Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arular

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 22:19, 11 April 2009 [1].

Arular[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I initially nominated this article for FA a few weeks ago, but apart from Ealdgyth's customary review of sources (all OK) and Truco's regular review of ref formatting (all OK), it attracted no comments whatsoever. I've therefore given it 10 days or so and am renominating, hopefully it will grab people this time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments for now from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) On the whole, I am impressed with the quality of the prose, the pace of the article and its comprehensiveness. I have made few edits to remove a little redundancy and I have some more comments:

  • OK, I'm old, but the use of "beats" sounds odd to me; does it mean rhythms?
  • This sentence seems back-to-front: Punk band The Clash and music from other genres such as Britpop and electroclash, to which she was exposed during her time studying at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, also influenced her work on the album.
  • There are a few examples of over-stylised writing: "prior to" (before), "stated/stating" (said, explained, reported, wrote), "as well as" (and), also" (this is rarely needed).
  • I think "created" artwork is better than "produced" - but this is just a preference I think.
  • Does "clearance of samples" mean copyright issues?
  • Is "independently" better than "self-released"?
  • And how about "received" or "met" instead of "was released to"?

I will keep this page on my watchlist and give my support/oppose later. I would like to see more comments from other editors. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 11:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding support Graham Colm Talk 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs are up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)
  • External links are not up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)
  • There are 5 dead links that need to be fixed/replaced.
    • Gah, bloody Pitchfork, changing domains and binning all their older articles just before this FAC :-S Anyway, I've replaced them all now. Bizarrely, one link (this one) is still coming up as dead on the tool, but if you click on it it works absolutely fine?!?!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) It's pretty good, but there are problems with redundancy that Graham noted above.

  • "Arular is the debut album by British musician M.I.A., released in March 2005"-->Arular is the debut album by British musician M.I.A. that was released in March 2005
    • I would prefer that the restrictive clause be used here, i.e., "debut album by British musician M.I.A. that was released in" instead of "debut album by British musician M.I.A., which was released in"; it's stronger, less wordy and eliminates ambiguity. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to link United States?
  • "The album was mainly written by M.I.A. and recorded by her, using a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine given to her by long-time friend Justine Frischmann."-->The album was mainly written by M.I.A.; she recorded it using a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine given to her by long-time friend Justine Frischmann.
  • "Several collaborators worked on the album"-->Several collaborated on the album
  • "incorporates a variety of styles ranging"-->incorporates a styles that range "ranging" implies variety
  • "While filming a documentary on Elastica's 2001 tour of the United States, however, she was introduced to the Roland MC-505" "however" implies contradiction, but I'm not seeing any.
  • "Musically, the album is influenced by music that " Spot the redundancy.
  • More overlinking: "London"?
  • "Some tracks drew on the soundtracks of Tamil film music which M.I.A. grew up listening to."-->Some tracks drew on the soundtracks of Tamil film music, which M.I.A. listened to while growing up.
  • "vivid, gaudy, lo-fi and deceptively candyfloss." Logical punctuation, quotation mark inside the period.
  • "M.I.A. created all the album's artwork herself" More redundancy.
  • "Arular was initially intended to be released in September 2004"
  • "but the album remained unreleased and at one point it was announced that it had been shelved indefinitely." The passive voice makes the logic here confusing, who made the announcement?
  • Websites, such as Metacritic, shouldn't be italicized in the references. Metacritic shouldn't have a capital "C" either.
  • "Arular was nominated for the Mercury Prize in the UK,[37] and was named as the best album of the year by Stylus,[38] and was number two on The Village Voice's 33rd annual Pazz & Jop poll for the Best Album of 2005." Classic run-on sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good except for the two that I replied to. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done those now as well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: the two concert photos seem fine—appropriately licensed; I fixed the album cover—rationale and size should be fine now; that leaves one concern, the sound clip...

  • File:Galang.ogg: why should this clip be used in the article? The fair use rationale is simply weak, claiming it does not hurt the artist's revenue is an untenable defense for fair use. Why is it being used? The clip's caption in the article does not say so, only that it was their first single. The FUR for this piece of media should state why it cannot be taken away from the album article; what are the qualities of the clip that helps the reader understand more about the album and that words cannot accurately convey? Likewise, the caption for the clip in the article should correlate to the FUR. Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed it. It wasn't me that put it in and I find it hard to argue with your arguments as to why it shouldn't be allowed under Fair Use -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No more concerns with the media in this article. Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose NeutralSupport—1a. Great work so far on the prose. The quality of the prose is alright, but the entire article could use a few touch-up passes. Examples/nitpicks from the first few paras:
    • Is the "2005 in music" in parenthesis really necessary?
    • Redundancy: "it was named one of the best albums of the year by several publications at the end of 2005." Instead of "at the end of 2005", you can replace "the year" with "2005", yielding: "it was named one of the best albums of 2005 by several publications", or something in active voice.
    • Serial comma inconsistency in the lead alone.
    • I'm not sure if "film-making" should be hyphenated.
    • Redundancy: "whose minimalistic approach to music served as a source of inspiration for her" "served as a source of inspiration for her" could be shortened to "inspired her".
    • "To this end she approached Caribbean girls in clubs, enquiring if they would provide vocals for the songs, but without success." I'm pretty sure "enquiring" is spelled "inquiring" in both BrE and AmE, but I could be mistaken. Perhaps worth noting: optional comma opportunity after "to this end", but...given the multiple clauses already present, it may break up the flow a bit.
    • "she began work on the tracks for her debut album by composing the lyrics, melody, and drum beats which she programmed at home on the drum machine." Comma after "which".
    • "Having produced a rough track via trial and error, she next sought to collaborate with other writer-producers whose music had caught her ear, to hone the finished track." "Next" and "other" are redundant in this case. Given the context of that paragraph, you can probably shorten "sought to collaborate with" to "collaborated with". Additional rewording may be optimal...perhaps something like: "After producing a rough track via trial and error, she collaborated with writer-producers whose music had caught her ear.....", though I'd reword "music had caught her ear". That last clause strikes me as awkward in its placement, but I'm probably overanalyzing.
    • "Through these collaborations she sought to produce a diverse mixture of styles and to "[drag] people out of their boxes musically”." I'd like to see a comma after "collaborations".
    • Noticed a few cases of extreme redundancy, such as "various different".
    • A lack of commas after transition words/phrases seems common; you might want to look into that. As for myself, I don't use as many commas as I used to; nevertheless, I still make a conscious effort to use them after transitions.
    • I wouldn't call Christgau a "leading critic"; I'd let the wikilink lead readers to the article to make their own judgment in that regard.
    • These examples stress the need for audits in redundancy and comma consistency. As far as redundancies go, try to strike a balance between succinctness and comprehensiveness. — Deckiller 03:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks for your comments, I have addressed all the specific points you've raised and will give the article a couple of good sweeps for redundancies and incorrect comma usage over the course of today. Please check back in a few hours :-) Thanks once again for looking at the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lots of commas added or taken out as appropriate and quite a few minor tweaks to the prose made, let me know how it looks now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great edits. I'm switching to neutral; I'll probably take a final pass myself or ask someone else to. — Deckiller 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. EDIT: Struck Steve T • C Some prose and potential sourcing issues. It seems like a large list, but could be resolvable in the timeframe available, so I'll watch this page for your responses:

Lead
  • "Arular is the debut album by British musician M.I.A. that was released in March 2005." I know this wording was suggested by another reviewer above, but if there is any way of recasting it to get rid of that unsightly "that was released in" I heartily suggest you do so. One solution would be to eliminate the month, which is mentioned soon after anyway, and move the "2005" to earlier in the statement. "...faced months of delays" also carries a slight ambiguity; it could be read to mean that it faced delays yet ultimately avoided them. That "finally" is probably redundant too. Suggestion only:

    Arular is the 2005 debut album by British musician M.I.A. Originally set for a September 2004 release, the album was delayed due to sample issues. Arular was released in the United States on 22 March 2005..."

  • The only other concern here is "issues", an excessively vague word to use when we know the exact cause of the delays. If it can be swapped out for a more useful term without boating the sentence, I strongly advise it.
  • "...she recorded it using a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine..." Just to clarify, as I'm unfamiliar with the technology, is the Roland MC-505 something onto which tracks can be recorded? The current wording makes it sound as if it does (consider the same idea with a different subject: "The journalist recorded the interview using a miniature tape recorder.")
  • "The album's title is the political code name used by her father, Arul Pragasam, during the Tamil independence movements" The plural on "movements" sounds odd without the additional context provided in the article body; can you recast the sentence in a way that doesn't cause the confusion? e.g. "The album's title is the political code name used by M.I.A's father, Arul Pragasam, during his involvement with the Tamil Tigers" or similar.
  • "It was nominated for the Mercury Prize in 2005 and included in the book..." Missing "was"?
  • "Arular spawned the singles "Galang", "Sunshowers", and "Bucky Done Gun"." The infobox lists four singles (adding the '05 "Galang" re-release), which might confuse some given the proximity of it to this sentence and without the context provided in the article body.
Composition and recording
  • "She found the concept of an artist performing without..." The gerund requires this to say "artist's performing" (you wouldn't say "me performing without", but "my performing without"). You may not like how this looks; if so, rephrase to avoid either.
  • The second paragraph could use at least one instance of "M.I.A.".
  • "After securing a record deal with XL Recordings after Frischmann accidentally played the demo to labelmates, she began..." The repetition of "after" feels clumsy; this could be reworded to eliminate both this and the previous bullet: "M.I.A. secured a record deal with XL Recordings after Frischmann accidentally played the demo to labelmates; she began..."
  • Looking more closely at the source for that, "labelmates" is wrong. Frischmann took the demo to Elasitca's management offices to make copies to be sent to prospective labels. Frischmann's manager rang her to ask who the singer on the demo was, and "a record deal with London’s XL Recordings followed in short order."
  • "Having produced rough tracks via trial and error, she honed the finished songs in collaboration with writer-producers whose music had caught her ear." According to the first cite, XL Recordings partnered M.I.A. with those producers, rather than it being her choice of those whom she liked.
  • "which featured a drum pattern created from the sounds made by toys which M.I.A. had bought in India, further augmented by layers of sounds produced by objects such as pens and mobile phones." The sounds were merely augmented, rather than "further" augmented, as no prior augmentation took place. And should that be "augmented with"? Worth checking.
  • "saying 'I just quietly got on with it....I didn't wanna convince anyone it was good. I felt it was much better to prove that I could be an individual.'" The quote should be preceded by a comma in this case, and review WP:ELLIPSES for correct usage.
  • The above quote isn't in the cited article.
Music and lyrics
  • "In an interview with Antics TV, she elaborated on the importance of the West London punk scene..." We don't need to say who carried out the interview, unless it's contentious in some way.
  • "in her view" Several usages that are likely redundant; if she said it, it's her view.
  • "in a 2004 interview with the magazine Nirali..." Again, unnecessary to say to whom she said this.
  • "The song 'Sunshowers'" We've already established that it's a song.
  • I can't see any reference in this cite to MTV's insisting that the song carry a disclaimer disavowing references to the PLO.
  • "as a whole" Likely redundant.
  • Mixed use of curly quotes (”) and straight quotes (").
  • "anything as long as it has a beat" {{who}}?
  • "In an interview with Exclaim! in 2005..." Again unnecessary to say unless contentious.
Artwork
  • "using what Spin called..." If there's an article author, his or her name should be used ("what Joe Bloggs of Spin called..."), unless the opinion was in an editorial (i.e. it's the magazine's official stance).
  • "Similarly, PopMatters..." Similarly, attribution required.
Release
  • "was delayed, apparently because..." Apparently? Is that your use of the word, or the source's? If they're sure, so are we.
Promotion and accolades
  • "In November 2005 she supported Gwen Stefani at a number of dates on here Harajuku Lovers Tour." Spelling mistake ("here"). Some might cite that as an ambiguity too (whose tour?), despite the presence of "she supported".
  • "Washington City Paper" Italicise.
  • "both Pitchfork Media and Slant Magazine named Arular the number 4 best album of 2005." Redundant "both", and this could be rendered more concisely ("the fourth best album of").
  • "Thom Yorke of alternative rock band Radiohead cited M.I.A.'s 'complete block and chop repeat, chop repeat, chop, not finished' method of music making on Arular as an influence on his own work, saying that it reminded him 'of that thing of just picking up a guitar and the first three chords you write and being like, yep, that's good. Stop. End' as opposed to 'agonizing over the hi-hat sound which seems to happen with programming and electronica a lot of the time. You can feel the pain going on.'" This choppy quotation has to be read a couple of times before getting the gist of what he's saying. I think it would benefit from some heavy paraphrasing.
Critical reception
  • "Arular met with widespread critical acclaim, scoring 88 on Metacritic." Fine as far as it goes—I cite it myself—but that statement lacks context for anyone unfamiliar with the site and its workings. Here's how I generally word it in film articles:

    Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, reported that reviews were "generally favourable", with an average score of 63 based on 38 reviews.

    This provides the reader with everything they need to understand the score, without having to leave your article.
  • "Spin appreciated its fusion of "hip hop's cockiness..." Author attribution required, if there is one.
  • "Adam Webb, writing for Yahoo! Music, described the album's style as 'professionally amateurish', but said that '[M.I.A.'s] scattergun approach effortlessly appropriates the music of various cultures and filters them through the most elementary equipment. Dancehall is the primary influence, but also one of many seismic collisions with several other genres....with the results of such displacement and politicisation writ large all over' the album." That's quite a mouthful, could it be paraphrased at all? If you're happy with it as it is, at least put "the album" within square brackets in the quote. Review against WP:ELLIPSES.
  • "Rolling Stone found Arular 'weird, playful, unclassifiable, sexy, brilliantly addictive'." Rolling Stone or one of its writers? See also: Billboard, Paste and Q.
    • All done - Spin and Q reviews do not give a specific writer's byline -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General—throughout
  • Logical quoting. Example only: "she felt it '[put] the emphasis on the artist.'") Check for other instances.
    • All such quotes re-jigged to get rid of the square brackets -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that's my fault, I should have been more specific. I mean the location of the period (either outside or inside quotes depends on how the quote is presented). Steve T • C 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, OK, seems I got completely the wrong end of the stick. Well, I've had a look through and I think all the full stops are positioned correctly, feel free to let me know if they're not...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking; consider removing the links if the subject is already linked in the previous section (examples only: Elastica and Justine Frischmann are linked in the lead and in the first section).
    • I was under the impression that anything linked in the lead should always be "re-linked" in the body of the article, irrespective of where it appears?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll double-check that before I re-read tonight. Steve T • C 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of "US" and "United States".
  • This link redirects to the site's main page.

This is what I caught on a first pass. I'm also slightly concerned that two of the three sources I checked for clarification didn't support the statements as written. Though I do understand that it's easily done—disconnecting a cite from a statement—when chopping and changing and copyediting in preparation for FAC. Look out for others. All the best, Steve T • C 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, you're right, that is quite a list :-) I'll crack on with it today though, check back in about 12 hours time to see how I've got on..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All points now addressed, as far as I can see, apart from double-checking that all the sources are in the right place and correctly support the statements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now been through and checked every reference and am confident that all are in the right place and support the statements against which they are placed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impressed by the speed at which you tackled these. I'm striking the oppose, and will consider a support after a third and fourth read through tonight. Nice work, Steve T • C 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think most of the redundancies and ambiguities have been eliminated, as have the sourcing mix-ups (which were my main concerns), so I'm happy to support this. It's maybe still overlinked, but that's nothing to continue to oppose on. One last thing, the lead talks about reggaeton influences, which aren't mentioned in the article body. Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 10:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reggaeton replaced in the lead with punk rock, which is mentioned in the body. Many thanks for your assistance and support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward support—I'm about to make a final sweep for lingering redundancies and prose glitches myself. — Deckiller 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note—there still seems to be some inconsistency regarding comma style, but I'm going to leave it alone. — Deckiller 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support— there's still some overlinking, but the article is solid overall. — Deckiller 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your support. For clarity, given the huge length of this FAC, may I strike out your "neutral" !vote above....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 10 April 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/Arular&oldid=1138455018"