Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silent Alarm/archive1

< 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 Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [1].

Silent Alarm

edit
Nominator(s): Rafablu88, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. You may remember me from such FAC discussions as Fantasy Black Channel. I have followed that album's template and improved it considerably. Garden and I followed the GA reviewer's advice, did post-GA work, sent it to peer review, got a few copyeditors to have a bash at it, and even got it in on the Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week. The article should be more than ready for FA. I hope you won't find anything to complain about, but if you do, I'm sure it'll be minor stuff. I've followed the Fantasy Black Channel advice down to a tee on this, including the detailed comments from Karanacs. As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. Garden and I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Consider this a co-nom as it were; myself and Rafablu88 have, as he said, been working on this for a long while, and although he has done a lot more than me I will still patrol this FAC and address any comments that need addressing. Thanks in advance, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Garden a co-nom for this? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my co-nomination was editconflicted with this comment. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Whoever wants to support or object, please make sure to weigh in on the sources left at editors' discretion since it is very likely you will be asked back by the FAC people to talk about them if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Rafablu88 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Amazon.com and Discogs.com are not acceptable sources. Please find alternate verification or remove the cited material. You don't have to inline cite tracklisting; the album itself is the source, and it won't be disputed unless the tracklisting or writing credits are unclear. Delink ovelry common words. I restructured the article a bit to make it more concise and maintain focus on certain topics so that they aren't sprawled throughout the article; this is what I was trying to tell you on yoru talk page. I haven't even really rewritten anything, but it reads much better with certain sections moved around and merge wih others. Trim down the details on the individual songs; this album has five singles, and much of the detail must go on those sub-pages. Remember, deal with the album as a whole, and get specific when you need to. A track-by-track rundown is cumbersome. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working towards editing/replying. Rafablu88 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazon is wiki and Ealdgyth "reliable". Discogs was removed.
    • Removed all tracklisting-related citations.
    • Delinked unnecessary words.
    • Trimmed down singles detail.
    • Track-by-track is now tight and cohesive with a balance of comprehensiveness and summation.
Rafablu88 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight."; "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: The Daily Star, The Guardian, and various record labels.
That first link doesn't say what their fact checking is, just lists contributors. The second link is from their own site, their "Wow we're great" page, which makes it less convincing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they do cite The Daily Star and The Guardian. Both are from print versions that I cannot find short of phoning the outlets themselves. Also, Rockfeedback used to have a show on MTV 2 which could be found on at this address: www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtv2/rockfeedback_tv. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued. Here's Drowned in Sound reporting the news (my head is gonna spin in a minute from all the reliability slippery slopes and perpetual cycles but nonetheless...): Rockfeedback hits MTV Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a comprehensive source [2]. (Note: rockfeedback.tv = rockfeedback.com) Rafablu88 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: Reuters; Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards: [3] [4]; Nominated at the 2007 PLUG Awards for Music Website of the Year: [5]
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the wide editorial consensus here it should not be a problem. I think maybe have a chat with music experts on here like Wesley Dodds about DiS which should confirm its reliability so that you don't keep asking the question because you're going to get the same answer every time. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: The Guardian "The acclaimed British music website is six years old." (and actually talks about one of the refs used in the article (DiS is 6-years-old...)) Rafablu88 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the ultimate source for "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source (read: The Independent)" I think: DiS Feature Can we please for the love of god consider it "reliable" once and for all? Rafablu88 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight." Scroll down and see the left column: editors and staff writers; "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: Slate Magazine.; "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: The New York Observer.
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Although I still don't understand from last time and this time what more you require apart from what you yourself have written here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see what the big deal is. They undertake hierarchical peer review for every submission. I only used it for Catalog details of CDs. If you're still bothered, I'll take them off and just cite the CDs themselves but I really don't see the point just for a simple code citation.
This would be better cited to the actual CD, honestly. Avoids an uneccessary layer which can introduce transcription errors. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. I'll have a look at Esprit International first though, especially for the vinyl codes which I don't own. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all but one Discogs which may or may not need more sources researched. I'll have a look tomorrow. Rafablu88 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Discogs gone. Rafablu88 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magazine titles in the refs should be in italics. I noticed current ref 29 (Southall..) but there may be others.
Ones without italics are obviously not print media even though they are magazines. I've checked the sources over and over especially following your comments on the Fantasy Black Channel FAC. Rafablu88 17:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest going with "Stylus Magazine website" then, as just giving the title gives the implication that it was in the print version, not online only content. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove Magazine then. Just to point out that some editors explicitly advised me and edited about adding the Magazine. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the magazine's website, right? So calling the publisher as "Stylus Magazine website" and including the magazine as well as the words website is quite fine. I can understand why they wanted you to add Magazine, and I agree. I'm just suggesting adding website at the end to make it clear that it's the website in the ref. It'd look like this: Southall, Nick (14 February 2005). "Bloc Party: Silent Alarm". Stylus Magazine website. Retrieved 11 February 2009.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. I left Stylus on its own with the link to Stylus Magazine. Adding website would be a bit cumbersome I think. It should be fine now. Rafablu88 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have more comments to add, but my Wiki time is very limited these days, so it might take me up to a week to come back to this FAC. While I haven't looked at Drowned in Sound yet, it definitely should not be given usch prominence in the article, to the point of quoting the site in the lead. With album articles, I generally refrain from listing any specific comments by critics in the lead, instead favoring an outline of general critical consensus about the work; there's tons of room later in the article to quote reviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the quotes out of the lead.  PUBLIC GARDEN  13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about naming critical sources in lead. No need to go overboard though with removal. Found a happy medium. Rafablu88 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is a very nice article; I don't think it's far away at all, though there are a few very minor issues. I haven't finished the review, but as this FAC has been here a while I thought I'd post my thoughts on the first three sections to give you time to look over them while I do the rest of the article Steve T • C:
Background
  • "Discussing 'She's Hearing Voices', the first demo song later remastered in the studio sessions"—ambiguity; does this mean that "She's Hearing Voices" was the first demo that was remastered in the studio sessions, or merely that it was the first demo song (and which was later remastered)?
    • Attempted a fix: Discussing "She's Hearing Voices", the first demo song to be remastered in the studio sessions
Studio sessions
  • "In the summer of 2004"—ambiguity; in the southern hemisphere, summer is winter (I know they're lousy cricketers, but you have to consider the Australians!) You have the actual months in the sentence that follows, so if you want to avoid both the ambiguity and the repetition (while retaining this introductory sentence), perhaps "In mid-2004" would be the best fit. Alternatively, consider merging the first two sentences to eliminate the redundancy (e.g. "In June and July 2004, Bloc Party recorded Silent Alarm in studios in London and Copenhagen. The band recorded fifteen tracks in 22 days; all of the songs were ..." That's a very rough example, but you get the idea.
  • "allowing the guitars space to improvise"—guitars don't improvise, guitarists do.
    • Oops. Fixed.
  • "The band's priority was not geared towards making the songs danceable"—half the sentence is redundant for getting the idea across; why not simply, "The band's priority was not geared towards making to make the songs danceable"? And is a song "danceable" or "danceable to"? The action, the verb (to dance) is not performed by the song, but by a person. Unsure how this could read better for now, but consider alternatives.
    • Fixed, and attempted a workaround: The band's priority was not to make the songs dance-aligned
  • "The quartet believed that 21st-century rock music can only survive if people start "mixing styles that aren't supposed to be together"—tense issues. "believed ... can"; perhaps it's technically correct, but the effect is jarring. It might be better to use "believed ...could ... started". I think that works well enough.
    • Used The quartet believed that 21st-century rock music could only survive if people started "mixing styles that aren't supposed to be together". Seems right here admittedly.
  • "Bloc Party embraced this idea and tried to explore from the beginning in Silent Alarm rather than in their further work."—reads a little clunkily; I think it could be rendered more concisely, as "embraced this idea" is implicit given that they went ahead and did it (e.g. "Bloc Party tried to explore this idea from the beginning with Silent Alarm, rather than in their further work." That last segment is possibly redundant too; would it lose any of the intended meaning by finishing the sentence at "Alarm"?
  • "In a later interview, Moakes pointed out that the band members were relative novices when they entered the recording sessions and that, most of the time, they only did what they were told; this is an additional reason why the album is disjunct and not focused on any particular musical style." The interruption ("most of the time") introduces a bit of a speedbump that is more noticeable than might otherwise be because of the length of the sentence. Consider: "Moakes later said that band members were relative novices when the album was recorded, and that for the most part they only did what they were told; this contributed to why ..." We also don't need to know that it was an interview, making it more concise still.
    • Trying to use the recording sessions, and that for the most part they only did what they were told;
Promotion and release
  • Should "NME" be italicised in "NME Awards Tour" (similar to how we say "Billboard 200")?
    • Yeah, probably.
  • Is it necessary to mention the font used for the band name and album title? Unless it's unusual in some way, this information feels a little irrelevant and/or indiscriminate.
    • I haven't the foggiest why that is there. :/ Got rid.
  • "The British and European release date was on 14 February and the record achieved gold certification within 24 hours."—could this be more concisely rendered as, "The album achieved gold certification within 24 hours of its European release on 14 February." There's probably no need to say "British" as it's included in "European".
    • Changed to the improved version.
  • "Between 17 March and 9 April, they undertook their first ever headlining U.S. tour to coincide with the American release of Silent Alarm on 22 March 2005 through Vice Records."—this is a little clunky, perhaps trying to cram in too much information, or maybe just not presenting that information in the most concise way. Maybe a split would allow it breathe?

There's no pressure from me to incorporate any of these; I'm happy to strike an issue if you disagree; feel free to rebut. (Other sections to follow later.) All the best, Steve T • C 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input; it was a great help. Cheers, weburiedourdramainthegarden 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me as well. Had a couple of tweaks, but nothing major. Rafablu88 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consider the issues above resolved. :-) Nice work, now on to the remaining sections Steve T • C:

Critical reviews
  • "The syncopated forward rhythm found in single "Banquet" was often compared to the work of 1980's New Wave bands and contemporary post-punk revival bands. The song is typical of Silent Alarm's staccato guitar style. It also illustrates Paul Epworth's understated use of electronic studio effects."—as this is bolstering the fair use rationale for the song excerpt, it would be useful if the caption had a citation.
    • Merged the last two sentences and added two refs for the two sentences left... if that makes sense.
  • "Rolling Stone claimed that the album is similar to the debut album from fellow British band Franz Ferdinand."—reviews are generally considered to be featured writers' opinion pieces, unlike editorials, which represent the "official" view of the newspaper. So for reviews, we should always name the writer. However, as Barry Walters has already been named above this point as Rolling Stone's reviewer, it would be redundant to say "Rolling Stone's Barry Walters claimed ..." again—instead, you might get away with simply "Barry Walters claimed ..." or similar.
    • I would think the average reader might be confused by the use of his name alone, but I understand the redundancy thing so I've changed it for now.
  • The same goes for Mojo, though if the writer is unnamed, there's nothing to be done about that one.
    • Unfortunately I don't have a copy of that magazine so it will have to remain unattributed for now.
Lyrics and composition
  • Right, I can understand why you'd want to beat me about the head with a trout for this one, but… "Bloc Party performing "This Modern Love" at Mean Fiddler"—in this construction, "performing" is a gerund, so technically that should use the possessive, i.e. "Bloc Party's performing ..." (you wouldn't say "me performing at Mean Fiddler", but "my performing"). Alternatively, if you think that reads strangely, you could recast the sentence to avoid either.
    • But surely "they are performing" is implied there? Or even consider that it is a sentence fragment (for instance, a photo of me might say "Me posing for a photo" or perhaps with a comma after "me", whichever works)? Argh, I'll use a cod and rewrite the sentence.
  • "... is said to be about the band members' anger at ..."—begs the question, said by whom?
    • Imran Ahmed, the NME reviewer. His name is mentioned in the section above and attributed to NME so I've put his name solely there.
  • " ...about being a romantic human being"—would it lose any of the intended meaning to say "about being a romantic"? I would think that "human being" is implicit.
  • "Second single 'Banquet' is ..."—someone more learned than I might be able to clarify this, but I suspect that we need the definite article at the beginning of that ("The second single, 'Banquet', is ...") Similarly, "Third single 'Pioneers'".
    • I'm not so sure... it reads well both ways to me, and the way it is now is more concise. If it is really bugging you I'll happy fix it on second asking.
  • " ... a friend of Okereke's who used to take medication after suffering from schizophrenia."—wouldn't his friend be taking medication while, not after? Also, I believe there's a preference among the WP:MED crowd to avoid the use of "sufferers" and similar from articles about mental disorders, so I guess that proscription would apply here too.
    • I'm sure it should be during. I've gone for about a friend of Okereke's who used to take medication to relieve his schizophrenia.
  • "lyrics ... makes use of".
Awards and nominations
  • "on its alphabetical shortlist of the best albums of 2005."—I can see the logic of saying "alphabetical" when a position is given, but as we don't, there's probably no need for it.
    • Fair enough, removed.
      • Added "unnumbered" cos it wouldn't make sense to include URB if they just listed it where other ones have it at number 1. In their list, all are number 1 (although BP got on the cover with M.I.A. and the others didn't.) Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let this lists of issues put you off; I'm a picky bugger. This is a well-written article which should have few problems getting through. All I'll say in addition to the above specifics is that there is a very slight tendency towards wordiness that could be streamlined to make for more concise prose. Consider where a subject is clear, and remove accordingly. Random examples: "a sudden change of pace from the first four tracks on the album"—the last three words are unnecessary, as it's implicit that we're talking about the album through both the article subject and the use of "the first four tracks"; "includes additional studio effects and a removal of the original version's 'tinny' sound."—"and removes the" uses fewer words and is more logical than saying "includes ... a removal of"; "is a slower affair"—"is slower"; "on four different continents"; "The record itself won". As I say, minor stuff, but it's certainly worth giving the article the once over with this in mind; this guide is a primer in removing redundant language that I've found very useful in the past. Steve T • C 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to go about that for you - I'm not a copyeditor by trade and I'm pretty bad at pointing out these kind of issues in text, but I'm more than willing to have a shot with that essay as a guide. Thanks again for the brilliant input. weburiedourdramainthegarden 11:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks and had a few minor tweaks. If and when you write your verdict, please weigh in with a sentence on the sources left at editors' discretion. Rafablu88 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. I didn't look at the prose, but the FreeWilliamsburg source is a deal-breaker right now. You've provided proof that a couple news outlets have mentioned it in passing, but part of the reliable source requirement is that it be considered authoritative. You'll need to provide examples of established, reliable sources calling FreeWilliamsburg authoritative. I'm on the fence about Drowned in Sound. --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I don't understand how you can be on the fence on Drowned in Sound. There's a wide editorial consensus here about its suitability. It's been cited by Reuters, The Guardian, and The Independent did a major feature on its editor, history, and day-to-day running. It formed a partnership with BSkyB, which was later mutually rescinded and has been the recipient of awards and nominations in the UK and even in the U.S. at the PLUG Awards. All of this was discussed above in Ealdgyth's section. The criteria here have been more than fulfilled. Rafablu88 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for FREEWilliamsburg: "Are some of them the highest quality music sources? No. Are they the highest quality available for this topic? I would say yes. The only two that remain somewhat questionable to me are Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, but they are not supporting anything controversial, just interviews." - Laserbrain 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC). I don't see the difference between Click Music and Subba Cultcha and FREEWilliamsburg. In fact, I only showed "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight" for Click Music and Subba Cultcha with no mentions of "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source or that the author is a noted expert in their field". FREEWilliamsburg has these, admittedly in passing, so the question is: why is FREEWilliamsburg less reliable than your verdict on Click Music and Subba Cultcha when it has third-party mentions on top of its detailed editorial info section? Rafablu88 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I defer to Laser brain's expertise regarding sources. If the above is resolved, as well as my nitpicks, I'll support.

  • "The record peaked at number three on both the UK Albums Chart and the Irish Albums Chart."
    • DONE
  • "style moulded around alternative rock bands" "moulded on" is more idiomatic, I think. Alternatively, you could used "revolved around" or "based off".
    • DONE
  • "the band were playing in" "were"-->was (British English doesn't apply here since this is a common noun)
    • It does I'm afraid. Have a look at these: [8], [9], [10]. "The band were" is just the way it's always been over here. It's been treated as plural since forever, my guess is since Robin Hood. I've seen tons of discussions on WP about it and the Brits always use "were".Rafablu88 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny you should mention this, because there was an extended discussion about singular vs. plural in a similar situation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luton Town F.C./archive1. See the comment by Malleus Fatuorum. Input from Laser brain and Steve is welcomed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, Luton Town FC (the entity) uses "is/was" and Luton (the players) uses "are/were". I'm still not sure they've got that discussion right either. Clubs are always plural in media here. BrEng and all British sources use it for bands too, even when referring to the entity ("Bloc Party are/were"). I know it sounds off to you, but it's the received way here. Rafablu88 23:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Bloc Party" plural from BBC: [11], [12]. "The band" plural from BBC: [13], [14]. Rafablu88 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely it's common sense that if "Bloc Party" is plural, using the word "band" instead makes the use of "band" also plural? weburiedourdramainthegarden 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't let generations of illiterate British sports journalists mislead you. :-) In BrE, it's supposed to depend on usage—whether the emphasis is on the group as a whole or the individuals within the group. For example, you would say, "Manchester United are the champions," but it's proper to follow that with, "The club plays its home games at Old Trafford." Of course, this doesn't help you one jot, as now it needs to be decided which category "the band" falls into. :-) Steve T • C 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ← Right, so the basic issue here is whether we want to use The band [they] performed or The band [it] performed? I don't suppose it would simplify anything by using band members instead, as that would introduce redundancy. Argh. weburiedourdramainthegarden 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including one at BBC Radio 1 where "She's Hearing Voices" was labelled "genius" by DJ Steve Lamacq."
    • DONE
  • "fifteen tracks in 22 days" Comparative quantities should be spelled the same, and numbers over 10 should be written in numeral form.
    • DONE
  • "universally-appealing " -ly adverbs don't need hyphens.
    • DONE
  • "Okereke agreed and explained that they try to make clear an existential pointlessness in life." This is a bit ambiguous. Is that there general approach to life, or the goal of the album?
    • DONE
  • "It went on to be certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry after more than 500,000 copies were sold in the UK."-->It was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry after more than 500,000 copies were sold in the UK.
    • DONE
  • "Over one million copies" "More than" is better, but that's personal preference.
  • "All of these positive comments were encapsulated "
    • DONE
  • "wonderfully tight and energetic&emdash;the same kind of spiffy half-dancing rock" A syntax error, I think.
    • DONE, big dash is in quote
  • "deals with intimate relationships" "concerns" is slightly more encyclopedic than "deals with".
    • DONE
  • "The band played their first ever dates in " "dates" make me think of candlelight dinners, but perhaps that's just a AmEng thing.
  • "but lost out to"
    • DONE
  • Sentence fragments shouldn't have periods at the end. Example "track 15 on the UK re-release."
    • DONE

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My concerns listed above have either been tackled or successfully rebutted. The prose is better than it was a couple of weeks ago; special attention has been given to removing redundant words and phrases, and I'm happy with the results. Images comply with policy, and the song excerpt appears to have a strong rationale for inclusion. On the sources: a couple of reviewers were on the fence about Drowned in Sound and FreeWilliamsburg.com. Hopefully the discussions above have allayed those concerns; they might not be ideal in all circumstances, but I think they pass muster for use here. Nice work, Steve T • C 07:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you and Dabomb87, especially for giving us pointers when no-one else was bothering to do so. The discussions weren't dull either. ;) Hopefully, there's enough consensus and rebuttals now to make an FA decision. I highly doubt the article can be improved any further. Rafablu88 08:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I second the thanks there - very useful advice that has no doubt improved the article further. I was perhaps expecting a bit more opposition - perhaps just my last experience of FAC was a lot more busy. But sincere thanks also to Ealdgyth - always nice to know the sources are being scrutinised as well as the prose!  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The caption for the audio sample is difficult to read. Perhaps abbreviate it or would it be possible to resize the audio sample box? Otherwise, good article. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which way, the fact that it is long or the fact that the font is small?  GARDEN  says no to drama 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't fully understand the comment either. If it's about the length of the caption, then it's needed to solidify the free-use aspect. If it's about the citations, then we were told to put them to further solidify the free-use aspect. If it's about the layout, design, and font, then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do as that's how WP renders audio samples and captions. Rafablu88 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: media used are appropriately licensed or qualify for fair use with the rationales provided. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (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/Silent_Alarm/archive1&oldid=1088821876"