Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Final Cut (album)/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 SandyGeorgia 17:50, 26 November 2009 [1].

The Final Cut (album) edit

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The Final Cut is possibly the most disliked Floyd album of all, however its an important part of the history of Pink Floyd, and a good look into the mind of Roger Waters. I've pulled together all the sources I have and attempted to write a neutral and engaging article. There isn't much kicking around regarding the technical aspects, but hopefully people will still find it interesting enough. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Comments [reply]

  • Link Roger Waters in the first sentence and not the second paragraph. Also, in the second paragraph, he can simple by "Waters", his last name.
  • Remove the comma in the second sentence (I think).
  • Link soundtrack album in the "Background" section.
  • The Wall is already linked in the lead.
  • "however ultimately…" sounds odd. I would take out "however".
  • "Storyline" in the section header should be lowercase.
  • Waters' father is talked about in "Background". Why is he first linked in "Concept and Storyline"?
  • Concept album is already linked in the lead.
  • "…disconnected from his wife, and is haunted" no comma is needed. Also, I think the dash later in the sentence should be a comma. Up to you though.
  • The Wall is linked again.
  • Remove the comma in "…further in "The Hero's Return", as a simple sense of alienation that the veteran feels towards…" Also, take out "simple" and "that".
  • Should "Compact Disc" be capitalized?

After these issue are fixed, I'll have nothing against supporting (assuming no one else finds major issues). Great work! Mm40 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks - all done apart from Compact Disc - see that article's naming convention. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm supporting, thanks for the quick reply. Mm40 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Yes, the least liked Floyd album indeed. And this is reflected in the paucity of verifiable information. The world seems to prefer to ignore this album, which is a pity. I think an excellent job has been done here in collecting what has been published and producing an engaging article. BTW, the readers might wish to know that the holophonics only work when using headphones, and I was under the impression that Gilmour asked for his production credit to be withdrawn. Thanks for putting this together, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

How does it look now? I don't think it will be possible to get the name of the sailor. I can replace the image with another Falklands photograph if required. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image needs a fair use rationale since it is not PD in the US. I was hoping that the additional information would indicate how this is PD in the US, but it doesn't. All images hosted on the English Wikipedia have to be PD in the US. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the image. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the new image here so that I can check it out? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here Parrot of Doom 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained further. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As the introductory song, it sets the tone for the rest of the album, and is probably the best illustration of the type of music used throughout the album." - Can you explain what type of music this is? What is it that the listener is listening for? Also, the copyright holders still need to be added. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The type of music is explained in the concept and storyline section - angst-ridden, dominated by Waters lyrics, and very different to anything that Pink Floyd had released previously. Would you prefer such text added to the file description? I've added the copyright owner. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should be added to the file description. 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Done Parrot of Doom 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this oppose once these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

Dabs ans links fine.

Other comments

  • The article is incomplete as it lacks a Critical reception section.
    • I renamed the 'release' section, but it does contain several reviews. I've added part of Robert Christgau's review in there as well. Parrot of Doom 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still needs more depth I feel. Separate it into Critical and Commercial paragraphs and cite a wide range of critical POVs on top of what you have already put there. RB88 (T) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There isn't really much more to write. I've offered reviews that are supportive, negative, and one that could reasonably be said to be 'medium'. Unlike some other Floyd albums, not much has been written about this album, and I don't think the reader would gain any extra insight with more reviewers basically saying the same things. I'd like to find something that says "x voted TFC to be the worst Floyd album ever" but haven't yet succeeded. Parrot of Doom 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have a read of the Drowned in Sound review. It mentions that Q included it in its list of the most depressing albums ever. RB88 (T) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for that. Q once responded to my request for information, I'll consider sending them an email about that tomorrow. Their website isn't that great. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not summarise the contents of the whole article. Go through every section and make sure it's being summarised in the lead. A quick glance tells me that it needs more on Concept and Release, as well as Critical reception when that section has been written.
    • I've expanded the lead. Have a read now, see what you think. Parrot of Doom 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From sorting out the lead, I believe the article may need an independent copyedit if the style of writing is the same throughout. Unfortunately these days my time is limited or I would have done it myself.

RB88 (T) 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—

  • Gold and platinum status implies copies shipped, not copies sold, as implied in the Reception section.
  • A "Thorgerson" appears out of nowhere. The Packaging section can be split into two paragraphs.
  • More context is need regarding Richard Wright too. Why did he leave the band? If this is the only Floyd album without him, isn't that an essential part of The Final Cut' story?
  • "The concept was partly inspired by the rise of Margaret Thatcher, and also by Britain's involvement in the Falklands Conflict." - you've already stated this in the previous paragraph. Also: overlinking.
  • "began writing new material for what was to be the final Pink Floyd album which featured both Waters and Gilmour" - reads as though it was intended for it to be the final album to feature the two. I don't see that needs mentioning at all actually. In any case, why both W and G; isn't this just the last W was in?
  • The 2002 re-release's tracklisting is almost identical to original. I recommend replacing it with "The 2002 re-release of the album featured the extra track "When the Tigers Broke Free" between "____" and "_______", and has slightly different track lengths.
    • That's why its hidden by default. I don't want people continually changing timings, as they do on other Floyd albums. Its a pain in the arse, and since the album was released first on vinyl, some people might be interested to know how the timings vary between that and CD. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Legacy' section devotes far too much text to the members' solo careers. I think everything in that first paragraph—bar the first sentence—is irrelevant to The Final Cut; I suggest removing it wholesale. The same applies to the sentence about When the Wind Blows and Radio K.A.O.S. I also suggest renaming the section more accurately to "Aftermath and legacy".
    • Respectfully, I disagree. About Face contains songs which are relevant to Gilmour's relationship with Waters, which were no doubt influenced by events during the production of The Final Cut. Pros and Cons was something that Waters had held onto since before The Wall - the album is quite similar in style to The Final Cut (although I think its a hateful album, TFC is much better). I agree about the Richard Wright stuff though, so that can go as he played no part in The Final Cut. Mason's stuff is only ten words long, and not worth deleting IMO. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really relevant to this FAC but a large number of those song articles should be redirected to this article per WP:NSONGS.
  • No. 1, No. 11 should be "number one" and "number 11".
    • What rationale do you use for this? Some FA music articles (Frank Zappa for instance) use #1. Others, like the two Floyd albums already at FA, use No.1. I'm reasonably sure that someone told me to do it this way in a previous FAC. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, they're wrong and indopug is right. See WP:MOSNUM. Also other articles using something does not make that thing right. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for arguments to avoid. RB88 (T) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't see anything in that guideline, or indeed anywhere, that suggests not using No.1 etc. I'd have to ask - what is lost by using such a system of numbering? I'll also add that this usage reflects that used in the source. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • MOSNUM has "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals". I'm sure another MOS guideline discourages the use of abbreviations like "No." for "number". That's my rationale.—indopug (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I see your point, but I don't think that anything is lost by numbering in this fashion, especially where chart positions are concerned. I'll leave them be, but it isn't really a big deal for me. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you use "Falklands Conflict" when the article is named"Falklands War"?
    • Because its known as either, and because neither country declared war on the other. Personally I think the article may be incorrectly named. I know WP tends to go for the name that is most commonly used, but I do wonder how such figures were derived, since the British government calls it a conflict. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "invasion of the islands" - I doubt Argentinians would call it an invasion. Is there a more neutral way to put it?—indopug (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Argentinians invaded sovereign British territory. Nobody doubts that. I think rewording would be POV-pushing (I'm not suggesting this is your POV btw) Parrot of Doom 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Karanacs. I've never listened to this album, and I know almost zilch about Pink Floyd. Because of that, I felt like a few places in the article didn't have quite enough context for me to fully understand what was going on.

  • Michael Kamen ..." and also performed the role traditionally occupied by the now absent Richard Wright. " - I don't know what role that is.
  • "Mason was helped by Ray Cooper, and replaced by Andy Newmark on "Two Suns in the Sunset" when the former was unable to perform the complex timing changes required of him" - I'm not sure whether Newmark replaced Cooper or Mason
  • "Baker Street's Raphael Ravenscroft was hired to play the saxophone (most previous Floyd albums tend to make repeated use of particular musicians)." - is this trying to say that Ravenscroft had previously worked on a Floyd album? I'm confused. I also don't know what Baker Street has to do with this (the link points to the actual London street)
    • Fixed. Dick Parry had played sax on their previous work but this sentence was designed to show that his services had been dispensed with. I can't really reword it without going into great detail. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any background to the "I Must Not Fuck Sheep" writing? That is weird.
    • Presumably it was related to Animals, but the sources don't elaborate. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Final Cut the second of Floyd's albums to use the Holophonic stuff or the second album overall? I wasn't sure in reading
  • I don't feel like I have enough background to understand this but as with The Wall Storm Thorgerson was passed over for the cover design' -- Why would Thorgerson have been considered and why was he passed over?
    • I added a line that attempts to explain this. Basically Waters became pissed off at Thorgerson when the latter published a book hinting that the cover of Animals was his design (it was Waters' idea). This happened between Animals and The Wall however, and doesn't deserve mention here. Thorgerson was reemployed on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell, so its there for continuity for the reader who is working his way through the albums. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tells us that the second photo was identical to the Not Now John single, but we aren't told what that is
  • We may need more information on who Alan Parker is and why Waters had a tumultuous relationship with him

Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've added a link to explain this, but the linked article doesn't say much. Basically Waters went away and came back to find that Parker had shot the film in his own way. The photograph with the canister and the knife is probably Waters saying "fuck you, Parker". He's done similar things a few times (see Amused to Death). I can't add more here as it isn't really that relevant to the album, just the photograph. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for being so late to return. I've stricken most of my comments. Please check the article as I made some small copyedits to the additions. I also added information to the Storm Thorgerson sentence to help that fit better into the flow. I'd still prefer to see another sentence briefly detailing why he was passed over, but it's okay without. As for Alan Parker, I think a little more background could be useful. It would also be nice to see the connection between this and the other times that Waters did something similar (you mentioned Amused to Death)....this helps to put this album in context with the other albums. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made a minor grammatical change to your revisions but otherwise they're fine. I think its better to keep focus and keep mention of why he wasn't there on The Wall, although I can put a NB in the footnotes if you like? The Parker relationship has been expanded upon slightly, but again that's best left explained on another article (unfortunately The Wall (film) is pretty poor. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is a case of me being so totally unfamiliar with Pink Floyd that I'm having to click lots of links just to bring myself up to speed. That makes me prefer to have a lot more background in this article; you (and I suspect many of the readers) will likely have a level of familiarity with some of the facts that I just don't. It's definitely a judgement call. I think the article is pretty good overall but I probably won't make a definitive declaration. Thank you for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which bits don't you understand? I'm happy to clarify things, but stuff like Waters' relationship with Parker isn't that relevant to the article, its probably just a minor dig. Waters has done things like this on other albums, for instance on Amused to Death one line says "every man has his price Bob, and yours was pretty low" - a reference to Ezrin working for Pink Floyd, rather than on Waters' new solo album. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments General stuff and a few things keeping me from a support.

  • I don't see the point in hiding the 2004 reissue tracklist. I've seen FA album articles with longer tracklist sections that don't use the "hide" function. Let it alllllll hang out; it's also less confusing because at first glance I though there was only the header and the section was missing.
    • I'm not a big fan of tables - its so similar, my view is that its better hidden. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, that's a moot point – hiding the tracklist causes accessibility problems, so I have uncollpased it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Remove the second tracklist completely, I tells ye . . . A note should suffice. —indopug (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last to feature bassist, main vocalist, and primary composer Roger Waters". As this is the lead section, you don't have to be so specific (it's kind of cumbersome). Can you trim it a bit?
    • Its quite important to include this text. The album is dominated by Waters, the other members had little input. DSotM and WYWH have fairly positive leads, but the leads for Animals and The Wall highlight the increasingly bad relationships within the band. I think its important to highlight in the lead just how dominant Waters had become by this point, especially as (when I get around to it) on a Momentary Lapse the band had undergone massive changes. I think for most people, this album is of interest because of what was happening within the band - and not necessarily the music, which is a bit Marmite for most. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is you have too many descriptors, particularly for a lead section. It's awkward. Wait to pile on the slew of descriptors until the article body.WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the only Pink Floyd record on which he is credited for the writing and composition of every song". Is this a particularly notable fact worth indicating in the lead (ie. do a bunch of secondary sources make a big deal about it)?
    • See above - yes. On previous albums writing and composition was a group effort. No longer. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But do secondary sources make a big deal about it? Because otherwise it's trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, its mentioned often, and not trivial. Take a look at the credits for DSotM, and compare to this. Its a good indicator of Waters' then dominance of the band's output. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When referring to other albums, always indicate the year of release upon first mention, ie. "The Wall (1980)".
    • Argh, I'm being negative again - none of the other album articles follow this line of thought. The article does however make it very clear that The Wall was their previous album. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are required to include the date for context per album article guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use "easter egg" links. They are unhelpful to general readers. In the Background section you mention "his father". Mention Eric Fletcher Waters by name in the prose, with a full wikilink. Same with Falklands Conflict. The page is Falklands War, so that's what you should be referring to it as, unless a secondary source names it otherwise.
    • Done. I've named the Falklands Conflict as such because that's the title that is used officially in the UK. I believe the Falklands War article is probably incorrectly named. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clip of "The Post War Dream" needs a stronger description in the soundclip box in order to justify fair use. Right now it's not really making the case for including that particular clip. See In Utero for an example on how to do this.
    • I'm not sure I follow. The file fair use rationale offers a fairly significant reason for its use. If you're talking about the text in the actual file as it appears within the article, I'm not aware of any requirement to describe a reason for fair use? Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the box says is that the lyrics are depressing. When including a music clip, you need to describe the music. Focus on instrumentation and composition. Otherwise you could just as well quote the lyrics to get the exact same point across, and that means that you don't need a fair use audio clip. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing really to do with this article, but does every song need its own page? Make sure each page fulfills the notability guidelines. You might want to perform some redirecting and mergers in the future.
  • Given the film section is so small, maybe you can merge it with the legacy section.
    • It wouldn't really fit - the legacy section is more concerned with interpersonal relationships. I looked at making it a smaller heading in the release section, but it'd probably stick out a little in the contents box. Its a short article anyway, so I'm not sure anything is gained by losing a heading. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Legacy" is an intentionally broad title (I should know, I'm the one who came up with the idea for such sections in music pages). You can cover both the film and the inter-band fallout under that scope. The thing is you should avoid short, one paragraph sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I think we'll have to disagree on this one, I don't think that anything from the 'film' (really its more of a long music video) fits in a legacy section. The album's legacy is that it was pretty much the end of the classic Floyd lineup (even though Wright had left a few years back). I know what you mean about short sections, I've had long battles on other articles to try and stop people from removing things from prose and creating sections, like a dictionary, but in this instance I'm happy that it works. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It occured to me that it would be most logical in the "release" section, since it's pretty much part of the album promotion. How about that? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chart numbering should be "number one", not "No.1". All numbers less than 10 must be written out.
    • There are conflicting views on this (see Frank Zappa). The other Pink Floyd album articles use the same numbering system as seen here. I don't believe anything is lost, or anyone is confused, by using this numbering system. Sometimes, when looking at the MOS, I also remember WP:IGNORE. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to explain what Gold and Platinum status equal, because not everyone knows what those words mean, and each nation has its own thresholds for certification.
    • I clarified the link. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you clarify in the prose? What I meant was say something like "certified Platinum (one million copies shipped)". Most people don't understand certification jargon, and as I said before, each country has its own levels for each term (ie. in the US Platinum means 1 million copies shipped, but in the UK one million copies equals several times Platinum). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote box quote of Gilmour seems more appropriate for the Legacy section.
    • The box is alongside Gilmour's comments on the album being 'weak' Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • His comments in the section are so brief you're probably better off working it into prose than having it as a quote box. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm. I've given this some thought. Most people tend to think that Gilmour and Mason hate The Final Cut, and indeed some of their later comments would seem to back this up. However I think that a short quote from Gilmour, of all people, in this place, is a good way of catching the eye. The casual reader might not see such a comment in the prose. I think it works quite well out there, and I'm happy for it to remain. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more context could be used in places; don't forget you're writing for a general audience. Example: instead of "used it to express his feelings on a range of topics, from the murder of John Lennon," say "used it to express his feelings on a range of topics, from the murder of musician John Lennon". You and I know who Lennon is, but not everyone reading this page will, despite him being bigger than Jesus (yes, that's a joke). same this with Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister), Shakespeare (playwright), etc.
    • Lennon and Thatcher are both linked, as is Shakespeare. I'm not sure anything is gained by prefixing the names - anyone who doesn't know who Shakespeare or Thatcher were, may also not know what an 16th-century author or a Prime Minister is. They can click the link and find out in seconds. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linking is not enough. You need to give sufficient context so people don't have to keep reading other pages. This is essential to crafting clear, effective prose for general audiences. Again, not everyone knows who Margaret Thatcher is, particularly if they are not British, and you can't expect them to when reading about a Pink Floyd album. It would be like me writing "Nirvana wrote a song about Zachary Taylor" in an article. Insufficient context throws the reader out of the article. Saying "then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" is enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The year Waters announced his departure would be useful.
  • The second and third paragraphs in the legacy section should be merged.
  • The Notes section with record catalogue numbers is unnecessary. You don't need it to verify anything, and I see it only of interest to hardcore Pink Floyd fans.
  • "The label on both sides of the single listed the tracks as taken from the forthcoming Final Cut album; however, neither song was included." This could use some secondary source context, if any is available.
    • Its pretty self-evident really, and not a particularly contentious thing to mention. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's self-evident, but without secondary sources stating that it's important, it's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps, but I'm inclined to suspect that their exclusion related to the fighting between Waters and Gilmour over the re-using of 'old stuff' - Gilmour felt very strongly that the tracks rejected from The Wall weren't good enough for a new album. While I don't recall any of the sources used making an explicit point about this, I don't think its trivial, and people can presume of it what they like. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Without secondary source documentation, I don't think it's worth noting in the prose that the songs didn't appear on the album. However, an explanatory footnote might be suitable. It still would be preferable if you could find out why exactly they didn't appear on the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed there's not more on the music itself (for an expansive Music section in an album article, see Loveless (album)). However, I understand if secondary sources on the topic are scarce, and that won't be held against you (can't source it if it doesn't exist). Still, the more you can add about that, the better. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything that can be included, has been. Not many people like this album, and therefore not many write about it. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Would someone please step back through the diffs and tell me to whom this oppose and the next two sections belong? There are no sigs attached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Martin Raybourne. His sig is three comments down. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section does not mention anything about critical reception or sales.
    • Speaking of which, it seems shory on the reception--just three critics are mentioned, and no source that says it received mixed reviews. This appears to be a major hole in coverage. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Despite its success, the album received mixed reviews. Melody Maker declared it to be "… a milestone in the history of awfulness …", but Rolling Stone's Kurt Loder viewed it as "… essentially a Roger Waters solo album … a superlative achievement on several levels."[7][17] Robert Christgau wrote "… it's a comfort to encounter antiwar rock that has the weight of years of self-pity behind it …" and awarded the album a C+ rating.[10]" - I'm not certain how those three reviews could be described as anything other than mixed? Parrot of Doom 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think critical reception is dealt with sufficiently in the lead. As for the article body, if a secondary source summarizes critical consensus, then you don't need to quote from more than a few reviews. So if one of the books or articles you're citing says "The Final Cut was praised/despised/divided critics" that will do just fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think its at all contentious to state that this album received mixed reviews; I've provided three, from "hate it", to "love it", to "yeah its ok". There are further examples in the infobox. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." (WP:SYNTH) I believe that is what you are doing—you have provided three sources, but you are then suggesting that they are indicative of a overall consensus. I do not think that would work even if you had more reviews. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is a range of reviews, which each contain different opinions about the album. It isn't synthesis to say that this means that that range of reviews is mixed, its simple fact. Anyway, I've backed up with an easy reference from Blake here. Parrot of Doom 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I simply do not think that this article passes comprehensiveness critera; we should have a greater variety of contemporary critical opinion. Secondly, what is the point of mentioning a bunch of reviews in passing in the infobox if they are never used? Considering the gap in time since its release I think you could craft a paragraph on its current status beyond what is the legacy. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Acutally, if one of the sources cited surveyed all the critical reviews in the process of conducting research (as books typically do), then it does meet the comprehensiveness criteria. It just means a secondary source, not the wiki editor, did the research, which is always preferrable. the reason many album articles have to quote several reviews is because there are no overarching books or articles that cover the subject as a whole. The great thing about secondary sources like book is they can do in-depth research on a subject and as a result make declarative statements. That's the best way to avoid synthesis. I am personally satisfied that critical consensus is covered in a satisfactory manner. Do I wish there was more material? Yeah, but that really relies on the sources available, and as Parrot fo Doom has said, this isn't the most-documented Pink Floyd album. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
NME review. Needs a subscription to Rock's Back Pages though.
Also, I think you can be far more generous in quoting the reviews; right now only two sentences are devoted to three reviews. I noticed that the Legacy should include information from more recent reviews—Allmusic, Blender, Pitchfork—that will give an impression of how the album is thought of today. In particular, they all seem to agree that a) it is a Waters solo record (already in the article) and b) it is difficult listening for casual fans.
I've added three reviews to the legacy section, so that readers can gain an appreciation of how the album is seen today. The original reviews were all from the day, which I believe is the correct way of doing things. I'm not a fan of quoting large sections of reviews, it somehow seems like plagiarism to me, but hopefully these additions should go some way to addressing your point. Parrot of Doom 10:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reviews in the infobox, why do their references list the website url as the source? allmusic.com should be Allmusic, and so on.
Every single article I've ever worked on uses urls as the source. The url is the source. If its a magazine or a book, then the magazine or book name would be the source. I didn't find the reviews in magazines or books, I found them online, this is the best way I find to state such things. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split Packaging into two paragraphs.
Done Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Final Cut used sound effects combined with advances and innovations in audio recording technology"—a little grammatically illogical. You can use a sound effect on an album, but would you use an advance in technology in the same way?
You can use an advance in technology to present that sound effect, as they did with Holophonics. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"designers of most of Pink Floyd's previous artwork...designer of most of the band's previous album covers" - repetitive wording. (I think you'd do good by rewriting that entire first sentence of Packaging)
Done Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in 1983 a short film based on a selection of the album's songs named The Final Cut was produced"—ambiguous. The selection of songs was not named The Final Cut. I think "based on a selection of the album's songs" can be removed entirely as the next sentences says it again.
Done Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"With sales in the US of over 1,000,000 units"—not sales, shipments.
Done Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delink the songs in the second tracklist.—indopug (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments A few more comments that should be address, and then I'll be glad to give my support.

The line "Kamen, a classically trained pianist who played the harmonium, also conducted the National Philharmonic Orchestra." seems irrelevant to this article. If you want to keep it for context in the article, move it arouns a bit so we know Kamen is a conductor first.
This line has been changed a few times and has become a little messy. I've changed it to this, as there isn't really such a thing as a "keyboard for the album". Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I missed the bit you were highlighting. Done Parrot of Doom 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Alex McAvoy stars in the film, reprising his role as the abusive schoolteacher from The Wall. However, unlike in both The Wall and the Final Cut, the schoolteacher is shown in a contemporary 1983 setting, as his son is shown to be fighting in the Falklands Conflict." Could use some reference, more for the second sentence than the first.
The only reference for that is the video itself. I could insert a citation to that effect, if you like (most likely from here but with text explaining how to find the link - but the real citation is almost implicit in the text. The closest published citation I could use is from Schaffner 1991, p244, but that only confirms that McAvoy performed the role in the video. Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim it do to what Schaffner can verify and that should be fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom 11:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A remastered version was made available in 2007 as part of the Oh, by the Way boxed set. It was packaged in a mini-replica of the original gatefold LP sleeve. "When the Tigers Broke Free" was also included in this version." Could use a cite, just to indicate third party documentation. Shouldn't be too hard to find one.
As above - I could find a link or similar if preferred? Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find a news source, like the NME or Billboard websites. They typically feature short news blurbs on releases like this. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to do this. Plenty of sources mention the release of the box set and The Final Cut 's inclusion, none mention (not even on Newsbank, which covers newspapers around the world) "When the Tigers Broke Free", so I'll have to remove that part of the sentence. Would that be ok with you? Parrot of Doom 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. you can always keep an eye out for any more indepth third party sources that mention it. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom 11:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The catalogue number are unnecessary and I really feel the standard "number ___" formatting of chart positions in prose would be much clearer ("No. __" isn't intuitive). While I'm more accomodating on that issue, you really need to format all numbers under ten 10 as words. You invoked WP:IGNORE above, but you didn't indicate a rational as to why it's necessary not to follow the Manual of Style in that instance. Usually a solid rationale for ignoring that is that you are dealing with a series of numbers above and below ten in a sentence, so you format them all in one style for consistency. But I don't see that here.
I don't feel that the catalogue numbers are either necessary or unnecessary, but they don't cause any interruption in the text, and could be useful to collectors and aficionados - and besides that, all the other Floyd albums use these numbers (well at least the album articles I've worked on). I suppose there may be a case one day for moving them all over to the Pink Floyd discography article, but that isn't even on the horizon for me at the moment, I have too many other things to work on. As several people have now commented on the chart positions thing, I'll bow to consensus and change all the articles to reflect that style. Parrot of Doom 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"could be useful to collectors and aficionados". Sure, it's interesting to hardcore Pink Floyd fans, but we cater to a general audience. Unless there is something worth commenting about regarding these numbers, they are unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to disagree on this one then, but would you be prepared to accept that at some point, these numbers may well make their way into the PF Discography article, and hence are worth keeping for now? Not only that, but DSotM and WYWH include such details (both FA), and for the sake of consistency across articles... I haven't yet finished work on all the Pink Floyd articles, but hopefully you can see that I've been pretty committed to improving all of the most notable articles, across the board. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other Pink Floyd album FAs feature the numbers isn't indicitive of much; if I had been present for those FACs I would've said they should have been removed as well. Consistency between articles is trumped by the question of are they actually useful, and they really aren't to most people. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Address those items and I'll fully support the article for FA status. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I can't honestly think of how else to improve the article. Yes I am happy with how Waters is discussed in the lead (given his role in the band). Anyways, happy to see the numbers discussed left in - they don't bother me either way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is clear some great work went into this article. :) In particular, I like the subsections Release and reception and Legacy, nice job. I note two redlinks, Mayfair Studios and Audio International - totally does not change my support, but it would be nice to see new articles on these topics at some point. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only outstanding concern is the catalogue numbers, but aside from that I'm happy to support this well-crafted article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is OK. I've fixed some overlinking; why are the pics tiny and the captions as tall as skyscrapers? Fixing now. PS the pic of poppies is pretty, but is it not a stretch? "Poppies are a recurring theme on the album's artwork" ... err. Tony (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 26 November 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/The_Final_Cut_(album)/archive1&oldid=1138473120"