in New Zealand and Australia in March 1988, while "In God's Country" was released as the fourth single in North America." - Could this be re-worded so that the first clause does not have two "in"s very close to eachother?
~~Is there a specific day in March 1988 when the song premiered?~~
~~"The song was a hit in New Zealand" - the body of the article does not seem to say anything about the song being a hit in NZ, only saying that it charted at No. 1.~~
"'One Tree Hill" was favourably received by critics..." - How about shifting "favourably" to after the word "received"? I know this is not particularly a split infinitive, but moving the adverb reads a bit better. If you decide to, I suggest to do the same in the Release and critical response section.
"with most renditions occurring" - A controversial structure, because of the fused participle and the poor use of the work "with". Try "as most renditions occurred". Similar concern here: "with a sample of The Edge's guitar playing".
~~Per MOS:QUOTE, we do not link inside quotations.~~
~~MOS suggests that when placing ellipses in quotations, we have spaces on both sides of it, and an nbsp would be placed before the ellipses.~~
"Colm O'Hare of Hot Press believed The Edge's guitar riff personified the lyric 'run like a river runs to the sea'." - I think there would be a "the" before "Hot Pres", similar to "the Washington Post".
~~"All lyrics written by Bono, all music composed by U2." - how about we write this as a complete sentence?~~

Just nitpicks I know. But this is all I feel is needed to polish this article up to FA standards. Keep up the effort on the articles of one of the best bands of all time. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK} 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on comments

Not sure where the March 1988 date came from. Can't find any sources to back that up, so one needs to be found. But when it comes to single release dates, it's sometimes difficult to pinpoint a specific day of the month when it was released.
Adding "the" before Hot Press is not necessary because "the" is not part of the journal's title (unlike The Washington Post, not just Washington Post). That would be like saying "the Newsweek" or "the Time".
"All lyrics written by Bono, all music composed by U2." is generated automatically by the {{track listing}} template. It's not a complete sentence because it is written the way it would appear in a release's liner notes.

–Dream out loud (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have struck through two of my queries. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedian Penguin; thanks for your comments (and thank you Dream out loud for addressing some of them in my absence). I probably won't be able to address all of your points for a few days, as I am heading back to Ottawa for my final exam of the term tomorrow morning and will be studying quite hard after I am there! I was unable to find a specific day in March that the single was released. The March 1988 date is found in the liner notes of the 2007 remastered boxset edition of The Joshua Tree. I will try to get to the rest of your points as soon as I am able. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for the delay, and thanks very much for your patience. Here are my comments on the points that you brought up:

Reworded per your recommendation.
I've reworded it to "In March 1988 it was released as the fourth single from the album in New Zealand and Australia" which I think reads a little better.
No specific date that we know of; even the band's official material (remastered boxset described above and I believe the U2 by U2 book) only says March 1988.
You're right, I was probably reading a little too much into that. Thanks for the catch; I've rephrased it to "The release charted at number one on the New Zealand singles chart."
So done.
Looks like somebody beat me to the renditions part. Rephrased the sample part to "The song begins with a highlife-influenced riff by The Edge on guitar, which repeats in the background throughout the song."
I only caught one instance of linking inside quotes and that's now been fixed. If there's any I've missed, please let me know!
Wow, I didn't know ellipses needed spaces. You learn something new every day! MOS recommends the non-breaking spaces "only as needed to prevent improper line breaks". I couldn't see any portion where that was an issue and so I have ommitted them.

I think that addresses all of the points you raised. If there was anything I missed, or something further that comes to your attention, please let me know! Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. I spotcheck would be nice. Great work though! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask around and see if anyone will be willing to do a spotcheck. Thanks for the reminder! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck (I think we probably need to recruit someone who loves doing music-entertainment-popculture spotchecks and someone who loves doing science-medicine-zoology spotchecks; I find both these difficult because they use a different citation culture). I'm a labour historian, not an Irish studies scholar. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- fns 2, 4, 6, 9, 24, 32 (AGF off the quote) clear

**The quote at 4a is in the book, but it isn't at p. 157 in the same ISBN as the one you've cited.

- ~~6c On another radically different page which conflicts with the page for 6b, agrees with 6a's actual page, but conflicts with the page cited for 6~~
- The paragraph "On 3 July 1986..." seems to be largely comprised out of stitched together quotes of PRIMARY sources on a theme; how is this acceptable for encyclopaedic music writing? Where's the secondary source that emphasises the centrality of the Greg Experience to the creation of one tree hill, why isn't this source front an centre with the quotes hanging off it?

**9 not at these page locations with the ISBN you're citing.

- So my concerns are about something really weird with the book citations. Quite frankly I don't understand how you're 50 pages out, and how multiple cites sharing the same footnote number are actually on different pages. From your style of writing and citing through the McCormick primary source and through the three secondaries I checked you look clear—~~this page number issue is curious.~~ Similarly I'm rather concerned about the reliance on PRIMARY sources, this is the second time I've done a rock FAC and it seems to be an attempt to connect with authenticity. The problem is: when you compare this to Blonde on Blonde, BoB uses secondary sources for the narrative and then hangs primary source quotes and anecdotes "off of" secondary sources that have already established weight and narrative. As lovely as Greg may have been, I find it difficult to consider as encyclopaedic an attempt to write him in when he's not appearing in secondary sources on One Tree Hill. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is... really unusual about the page numbers. What are you using to check 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9a-d? I did a quick search on Google Books and, though what came up is the 2006 German hardcover edition (I could not find the 2006 English hardcover edition available for preview, which is what I own and used for this referencing), it confirms that everything cited in FN 4 is there on page 157. The Ali reference is cited to FN 4, not 6. FN 6b is regarding his working for U2 in Dublin and joining their tour as crew. The search link above for the German edition does not show 177, but if you click 178 and then scroll up one page you can see it is there. Likewise, all the details in FN 9a-d is shown to be on page 178. It's really weird and I'm guessing it only seems to be an issue for the McCormick references as all of the page discrepencies you pointed out come from that book?
    - Fix your reference citation and ISBN. Your bibliography says you're using a (iirc) London edition with a particular ISBN that doesn't relate to the german hardcover. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am using the London edition (as I noted above). That's why I'm confused as to why the page numbers differ between my copy of the book and what you used to check them. The German pages were linked just to show that the information is there on the pages cited, though using a different language source to demonstrate this was probably not the best example. I ask again, what are you using to check 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9a-d? I really don't understand how my edition and your spotcheck source differ so wildly. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        (Fucking Amazon "Just so you know... This view is of the Paperback edition (2009) from It Books. The Hardcover edition (2006) from HarperCollins that you originally viewed is the one you'll receive if you click the Add to Cart button on the left.") I apologise, I didn't expect such seriously fucked up behaviour from a bookseller. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, no worries at all! I knew something wonky was going on, but didn't have a clue where in the chain of events it was. I'm glad that page discrepency has been resolved; I was beginning to wonder if I'd spaced out and entered the wrong page numbers! Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not really sure how Stokes (FN 5a-f) and de la Parra (FN 8a-d), both of which are (partially) used in the paragraph describing Carroll's death, constitute primary sources as neither author worked with or on behalf of the band; certainly neither are 'insiders' (as WP:PRIMARY puts it). The Stokes book is mainly the author's take based on multiple interviews with the band by (other) music journalists. The de la Parra book is mostly used to source the dates and, as far as I'm aware, he never even met the band. The McCormick citations in that paragraph are undisputably Primary; but at the same time it is used primarily (heh) to relate the state of emotions felt by the individual band members at the news, and in no other source do they discuss it so candidly. PRIMARY states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source ... any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." As there is no analysis or interpretation occurring based on these primary sources and in this paragraph they are almost exclusively used for quotations (the one exception I saw being 9d), I would think that FN 6 and FN 9 meet the acceptable use of "straighforward, descriptive statements". Can you please clarify? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the first two paras of inspiration are so essensial, why are they cited to Primaries, if they're not essensial, why are they there. The story has been constructed, and weighted, out of primaries. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still believe that the use of primary sourcing in the secondary paragraph, used only for quotes which I believe to be an acceptable use per my reading of PRIMARY, is not of any particular concern (especially because in no other source available have the feelings of the band members been discussed in any detail). As the quotes are "straightforward, descriptive statements" and I am in no way analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating said quotes, I think that their use is fine (save for 9d, which is covered also in the de la Parra source and shall be immediately removed).
      - Though we disagree on paragraph 2, I concur that the primary sourcing in paragraph 1 is of concern. I don't have my books on me right now (only came home last night, won't go back to my apartment until the New Year; argh!), but I'll try to find some alternate sources for those details and ping someone who does have access to a fair few U2 books so that those primary sources can be replaced with appropriate secondary sources. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't even need to replace the primary sources, you simply need to demonstrate that the weight and emphasis is that findable in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, okay. That makes it a bit easier. Since I don't have access to my books at the moment I've asked another member of the U2 WikiProject if he would be able to check through his for some corroborating citations. It's getting late here (minutes away from midnight), so I'll try to get to a search through my school's online library for appropriate secondary sources tomorrow. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added a few sources to the first paragraph based on a check of Google Books. I hope this makes it somewhat better. Scrolling through the Google Books pages it looks like Carroll's inspiration on the song is discussed fairly often; but alas, they are all limited to "Snippet view"! Frustrating! Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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