Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radiohead/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Radiohead
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 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Radiohead

edit

I have attempted to improve this article, and after much work, I think that it meets the FA criteria.ErleGrey 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add fair use rationales to all sound files. Ceoil 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. The article needs a thourogh copyedit which I note is underway. I'd like to see mention of Radioheads legacy, in paticular on bands such as Muse, the unbelivable truth, and (cough) Coldplay. Ceoil 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that legacy could be mentioned without taking a point of view, so I've refrained from adding that to the article. However, if you've got an idea for such a paragraph, feel free. ErleGrey 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those bands have explicitly cited Radiohead as an influence. No doubt you have seen this while reading the nine books, three dissertations, and eight online articles claimed as sources at the foot of the article, or should they be moved to a "Bibliography" section. Ceoil 23:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the references do present things from the band's point of view. I have a few quotes supporting that legacy, however they are used in Radiohead's album articles, and I think that they would not fit well in the main history section of the page. To have a separate section on that legacy would, in my opinion, be ludicrous, which is why I didn't include it in the article. Also, that information is better presented in the form of a list of influences on the relevant artist pages, which it already is. Look here and here to see what I mean. ErleGrey 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Keane and Snow Patrol are about the third wave of Radiohead influenced bands to infest (at least) the UK charts, I think a legacy section is needed. To say that the "The references do present things from the band's point of view", implies use of biased sources. Ceoil 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. What I meant to imply was that the other sources depict the band's history through interviews with them, and in effect portray their point of view. As to the inclusion of a legacy section, it doesn't seem a requisite for a FA article-see The Smashing Pumpkins. ErleGrey 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a "Legacy" section per se, but you need to acknowledge one exist if bands cite Radiohead as an influence. It helps establish notability. WesleyDodds 07:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that legacy is also cited in the intro, with the line "influencing artists in many genres.[12]", so I think that should be enough mention, as it is in a notable spot in the article.ErleGrey 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article should go in-depth about it. Anything that appears in the lead should be discussed in the body of the article, since it is an overview of the entire article. And Radiohead's influence on bands like Coldplay and Muse is certainly enough for a paragraph or two. WesleyDodds 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start to work on and cite such a paragraph.ErleGrey 18:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a legacy paragraph (cited) here and would appreciate any comments/advice on it.ErleGrey 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. Made some minor copyedits and read through much of the article. Here are some issues I identified.
    • "initially formed by school friends in 1985." Date is relevant enough for first sentence of the article but probably not the part about school friends. That should probably come at least slightly later.
    • "caught on at home in the UK" colloquial language. at home in the UK is repetitive.
    • "expressive singing" POV
    • First paragraph launches right into chronology. Anyway to have an overview first? Maybe have genre(s) at beginning?
    • "Radiohead's original influences were" cite
    • "was noted for its mix of guitars. . ." by who? cite.
    • "expected for release sometime in 2007." cite
    • 'customary rehearsal date" don't we mean Day of the Week? date means a specific day in the year.
    • " always planning to return to the band" cite
    • " As the band's live bookings increased, record labels began to show interest in them. Eventually, the group signed a six-album recording contract with EMI, thanks to a chance meeting with a label representative in the record shop where Colin Greenwood worked. At the behest of the label, the band changed their name to Radiohead, after the title of a song on Talking Heads' True Stories album." All of these sentences need cites.
    • Creep single released in 92, but it says 93 in lede (because connected to debut album). Can this be clearer?
    • There's a lot of use of "However, . . .". Not technically correct at the start of a sentence in any case, this rhetorically device gets a bit dry as it continues to crop up.
    • "to this day" colloquial. probably change to today and add an [[As of 2007]] tag.
    • America - > United States
    • "then nearly broke up . . ." cite
    • "their wall of guitar sound and heart-on-sleeve lyrics" POV
    • "contributed to the sound of the album." Vague. Of course it contributed - what does this mean exactly and can we cite it?
    • "Tensions were high," cite
    • "The band responded by seeking a change of scenery" colloquial
    • "in an attempt to relax the atmosphere." cite
    • "However, the band, once again confronted with their newfound popularity, began to feel discomfort" I don't think bands in the collective can feel discomfort. And another "However"
    • "evolving musical style is sometimes seen as a product" weasel words who sees it that way?
    • "Yorke and Greenwood are sometimes seen as the main musical influences within the band." weasel words again
    • "However, songwriting is actually a collaborative effort." cite, sounds pretty POV
    • " Radiohead members have felt less constrained" cite. it's always hard to say what they "felt" but we can at least say what they said and what they've done and cite it.
    • "Changing roles" section title doesn't really speak to their musical style necessarily, and I'm not sure the section title is really encyclopedic. sounds more like a newspaper article title to me. Maybe just "Multi-instumentalists" or at least "Changing instumental roles" or something. Maybe there's a better idea?
    • It seems like there's not really a lot about their actual musical style (they play many instruments, they collaborate). I understand that musical style and content is one of the hardest things to write about. Do any of those dissertations have scholarly musical analysis that might be of help?

Lots of nice work has obviously gone into this article! I hope these comments are helpful. Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and fixed the problems which you have mentioned. Thanks for your advice. ErleGrey 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per criterion 3. Please review Wikipedia:Music samples, which states that only 10% of a song or 30 seconds (if the song is five minutes or longer) can be used in fair use sound clips. "Usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines" according to Wikipedia:Music samples. LuciferMorgan 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Reply The music samples have all been shortened to less than 30 seconds, except "Paranoid Android", which is 32 seconds, still in compliance with Guideline#1. ErleGrey 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn. LuciferMorgan 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More comments Great work on the article! Here are some more things you may wish to consider.

  • Weasel words. While you've done a great job adding more citations. I still think it's not scholarly or verifiably accurate to include phrases like "Radiohead have often been cited as among the most creative musical groups of their era,"" and "are seen by some to have maintained a spirit of musical and political independence". and "Hail to the Thief is seen by critics as an attempt to distill and fuse the electronic and experimental influences" What critics? Are they notable? Notable enough to mention in the article body? Who do they write for? etc. "Are seen by some" doesn't tell us anything useful - (if I see it that way, then it's "seen by some", so we need to say who sees them). One solution is to add several sources into each footnote, but it would also just help to change the language. One source is not critics.
  • "drawing crowds to their concerts" that's pretty generic. what band doesn't?
  • I think a successful footnote is the one for "influencing artists in many genres". It links to a list which clearly shows their influence. It might be even better to say some of the most notable, either in the text or at least in the footnote.
  • Still some typographical errors like "groups of their era,[11]drawing" (no space) Same problem "from it!"[30]However,"
  • Still some prose issues: "initially formed in 1986. Originally named On a Friday,[1] Radiohead's lineup has remained the same since their formation," formed and formation in two sentences is redundant. Plus, do we need "initially formed?" Is it that important to separate that formation from their later recovening?
  • Still some sections that need cites and sound a little POV. Example: "The tense recording sessions for Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001) completely changed Radiohead's method of working as they moved away from standard rock music instrumentation. Since then, Radiohead members have felt less constrained to stick to their primary instruments, and now regularly switch depending on the particular song requirements. However, their roles usually remain more stable when the band performs live." Telling readers what Radiohead members felt is probably not verifiable in any case.
  • I feel this kind of sentence construction is awkward "Yorke has described the lyrical content of the forthcoming album as". If the source is notable enough for an encyclopedia, we should be able to say. "In an interview with the New York Times, Yorke described the lyrical content of the forthcoming album as 'terrifying'..." That particular quote might be a bit extensive for this article anyway. Maybe better for the main article on the seventh studio album. It's also a one-sentence paragraph, kind of a faux-pas for FA's.

This has come a long way! These comments are meant to apply not just to the specific examples I mentioned but to the entire article. I hope they're helpful. Thanks for helping make this article better! Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article, made some significant changes in respect to the issues brought up in the previous entry, and copyedited it. Thank you for your comments. ErleGrey 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:MOS and reference cleanup work is needed. See WP:DASH for how to correctly name sections. References are inconsistenly formatted and haphazard, appearing to be added by different editors using different styles. Not all publishers are identified, and it's not clear that reliable sources are in use here. If you aren't familiar with a consistent referencing style, you can see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. A review of WP:RS is in order wrt to what appear to be some personal websites.
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Radiohead/archive1&oldid=771519082"