Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tool (band)

< 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 04:32, 7 December 2007.

Tool (band)

edit

previous FAC

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Issues addressed during previous nom. ♫ Cricket02 07:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article fails featured article criteria 1(a) and 4. Prose is substandard throughout and not brilliant or of a professional standard (1(a)). Lead section is weak and does an inadequate job summarizing the subject's history; and isn't engaging so as to invite the a read of the whole article (4 and 1(a)). Please see the old nomination for a more comprehensive view of my opposition. Grim 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowing that this is not obligatory for any objecting reviewer, I renew my invitation to present constructive proposals regarding 1a and to help this article reach your FA standards in that respect. I hope it's self-explanatory that this would be a lot more helpful than pointing out how to satisfy 1a —I appreciate your good intentions, sadly I knew that one already— since your objections regarding 1a remained unspecific. Also, I renewed my request at the LoCE, after their members only copyedited the lead. Johnnyw talk 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted an alternate take at the lead at the article's talk page in the meanwhile, as of yet without any comments. Greetings, Johnnyw talk 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Cricket02. I don't see any problems with it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written. References are excellent. Can't see any serious problems. (Ibaranoff24 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak support. Johnny – yes, the prose could be improved, and then this could be one of our model articles for a band. Who has copy-edited in this topic already? Research the edit summaries on the edit-history pages of related FAs to locate the right people. Pity Deckiller isn't around at the moment (he's working and studying, both F/T). Here are a few examples:
    • "They started jamming together but were still on the lookout for a drummer and a bass player." Perhaps smoother as "They started jamming together and were on the lookout for a drummer and a bass player."?
    • "the band fabricated the story that they formed because of—and found their name through—the pseudophilosophy "lachrymology"."—I had to read it three times to get it. Even then, I think you have to hit the link and look at the reference to understand it. Could be just a little more explanatory to be kind to our readers.
    • "It's a wrench. … we are … your tool;" Check MOS for ellipsis spacing and three vs four dots; check logical punctuation in MOS (". not .")
    • "Tool later played several very successful concerts during the Lollapalooza road show and were moved from second to main stage by their manager and the festival's co-founder Ted Gardner." Comma after "show"? Think why ...
    • Can you revisit the fair-use justification text on the info page(s):

I, User:Johnnyw, believe that publishing part of the song in the article named above does fall under fair use since:

it is used for informational purposes only, and adds significantly to the biographical narrative of the artist, as the artist experienced censorship by MTV, and MuchMusic — both cases are documented in the biography.

it is of drastically reduced quality and length, rendering it useless for any commercial use.

I don't think this does it; "educational" is the word, anyway, and it would be bolstered by specific mention of qualities of the lyrics and/or music in the excerpt, preferably in the adjacent main text. Next time, fade out and count the duration from just after the drop in volume: that would have got your "duration" down from 32 to 30 seconds. Tony (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the latest diff. Tell me if the "Prison Sex" bit is too long now. I elaborated a bit to give better context to the censorship story and the music sample. Also, what do you think about reintroducing the "Further reading" section, which I cut to reduce the article size. The sources we listed were quite unique in terms of depth. I'll also give another shot at enlisting the help of some copyeditors to improve the biography's prose. Thanks for your comments! Johnnyw talk 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I gave this article another thorough read-through and found nothing worth opposing.

One thing to fix: Meanwhile, the packaging of 10,000 Days gained Tool the distinction of "Best Recording Package" -- this is brought up without mentioning the stereoscopic lenses and what have you of the package. I'd like to see some quick explanation of why simply by adding to the noun "packaging" -- say something like "stereoscopic art and lenses included in the packing of 10,000 Days..." -- I would add this myself but I'll leave it to you as the main architect of this page to word and integrate it as you see fit.

I began to frame the following as a criticism, but in retrospect, it's simply an editorial perspective that is both interesting, informative, and verifiable, so I'm not going to request that it be changed; I think it's just the fact that it's unusual on Wikipedia that made it stick out at me. There are certain elements (Hicks having people look for his contact lens, the way Matt Pinfield described the video, etc.) that are specific and anecdotal, and not really relevant to the encyclopedic thrust of Tool as a whole. I've reconsidered this criticism and I now instead view these elements as sort of like microcosmic explanations or stories that do, in fact, enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. Actually, it's really a quite sophisticated literary technique. Anyway, it's probably worth mentioning that while (in my opinion) these are certainly acceptable inclusions, other editors might see them as problems for their atypicality.

Anyway, good work, and I hope this incredibly arduous process of getting this article to FA status that you've been engaging in now for months on end finally yields some fruit. Good luck! Dylan (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Yes, I agree with HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) and Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs). Excellent referencing. As a side note, while reading the article I noticed some sub-articles about a couple albums and singles that had some problems and/or could be expanded, I might take a look at that after this FAC is completed. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Well-referenced. No immediate concerns. the_undertow talk 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find questionable about the source? It might be easier to go there. Fact-checking has routinely been done by and credited to the lead singer of Tool, which also lends lyrics and permission to post copyrighted material on the website. If there is a specific concern, we should address it. the_undertow talk 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at the missing publishers as soon as possible, give me one or two days please.
Regarding toolshed.down.net: it is not only the oldest still existing fan-site, but as the_undertow mentioned, partially fact-checked by a band member of the group (the websites main contributor is familiar to the band). The site has been used as a source and mentioned in many publications (ranging from low profile websites to MTV). There is an incomplete list compiled by the site's owner about "t.d.n"s appearance in other media. Johnnyw talk 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue OK, now that Sandy has questioned the appropriateness of this link, may I ask why it's acceptable to put up a reference that has no author? It could be a prank, for all we know. You say that it's credited to the leader of the group, but if that is not explicitly said at that web site, I'm not going to believe it. WP's authority rests significantly on the verifiability of its sources: WP makes being a tertiary source its business, so we specialise in sorting out our references on an evidence-based set of principles. Who is answering the FAQs? Not acceptable, I'm afraid. Any authority is rather diminished by gems such as "End of FAQ. Now go ask her out." Just a conversion, I'm afraid.
  • "Cereal Killer. imdb.com." Ah, no author, so how can we judge its veracity. I'd stay away from that site as a direct reference; sure, use it as a research aid for your article (that's different). Tool Timeline. Rock On The Net.—no author. By contrast, the conversations between two named people are a little more acceptable. Tony (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your referring to the FAQ: the FAQ is credited to the maintainer of toolshed.down.net, where the FAQ is located. The site itself refers to itself as semi-official and claims to be in personal contact to the band (the singer, actually). It is also the oldest fansite and only informational fansite that is listed at the official band website in the further links section ("toolshed.down.net Kabir's thorough and informative fan site"). (Interestingly, it received the highest Google rating, until the WP article claimed the #1 spot. :)
Regarding the other references: I will try to find a replacement for IMDB and probably remove the bit that uses the Timeline.. I'll post the diff as soon as I'm finished. Thanks for your comments. Johnnyw talk 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding things credited: Credits having mentioned James Maynard Keenan in the Credits section is an 'explicit' credit. As far as 'diminished by gems,' your opinion that the authority is diminished by unusual prose and/or humor is as you put it, is unacceptable, I'm afraid. It's not about the formatting, it's about the content. I do however believe IMDb refs can be replaced with something better. the_undertow talk 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the IMDB reference. Johnnyw talk 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the latest diff. I replaced the timeline with the transcription of Circus magazine fact sheet, although it didn't have an explicit author either, I reckoned it would better fit WP:RS. I also fixed a couple of refs and added the publishing website to some online news/mags. Johnnyw talk 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tool_(band)&oldid=1136095095"