Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1

Xx (album)

Xx (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive3

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and, IMHO, this might be the best article I've written. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Can't say I've listened much to this band, though I've definitely seen this (rather distinctive) cover around; I guess I assumed they were a Strokes/Arctic Monkeys/Spoon-style garage rock outfit. And it's seriously unfortunate that this nomination's most of the way down the newer Nominations category with no feedback, so I'll be giving my review in short order. Tezero (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Change "alternative" to "alternative rock" to disambiguate from alternative R&B.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why is dream pop listed in the infobox but not the lead? (I actually think it sounds more space rock than dream pop, personally, but that isn't stated.)

"Dream pop" is verified by one source mentioned in #Music and lyrics; IMO, it would be undue weight if we include Sarah Boden's classification of the music as dream pop in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Then can "electronic rock" or something go in the infobox, too? It just seems kind of asymmetric, that's all. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How so, "asymmetric"? I don't think that particular genre could be verified anyway. Do you mean for appearance sake? Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean it looks odd for the genres listed in the lead to overlap so little with those in the infobox, that's all. Tezero (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The band's Jamie Smith" - the frontman? What instrument does he play?

He produces beats for the band and plays the sampler, drums, laptop, MPC, etc. He's not a traditional/conventional band member, so I don't think there's a proper term for his role. His role as producer did not become established until they started recording this album. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "and received widespread acclaim from critics" - Can you get a little more into detail about what critics did and didn't like?

IMO, it'd seem obvious to readers--the music and lyrics that are discussed in the lead's second paragraph--partly because "widespread acclaim" is a fairly strong phrase to suggest there were very few things they didn't like, and at least nothing they disliked collectively. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not a requirement by any stretch, but British English tradition is to omit the Oxford comma.
• "The band also covered" - why "also"? You haven't introduced what else they played.

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comparisons and references to R&B are all over the place; I'd think it ideal to list "R&B" or some derivative in the genre field of the infobox.

#Music and lyrics only mentions "R&B" as an influence or element which the music draws on. The closest derivative I could think of is PBR&B, but there aren't any source for that and this album. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The songs on xx are built around a framework of basslines and beats, and incorporate austere guitar riffs for melody, rhythm, and texture" - should be "and they incorporate"

Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Will be back with more. Tezero (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• "bookmakers and critics considered the xx as favorites" - I can tell what this means, but the wording is a little unclear as to whether they just liked the xx or predicted they would be award-winners. Maybe add "possible" before "favorites" or swap "considered" for "predicted"?

This kind of wording has been used in other print sources ([1]), and the context is established by the preceding sentence and the bit that follows, "...and predicted they would win over..." Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also might want to link "bookmaker". I had to look it up.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs of Reception are very unbalanced - is there any way they could be evened out a bit?

Well that's sort of the point, to be neutral in form. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). To be honest, if I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal, but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Is there a way to organize them any way other than positive vs. negative? It's okay if the answer's genuinely no, but I'm just not big on the layout as of now. Tezero (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ook, but I don't think there is honestly. IMO, this is the best way for the content in that section. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "said was "quit a feat"" - mistake in original? If not, use [sic].
• "English band Florence and the Machine" - "fellow English band", maybe? (I actually thought they were American.)

Corrected "quite" misspelling and added "fellow". Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Tezero (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support; this is a well-written article that, assuming an appropriate source and image review are provided, I have no problems with making it to FA status. Tezero (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in accordance with the exposure of widespread close-paraphrasing issues below (I generally don't check the sources while reviewing FACs; I leave that to the source reviewers), I have to switch my vote to an oppose as well until these things are fixed. Would these critics actually care about their words being used so transparently? I doubt it, but rules are rules. Tezero (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, the few instances of close-paraphrasing involve critics' voices and are always attributed in-text per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism → "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Rationalobserver has inflated a few instances, even though they are appropriate, despite his personal disagreement with the guideline I've cited, which he has in turn revised to give substance to his objection here. Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my vote back to a tentative support, providing the article does not borrow wholesale from the sources any more than has been shown. Rationalobserver's positions, based on a discussion Dan56 has shown me, do not appear to be those of Wikipedia at large. I fully admit that I was merely deferring to his position on copyvios, because I'm not well-versed with that stuff (none of my FACs have ever been opposed on those grounds, so I haven't had to be). Looking at it now, these instances mostly seem frivolous to describe as copyright infringement, since they consist mostly of short phrases that are often reworked considerably in structure and word choice. Rationalobserver seems more to be trying to advance an agenda, though perhaps not in bad faith. Tezero (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from MusikAnimal

Seems to reasonably conform to MOS:ALBUM. I have not completely read through the article (yet), but here are some issues I've noticed thus far. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Recording and production, last paragraph, I wanted it to sound like... Even though the citation at the end of the paragraph verifies this, I'd still duplicate the inline citation at the end of the quote. You have to be very strict about verifiability when it comes to quotations.

In a past FAC, where I followed each direct quotation with a citation, this was brought up by a reviewer as an example of citation overkill (WP:FAC/Marquee Moon#Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX). Is this something open to interpretation by each reviewer? "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (WP:CITEOVERKILL) Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: It is absolutely open to interpretation. WP:CITEKILL is merely an essay, not even a guideline. WP:MINREF reflects policy. I completely disagree that having a citation next to a direct quotation from a living person could be considered overkill, you're merely staying within the safe zone of WP:BLP and WP:V policy by doing so. As a reader, if I see a direct quotation, perhaps contentious, I shouldn't have to look for the citation. Having two or more citations whose sources support the same quote could of course be considered overkill. I leave it up to you on whether to duplicate the citation, but certainly don't mistake essays something concrete. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Promotion, last sentence, "putting our music on everything, just to put it to anything just for the sake of money". Per MOS:LQ the period should go before closing double-quotes, generally matching the placement in the direct quote. Obviously a very minor detail.

MOS:LQ mentions how with a "[sentence] fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside." So that quote is not a full sentence. If I'm mistaken though, I'll fix it. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reference #29 "Rodgers 2010" does not appear to link anywhere. There's also visible cite error in the References section, "A list-defined reference with group name "lower-alpha" is not used in the content".

That's my mistake; there shouldn't be a "d" in "Rogers" lol. I'm not seeing anything about the visible cite error though. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed in the main The xx article "the" in artist's name is always capitalized ("The xx" not "the xx"), while Coexist (album) and others seem to be inconsistent. Not a huge issue, and perhaps intentionally used interchangeably, but I thought I'd point it out.

@MusikAnimal:, I think most of the sources I used in this article don't have "the" capitalized, so I followed that. As long as it's consistent in this article, it's fine. Although looking at FAs like The Beatles, "the" shouldn't be capitalized in The xx, so I've corrected it there. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've cited those direct quotes, @MusikAnimal:. Are there any other (possible) issues to resolve? Dan56 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury

Object to promotion to FA status, based on the following concerns:

• Criterion 1a (prose). I think the writing needs to be improved for clarity, jargon, and cohesive grammar. It should be copy-edited.
• In particular, the Music and lyrics section has some phrasing that indicates a possible misunderstanding of musical terminology, which is something I see a lot in song and album articles. For example, "The songs' melodies are spaced out with rests." Well, that's a weird and redundant statement, as "spaces" in music are rests, plus it's not in the cited source. Another example, "its loudest recording"; I'm unclear what this means? Do you know what loudness means in terms of music recording? It's sourced to Rizov 2010 which isn't in your list of sources.

@Spike Wilbury:, "Negative space" is cited (Cole 2009) and is interchangeable with "rest" (Ma_(negative_space)#Word → John H. Haig, The New Nelson Japanese-English Character Dictionary, Tuttle, 1997, p. 1132). Perhaps instead of "spaced out", it would be less redundant if I wrote "...are separated by rests" instead? Rizov is in the list of sources, the last name had just been misspelt ([2]). If you're complaint above was about jargon (something a particular group would understand or use), then I think readers would understand "loudest" in the way most people understand it, not "in terms of music recording". Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I definitely understand what you're trying to say, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense from a musical terminology standpoint. Their use of negative space is great to talk about, but saying melodies are spaced out with rests just sounds like you're misunderstanding the musical aspects of the album. Thanks for correcting the Rizov citation. I make prodigious use of CTRL-F rather than visually scanning. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I really get an awkward feel from reading the entirety of the article. I feel like you're using strange techniques to paraphrase what you're reading in the sources and not taking the time to really absorb and understand what you're reading to convey it to the reader in a cohesive way.

Idk how to respond to that, it sounds like an open-ended objection. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a systemic problem with the writing in the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean beyond the objections regarding the music terminology (mis)use in #Music and lyrics? If so, where specifically? Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it pervades the writing. May I ask what strategy you typically employ when you're paraphrasing sources? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And as I asked, where? I paraphrased the same way as in my previous FAs, so I'd appreciate if you told me what's giving you this impression. If you're going to base your objection on this, then it's only fair to elaborate on it. Otherwise, I don't feel these are "actionable objections" that I can resolve. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? I'm not unfamiliar with composition, technical writing, and scholarly research. Your writing reads as if you have a source open in one window and are writing statements into the article while looking at it, trying to change around words and phrases so you're not plagiarizing. Would this be accurate? The writing being of less-than-ideal quality is most certainly an actionable objection; you can act on it by having someone copy-edit the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I read a source and paraphrased it. Tezero didn't share your opinion of the quality of writing, although he was still kind enough to review and point things out more thoroughly so I could resolve and discuss specific things in the article. I wont ask someone to copy edit an article because it doesn't suit one reviewer's intuition and I don't feel it's fair to oppose simply because the prose isn't to your liking. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is becoming too heated; why not put this up at WP:GOCE/REQ? The article Sleeping Dogs (video game) received a couple of prose-related oppose votes, so the primary nominator did this with a message that the request was urgent as it belonged to a current FAC, and someone picked it up right away and is now hammering away. It's also worth noting that I don't care about everything being worded completely perfectly for FAs as long as it's comphrehensible, unambiguous, and reasonably well-flowing, criteria I feel this article fulfills. Even then, though, it's possible for me to miss things, as with any reviewer on any criterion. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That FAC involved reviewers bringing up numerous issues/examples that could be resolved. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this one doesn't, making it an especially good choice because the objectors have provided no concrete input themselves on what needs to change. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

After seeing they've supported this FAC for an article with noticeably worse prose (as I detailed below), I'm beginning to discount their vague complaint about the prose here. Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Criterion 2 (style). The linking is strange. You have Jamie Smith linked in the lead and again in the body, but the rest of the band members are not linked in the lead or even when they are mentioned in the Background section.

Perhaps because he's the only member with an article? Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Criterion 2a (lead). I feel that you have chosen some strange details to include in the lead that don't seem all that important. Smith using his laptop, or reverb being employed in the guitar parts. Reverb is employed on pretty much every recording ever made, so it's hardly worth mentioning in the lead.--Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on my research of this album specifically, many of the sources take note of the reverb in their music, as McDonald--the audio engineer--mentioned ([3]) Due weight is based on the sources, not what I personally felt is important, although I don't see how it's unimportant when Smith--the producer--basically did everything on his laptop, which is also noted in many of the sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you should explain why the use of reverb is notable. It's like saying sound effects were used in a film without explaining what in particular was notable about their use. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "reverb in her lead guitar parts" is more specific than "sound effects used in a film" and not as obvious as you're making it out to be. And since that sentence mentions both Qureshi and Croft as the guitarists, it serves another function--distinguishing her as the lead guitarist along with her sound incorporating reverb. Mentioning it as an aside with the way it's worded should suffice without going off-topic and into any further detail about it, which is mentioned twice in the body where it goes into further detail. Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. "Employed reverb in her lead guitar parts" without any other detail as to why that's notable enough to be mentioned in the lead sounds really banal to anyone who knows anything about musicianship. Again, I feel that you have read sources and paraphrased them to construct this article without really understanding what they're saying as a cohesive set of information. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression your not basing this objection on anything concrete and maybe instead your own criteria based on personal knowledge of "musicianship" or music. So far your objections have only been about musicianship/terminology-specific info in Music and lyrics and the lead. Per MOS:INTRO, "greater detail is saved for the body", and things should be placed in "a context familiar to a normal reader." I don't agree that mentioning it as an aside following a more elaborate description of "Its melancholic songs..." is banal for the common reader. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is that a problem? I would think you would want feedback from someone familiar with the subject matter you're writing about. If you wrote a physics article would you object to a physicist coming in and giving you some opinions about the writing? You're exceptionally standoffish and I'm frankly not sure why you are putting something up for review when you're not actually interested in criticism. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It kind of is. Sentences with technical terms about music like "rests", "reverb", and "loudness" are miniscule bits in a much larger article, which I don't feel you've reviewed thoroughly enough to oppose or support. I'm just getting the impression some of the prose about the album's music didn't mesh with your personal taste, so you used objections like linking style (I don't think Criterion 2 warrants linking items with no articles) and two details in the lead (including the producer using his laptop to produce the album) to give substance to objecting to the article altogether. I'm willing to embrace criticism that's actionable, as in the previous two reviewer's comments, which I addressed accordingly because specific items from top to bottom were discussed. The first reviewer gave the impression that they went through all or most of the prose with what they raised, and the second reviewer at least admitted they hadn't gone through it completely yet and could not decide to support or oppose. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I certainly am stating my opinion just like everyone else who comments, and you are certainly free to disagree with my opinions. However, I don't think the article is written very well, and I won't be removing my objection until that changes. If my objection is seen to be invalid by the decision-makers, I won't take it personally. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

After seeing that you've supported the FAC for ...And Justice for All (album), I don't see how you can criticize the prose in this article. If any article needs to be copy-edited, it's that one--there are present participles throughout the article, including its "Music" section, pronouns from the previous paragraph arent repeated at the start of a new one like it's correct to (including the third paragraph of the "Music" section), awkward phrases like "...has a lyrical material featuring a...", missing commas after full mdy dates per MOS:DATE, and unexceptional/not uniform citation formatting. I really don't feel you've given a thorough review, either of this article or that one, especially of the prose. Either that, or you're applying some dubious double-standard to this article, or I'm beginning to question your understanding of correct prose. Dan56 (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. As indopug alluded to below my review, the you don't seem to actually understand the album or the sources you've read. You've repeated attacked me for what I've chosen to point out, but I've stated a few times now that I stand by my comments and my objection. Comparing your article to others might be a useful exercise to improve your own article, but comparing my review of your article to others in order to marginalize my opinion is not so much of a useful exercise. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how he alluded to that. And I don't see how I could improve my article by comparing it to the flawed prose of the one you supported. I brought up legitimate, specific issues. It's your choice to overlook them as a reviewer there, but seeing how you supported it reaffirms my belief that you did not do your due diligence as a reviewer here. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment This article cannot be considered comprehensive unless this long New Yorker piece is incorporated. It has a lot of important things that the Wikipedia article misses—for example, that the lead singers are gay (and the implications this has on understanding the lyrics). While the "Critic from Publication said 'this' about the album' format works ok in the Reception section, it gets tiresome in Music and lyrics. Further, there's a sense of missing the forest for the trees; while the second paragraph of music namedrops 9 genres and 6 bands (including Cocteau Twins, mentioned thrice), it doesn't describe the basic impression one gets of the album, i.e. one of overwhelming quiet and intimacy.—indopug (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've incorporated material from it, including their sexual orientation. Several sources discuss the comparisons the album received from critics, so due weight was given, although I've removed one mention of Cocteau Twins. The quiet, intimate quality is duly noted in the bits mentioning McDonald (lead, background, recording), as that was really the impression he received, and perhaps others, although Jon Caramanica of The New York Times is cited in Release and reception as saying "it rarely feels intimate". Thx a lot for the new yorker article! Also, you might want to see how tiresome the Music and lyrics sections at ...And Justice for All (album) is. Dan56 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Rationalobserver

• Oppose Per Spike Wilbury and Indopug, the prose in this article is of a mediocre/poor quality that does not satisfy the FAC criteria 1a. Some examples include, but are not limited to, the repetitive use of words such as "band", which is used 42 times with no effort to break up the monotony with pronouns or alternatives such as "group". The word "that" (37 uses, 10 in release and reception) is used repeatedly and awkwardly to introduce thoughts, such as "found that", "felt that", "trusted that", "said that", "revealed that", "remarked that", "believed that", "wrote that", "explained that", "reported that", etcetera. The word "and" appears 13 times in the first paragraph of Background, and it's used excessively throughout. The prose is also misleading, such as this: "Critics particularly praised the music, which they found seductive, polished, and precisely performed." Critics is plural, but this statement is sourced to only one writer. There are also several instances of less than encyclopedic word choice used outside direct quotes; e.g., "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "austere" is used four times, thrice in Music and lyrics, "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music". Per WP:PEACOCK, words like "acclaimed" and "remarkable" ought not be used outside quotes. The article's prose is far from "engaging", and it is certainly not "brilliant [or] of a professional standard".

I've removed/replaced numerous "that"s and "band"s. I don't see the problem with the "and"s; they serve their function and reduce the number of short, choppy sentences that would otherwise be in the article. Often times, it's unavoidable, particularly when certain band members need to be mentioned together, especially Croft and Sim. I've removed the characterization originally attributed to the Exclaim! source, which verifies "Press for the band's ... sound has been unanimously glowing." [Exclaim! writer's personal characterization of that sound omitted here] Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's but one element of the poor condition the prose is currently in. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from "austere" (which I've replaced with "unadorned"/"unembellished"/"simple") and "emotional lyrics" (which is attributed several times in #Music and lyrics), the other instances of "less than encyclopedic word choice" are all attributed (in-text) to their source. Please don't mistake the words listed in the quotebox at WP:PEACOCK as banned from use; the policy says that those are the words that happen to be used "often ... without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". The policy doesn't say they cant be used outside quotes. "Widespread acclaim" is established among several sources that profiled/wrote about the album or the group, while "remarkable" is an opinion attributed in the text to AllMusic's Heather Phares. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are using the same creative words as the cited authors, then these words need to be in quotes, or else you are stealing their creativity and voicing it as Wikipedia/you. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable", Phares' word, isn't the word used in this article, although WP:PARAPHRASE says "quoting (with or without quotation marks)" is appropriate within reason. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". I think your paraphrasing is troublesome. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is acceptable, per WP:PARAPHRASE, which states "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." This is what I did: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are citing an essay, Dan56; Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is not a guideline or policy, and close paraphrasing is never a good thing in brilliant writing. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm citing the policy on plagiarism: WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism (near where the green check marks are) → "copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation." and.. "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep reading: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also fails 1d and 1b, as the prose is far from neutral, particularly the Release and reception section, which devotes 879 words to praise and just 70 words to criticism, leaving out the fact that many critics have viewed this album and group with disdain, calling it overrated and boring. This is also an issue with 1c, as many sources are not represented here, presumably because they do not share the over the top enthusiasm of the critics cited. The article fails 2a, as Spike Wilbury pointed out, particularly with the odd mention of "reverb in her lead guitar parts", which is not an appropriate level of detail for the lead. Further, the lead mentions four music genres, none of which are listed in the infobox.

The section is neutral in form; representing the viewpoints "proportionately" per WP:CRIT. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). If I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal based on sources like the aggregate sites and profiles like The New Yorker piece which indoplug offered (as it mentions no critical view of the album), but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality, although I understand how you got the impression that it didn't. The most reliable sources (profiles and the like on the album) mention the reception in terms of unanimous/widespread, glowing reviews, while at Metacritic, there are 24 positive reviews to just the one mixed review ([4]), so that's what I based it on. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The content of the section is far from neutral. I.e., where are the numerous voices that do not praise this album? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There weren't numerous instances of that. Like I mentioned before, there was only one mixed review according to Metacritic. As of now, the proportion in this section is five positive reviews mentioned to two critical ones. How can there be a question of neutrality when the proportion at Metacritic is 24 to 1, and none of the sources that go into any detail on this album's reception mention points of criticism? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, you have almost 900 words detailing praise, but only 70 for criticism. The album is not universally enjoyed, though one would never know that by reading this article, hence the issue with 1d. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I heard you, and responded accordingly. According to reliable sources on this topic (which I presented to you), this album is universally enjoyed by critics, hence my issue with your objection. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Three years after its release, the album “xx” still seems overrated. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I researched the most reliable sources available, not a student newspaper blog from Eastern Michigan University. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The comparisons and elements the critics likened the album to are duly noted in #Music and lyrics, as are the critics who explicitly called it an "indie pop album" or a "dream pop album", so discretion was used. I don't see how the article flat-out fails a criteria because of one detail/sentence fragment that isn't particularly to your liking. That doesn't really sound fair to me is all. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is all a matter of opinion, or else bots would do the FA reviews, not people. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Um that's a rather indirect answer. You've cited criteria 2a from WP:FACR, which says the article should have "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". How does the sentence fragment about reverb make this article's lead a failure in that respect? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not properly summarizing if you include this minor point in the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I understood that to be your opinion, but I was asking how? It doesn't seem a minor enough point when the reverb setting is elaborated on in the body, twice, in "recording" and "music and lyrics", with respect to Croft's guitar sound. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, you summarize the 610 word section on the tour with 13 words, and you've devoted 8 words to the reverb. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're picking nits to give substance to a mealy-mouthed objection. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also fails criteria 4, particularly the excessive section devoted to touring (610 words) that seems better suited at The xx, or a topical article devoted to that tour. There are also some potential issues with paraphrasing, such as: Article: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut", Source: "a remarkable debut". I suggest that this nom be withdrawn pending a copyedit by someone who can smoothen the prose and avoid some of the repetition and peacockery, and introduce some critical balance for the sake of neutrality. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM has a specific section devoted to creating such sections (including how it was received, the band's onstage setup, etc.) on an album's supporting tour when there isn't enough for a stand-alone article (cf. Disintegration (The Cure album)). Furthermore, the tour (like the other things I decided to include in this article) are based on the most reliable sources found on this album, so due weight was given. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Most album articles do not include a lengthy section on the accompanying tour, and IMO they shouldn't. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You disagree that MOS:ALBUM suggests the creation of such sections? Or do you mean of sections as lengthy as this? If so, which parts do you feel go into too much detail? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM says, "information about notable tours and festivals should be incorporated into either the artist's page, or the album article for which the tour is supporting." Are you contenting that I am wrong to suggest that this info is better suited at the artist page? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"...for which the tour is supporting". The tour specifically supporting this album is given a section in this article. What in your past FAC experience gives you the impression that this isn't appropriate, at least to the point of failing an FACR criteria? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article to too long, and I would merge the touring section elsewhere to rectify that. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a new complaint (article length) to justify a suspect objection. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"a remarkable debut" attributed to the critic in-text is not a paraphrasing issue; per WP:PARAPHRASE, "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand paraphrasing all that well, which is a complaint that Spike Wilbury raised above. If "remarkable" is the exact creative expression from the source, then it should be in quotes. Paraphrasing is about avoiding the creative words, not re-phrasing them with your own conjunctions and prepositions. I stand by my assertion that "remarkable" is not a word that should be found outside quote marks in encyclopedic writing, per WP:PEACOCK. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver:, "remarkably poised and sophisticated debut" is not the exact expression from the source. WP:PEACOCK is a guideline meant to prevent use of such words without attribution, not prevent their use altogether. Per WP:PARAPHRASE quotation marks aren't a requirement for limited close paraphrasing. Considering I linked the source for you to compare, what part of "Heather Phares ... hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group" is in violation of WP:PARAPHRASE? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". I think your paraphrasing is, at best, troublesome. Like I said above, proper paraphrasing avoids the key creative words that make the author's statement unique. Consider using a thesaurus. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an example of "proper paraphrasing", but of close paraphrasing with in-text attribution, which is acceptable per WP:PARAPHRASE: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding John Smith wrote ..., together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." This is what I did: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that as an educator, I would take issue with that if one of my students did that as many times as you've done it here. I teach them to identify the uniquely creative words and replace them with equivalents except when directly quoting. I stand by that, and I suggest that you need a stronger justification for playing fast and loose with copyrighted material then a Wikipedia essay. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the three or four examples you brought up, the policy on plagiarism: WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism (near where the green check marks are) → "copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation." and.. "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep reading: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to go back and forth with you like Spike Wilbury did; FAC is not peer review. After 30 days at FAC, this article is still not up to snuff, and it should not be passed until the prose is improved to meet FAC criteria 1a. After it's been copyedited, bring it back to FAC and ping me. I'll take another look at that time if I'm not too busy in real life. For now, here are a few other issues I noticed:

Lead

• You mention the critical reception before the album's release.

Those are stylistic comparisons that are part of #Music and lyrics, not how critics received it, i.e. positively or negatively. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "widespread acclaim" is fluffery

I disagree. Fluffery involves "unprovable proclamations"; "widespread acclaim" is verified by several sources. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "a protracted supporting tour that helped increase their ... reputation in the press"

This is an odd statement to follow: "xx was released in August 2009 by Young Turks, an imprint of XL, and received widespread acclaim from critics." So it earned widespread acclaim, but the tour later increased acceptance amongst critics?

Yes, what's wrong with that? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Spike Wilbury that "who employed reverb in her lead guitar parts" is not an appropriate detail for the lead.

You have yet to elaborate on why. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD, but this is too much to ask of a reviewer. You are combative and rude. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Background

• "On late nights" is an awkward construction.

Gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "greatly influenced" is unencyclopedic.

Gripe. I'll elaborate. Since you're standard for wording is "encyclopedic", here are several encyclopedic works that use the phrase you're claiming is "unencyclopedic". You're entitled to your personal preferences with writing and the like, but you shouldn't push them onto others or hold this candidate hostage by making it the basis of your objection. Dan56 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The band covered R&B hits such as Aaliyah's "Hot Like Fire" (1997) and Womack & Womack's "Teardrops" (1988) when they performed live and recorded their demos.[4]"

This reads as, "The band covered R&B hits ... and recorded their demos.[4]", which is an awkward construction and sloppy prose.

No, it reads "The band covered R&B hits... when they performed live and recorded their demos". Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "McDonald was impressed by the intimate quality and moments of silence on the demos"

Another awkward construction that illustrates my concern with the article's prose.

Another gripe that illustrates my concern with your intentions here. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now questioning my intentions? Again, you are unnecessarily hostile, and I hope I never have to deal with you again. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Recording and production

• "Croft, on the other hand, called it a "pretty confined space" the size of a bathroom.[7]"

Another poor quality construction. Does "the size of a bathroom" seem tacked-on?

• "prepared a budget to the label"

Again, this is indicative of the awkward prose throughout.

Again, this is indicative of the mealy mouthed gripes throughout. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"prepared a budget to the label", or "prepared a budget for the label". It's an issue I see with ESL students. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I used "to the label..." to avoid repetition with "...for the studio's..."; I've revised it to "prepared a budget for the label to fund the studio's..." Dan56 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "recording equipment specifically suited for the xx such as a modestly sized"

The article needs a top to bottom check for comma usage, which is poor throughout.

Comma usage before "such as" depends on the modifier that precedes it. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings"

"had them"?

Yes. What? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's terrible prose, "had them write down", really? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Sim, who played a Precision Bass manufactured in the 1970s"

This is far too much detail for a summary style overview article, same with mentioning the Fender Bassman, Gibson SG, Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, Blues Deluxe amplifier, Epiphone Les Paul, Gibson ES-335, delay pedal, and a Roland Micro Cube.

• "amplifier with a reverb setting"

I'll again echo Spike Wilbury's concerns that you do not understand the material you are paraphrasing. There is no such thing as a reverb setting; amplifiers have a reverb tank, that has a control knob that adjusts the level in relation to the dry signal.

Really? well here's an article by Sound on Sound that uses the exact phrase. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just more proof that you do not understand the musical terminology that you are using. The article you cited above is using it correctly, but you are not. I.e., an amplifier does not have a reverb setting, an amplifier has a reverb tank, which you adjust the setting for using a potentiometer. The setting varies as you adjust the pot. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

" the reverb setting on his amplifier", "reverb setting on your amp", "guitar amplifier with chorus and reverb setting". Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If your point is that others make the same mistake, I would say that your point is irrelevant and your approach to research misguided. Otherwise reliable sources make mistakes that often get repeated by other reliable sources. No musician would say they have a guitar amp with a reverb setting. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF concerns "similarities across projects" and articles on WP, not reliable sources, another guideline I feel you've misinterpreted. May I ask what qualifies you as an expert in this regard, considering you've questioned my use of a few music terms like this and I should forgo these sources and trust your personal knowledge? Or with regards to prose for that matter? Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I should trust you over sources that literally use the same wording? Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a musician of 35 years; I play guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, a little saxophone, and sometimes when I'm a little tipsy, the didgeridoo. A guitar amp either has or does not have an onboard reverb unit, which is called a reverb tank. The amount of reverb, or "wet" signal, is controlled with a potentiometer that is wired to the amplifier circuit just before a reverb choke. There is no "reverb setting", but you do adjust your reverb setting from 1–10 using the pot. I.e., reverb is an effect, and it's is accomplished by a reverb unit, called a tank, not a setting. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This effects review site uses "reverb tank" and "reverb setting" interchangeably. While you have your experience and personal knowledge, the sources at least suggest my wording should suffice. Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You might be confusing "setting" with "channel", as some guitar amplifiers have "clean" channels that do not have any effects and "wet" or "dirty" channels that have reverb, chorus, distortion, etcetera. If she was specifically referring to her Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, with one or two 12" speakers, then I have some personal knowledge of this, because I used to own a Hot Rod Deville, with 4 10" speakers, an American one before Fender started making them in Mexico. It's essentially the same amp, and it does have a clean channel and two distorted ones (labeled drive and more drive), but all three have reverb. I.e., a Fender Hot Rod Deluxe does not have a clean channel without reverb. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "After all the instrumental elements had been tracked"

This is verbose. instrumental elements → instruments

Not verbose, gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "They rarely sang backup to one another on any of the songs."

Does this mean there are only harmonies, with no lead singing?

The source is cited for you to check. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "drafts of his beats.[2] Smith created his beats"

More awkward prose.

More gripes. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday"

Verbose

Gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Smith also created click tracks for the rest of the band"

One does not really "create" a click track; it's merely a metronomic tone generated by the recording console, which I think speaks to Spike's concern that you do not understand the musical jargon that you attempt to paraphrase.

There are many high-quality sources that use this phrase "created a click track" ([5]). I think this speaks to my concern that both of you are too obstinate to look beyond your personal criteria for these kind of articles. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "he refined and incorporated his beats into the songs for three to four weeks"

The article is riddled with improper and confusing syntax such as this.

Your review is riddled with gripes such as these. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Most of xx was recorded from Christmastime to late January"

Per WP:REALTIME, this should be December, not Christmastime.

Finally, a legitimate issue. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues are too numerous for me to mention them all here; I don't have enough time. Again, FAC is not a form of peer review, whereby we work together to improve the article until I change my oppose, which stands. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• "The songs' melodies are separated by rests."

I agree with Spike; this is an indication that the paraphraser does not understand the material. I.e., melodies aren't separated by rests, rests occur within the notes of the melodies.

• "before they lead to quietly sung verses.[15] Croft and Sim exchange verses on 'Crystalised'"

I see lots of this type of repetitive sentences. It's poor quality prose that lacks smooth transitions.

• Source: "Croft and Sim craft languid, sparsely arranged love songs that recall atmospheric 80s acts such as the Cocteau Twins and Mazzy Star. Better still, they betray their south London roots: gentle, plaintive melodies are framed by minimal beats that nod to dubstep and R&B."

Article: "According to Sarah Boden of The Observer, the album's unadorned, dream pop love songs are reminiscent of Cocteau Twins and Mazzy Star, because they feature low tempos, moody melodies, and rhythms influenced by R&B and dubstep.[19]"

1) What is a "low tempo"? Did you mean slow tempo? This is another example of your apparent misunderstanding of musical terminology. 2) Boden does not mention tempo, so where did you get this?

Languid = slow/relaxed; "tempo" = the speed at which a passage of music is played. Dan56 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing

Article: "dub-inflected post-punk"

Source: "dub influenced post-punk"

That's limited close paraphrasing with in-text attribution; you should know the policy, because I've reiterated it to you four or five times by now. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "On xx, Croft and Sim touched on themes of love, desire, and loss in their songwriting, which she said has "always been based around emotions, right from the start."

The pronoun she is referring to Sim, who unless I am mistaken is a man.

Actually it's referring to Croft, but if you feel readers may be confused, I'll change it. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:STICKTOSOURCE

Article: "Robert Christgau believed they rely on a low-key, vulnerable style"

I'm not seeing where Christgau says anything about low-key or vulnerable.

He does in his NPR review, which I've bundled in that citation along with his MSN MUsic review. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Article: "the yearning expressed on 'Heart Skipped a Beat'"

Where are you getting this?

The NME review says "aching with longing". Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing

Article: "tacit intimacy"

Source: "natural intimacy"

I still don't think you understand that close paraphrasing is acceptable with in-text attribution. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)\

"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.^[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained.Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the review: "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive"; the meaning is the same. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I did read the review, that's why I know that you are wrong. Phares says, "While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut." Which means the poise "sometimes works against them", but it's still a "remarkable debut", not that it is remarkably poised. Are you for real, because you are absolutely terrible at paraphrasing, and you won't accept advice from some of the best colleges and universities. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The album's Roman numeral title refers to each of the band members having turned 20 years old by the time they released xx.[7] Because of their age, many critics interpreted the songs as nocturnal depictions of adolescent lust.[1]"

This is out-of-place in Music and lyrics.

It's the most appropriate place to put it in the article, as it ties into the paragraph's topic--the members' age and its relationship to their lyrics. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've refuted your point about close paraphrasing, peacock terms, and regurgitated the same policies at length, but you're incredibly obstinate in your position and vague/indirect about the complaints you make. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you are getting abusive. I'm not sure you are the right type of person to bring articles here if you always resort to personal attacks and insults. You are not the writer that you apparently think you are, as this article is not at all "brilliant". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're being oversensitive. You felt my prose was poor, I felt your objections were petty and your explanations were irritatingly evasive, avoiding the policies and guidelines that clearly justified my position on certain parts of your review. Dan56 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to be less combative and rude if you want people to spend their time reviewing your work. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 and close paraphrasing

In the above discussion, Dan56 has repeatedly admitted that he intentionally includes close paraphrases in his writing. He defends this position and states that close paraphrasing is not plagiarism.

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

However, this is not at all the position of the Wikilegal team regarding copyright, or the academic world regarding what technically constitutes plagiarism:

FTR, Dan56 is arguing that this is an appropriate paraphrase:

Source (Phares): "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive (5th sentence) ... While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut."(11th and last sentence)

Article prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut"

This is plagiarism via close paraphrase, as Dan56 has retained the distinct or creative words: remarkable (though in altered form) and sophisticated, while swapping restraint for poise, a basic synonym exchange that does not satisfy fair paraphrasing. He's also altered the meaning of the source material, which is another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was "remarkably poised and sophisticated", but rather that the album shows "restraint and sophistication" and that it is "a remarkable debut", which are two distinct points. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"This restraint and sophistication ... all the more impressive" = "...remarkable". Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically, Phares could've been using "remarkable" to refer to aspects of the album outside its poise and sophistication. (For the record, I don't mind "sophistication" being used. I can't think of any synonyms except "complicated", which has a slightly negative connotation, or "complex", which I think slightly implies technical complexity.) Tezero (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reread the review. Phares uses "remarkable" in the last sentence, saying that it was overall "a remarkable debut" despite the sometimes excessive "subtlety and consistency". Much earlier in the review, she said it showed signs of "sophistication", not that it was remarkably sophisticated. This is an improper synthesis of three distinct adjectives, and Dan56 is using the last one to modify two earlier ones. She said the album was remarkable, not that it was remarkably sophisticated, and there is a significant difference. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes excessive" or "showed signs of" is not indicated anywhere in the review. Phares found its "restraint and sophistication" worthy of being or likely to be noticed especially as being uncommon or extraordinary: "These tracks are so sleek, they're practically sculptural, and they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; artists twice their age would be proud to call the maturity and confidence that flow seemingly effortlessly through the xx their own." WP:SYNTH applies to using multiple sources, btw, not adjectives. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes excessive" or "showed signs of" is not indicated anywhere in the review.

The fifth sentence of Phares' review: "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive", from that I get "showed signs of sophistication". The last sentence of Phares' review: "While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut that rewards repeated listens and leaves listeners wanting more." From this I get that the "restraint" borders on excessive. FTR, aren't you connecting these two distinct points to say "remarkably sophisticated", and aren't you doing this outside quote marks as though these are your own words, and not a modified quote? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no "signs of"; Phares explicitly says "This restraint and sophistication", there is "restraint and sophistication" on the album, not just "signs of". Furthermore, "subtlety" does not mean the same thing as "restraint", and Phares does not elaborate on how either "threaten to work against them". You're free to assume she believes there's too much of the "subtlety and consistency". I'm not using anything as though they are my own words; you can't put "remarkably" or "sophisticated" in quotation marks when that specific word is not used anywhere in the review, but Phares is attributed in-text anyway because I'm summarizing her opinion. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You're slitting hairs, and I don't have time for this. I wish you the best of luck, and I encourage you to make some attempt to better understand paraphrasing, versus rejecting my advice out of hand as though I do not know what I am talking about and you do, because I think that you have plagiarized several authors in writing this article, and I am concerned that you do not seem to care. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed that "rewards repeated listens" is an exact phrase from Phares' review, and this phrase is included verbatim and outside quotation marks in the article, but cited to Sasha Frere-Jones' review. Can you please show me what material you paraphrased from Frere-Jones to assert that he said it "rewards repeated listens"? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"That’s one reason that this short album, at just under thirty-nine minutes, is so easy to play and replay. Nothing wears out its welcome ... Play the album a few times and all of a sudden other pop music sounds abrasive and overstuffed and shouty." The burden is on you as the reviewer to check it yourself btw. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's slightly concerning that your paraphrase of Frere-Jones contains a verbatim phrase from the critic that you cite immediately following your paraphrase of Frere-Jones? You obviously picked this phrase up from Phares and plagiarized it as your summary of Frere-Jones. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"You obviously..."? (WP:GF) It's a fairly common phrase used in music reviews: "the dreaded rock-critic cliché 'rewards repeated listens'", [6], [7]) Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So your defense is that it's not plagiarizing Phares because it's a cliché, and you think that clichés are appropriate for FAs, which are required to represent brilliant writing? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism → "use of common expressions and idioms, including those that are common in sub-cultures such as academia" Dan56 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, because it's a well-worn cliché, it's not plagiarism, but one does not expect to find clichés in brilliant prose, nor written in Wikipedia's voice, especially in an FA (see FAC criteria 1a) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Partial source review

In case there is any lingering ambiguity regarding this article and concerns about close paraphrasing, I decided to take another look at the sourcing. Note: All of these examples come from the first three sections only.

Background

• Source: "they were in thrall to the stripped back inventiveness of a strain of American urban r’n’b pioneered by producers like Timbaland and The Neptunes, who would construct hits from percussive beats, handclaps, odd samples and vocal harmonies."

Article: "The xx were greatly influenced by American R&B producers such as The Neptunes and Timbaland, whose minimalist productions incorporated vocal harmonies, handclaps, unconventional samples, and pronounced beats"

This is just the sort of superficial alteration of source material that constitutes plagiarism. The original structure is intact, and the prose is not so much paraphrased as it has been re-arranged with a synonym or two. This is not a fair paraphrase, and it's only the third sentence that I checked today.

• Source: "The xx had originally come to the attention of XL imprint Young Turks after impressing Katie O'Neill, who works for the label, with the demos they'd posted on their MySpace page. Katie subsequently lent the band a guitar for a London gig, they popped a stack of demos round to the XL HQ in Ladbroke Grove and it wasn't long before they were signed up and raring to go."

Article: "After posting the demos on their Myspace page, the xx drew the interest of Young Turks, an imprint label of XL Recordings. They submitted the demos to XL's head office at Ladbroke Grove and were subsequently signed to a recording contract."

Again, this is cosmetic paraphrasing that retrains most of the original sentence structure, with only a minor reordering of two clauses. This is plagiarism.

The rearrangement of reworded material is hardly minor, and almost half of the quote you picked was omitted and not paraphrased altogether. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recording and production

• Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."

Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left"

"At night" and "recorded" is what you're arguing? They're the simplest and most obvious phrases to use here (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "I got each of the band a notebook where they could write down their settings"

Article: "McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings"

You're misrepresenting a sentence fragment from the larger text; Article: "To reproduce the sound he had heard on the band's demos, McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings and test different areas of the studio to determine where he should record each member." Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "echo‑laden guitar sounds"

Article: "echo-filled sound"

Unavoidable, the simplest and most obvious phrases to use here--"sound" (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism); further more, you're misrepresenting another fragment from a sentence that quotes: "McDonald felt would best replicate her 'icy', echo-filled sound on the demos". Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "vocals seem to portray an almost intimate late‑night conversation"

Article: "vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational"

The slight alteration of conversation → conversational does not qualify as a fair paraphrase.

Yes it does, and he's quoted and attributed in-text. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "expensive mics for the record we borrowed"

Article: "among the more expensive items he had borrowed"

"The microphones were among the more expensive items he had borrowed for the studio's preliminary setup so XL would not be overwhelmed with a costly budget." Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "street noises and things that'd just been picked up by accident in the background"

Article: "unintended background noises such as street sounds"

Changing "Street noises" to "street sounds" and "accident" to "unintended" is plagiarism via close paraphrase.

Not only is the sentence structure different, you're nitpicking simple phrases like "sounds" again. Dan56 (talk)

Music and lyrics

• Article: "Russell felt the xx's music evoked the early hip hop records he listened to when he was young, as they were often limited to vocals, samples, and beats."
• Source: "I grew up listening to a lot of hip‑hop ... A lot of my favourite records when I was young had a lot of vocals and drums and samples and not that much else ... but to me, it was the simplicity of early hip‑hop that I heard in it."

This is more plagiarism via close paraphrasing: "early hip hop" and "vocals, samples, and beats" → "early hip‑hop" and "vocals and drums and samples"

Russell ("felt that") is attributed in the sentence, "vocals, samples, and beats" → simple, non-creative lists of information (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "Each song is founded on the spare, kinetic interplay between programmed drumbeats and Oliver Sims's lightly thumbed basslines. From there, Romy Croft and Baria Quershi fill out the songs with minimal guitar work, using simple riffs as much for texture as for rhythm or melody."

Article: "The songs on xx are built around a framework of basslines and beats, and they incorporate simple guitar riffs for melody, rhythm, and texture."

Musical terms too technical to paraphrase ("basslines", "texture", etc.), different sentence structure, the last three items listed are "simple, non-creative lists of information" (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "the song runs for two minutes with only her voice and the bass and guitar"

Article: "Croft sings its first two minutes over only guitar and bass"

Different structure, "guitar" "bass" rearranged, "two minutes" is unique enough, but you'll argue otherwise? Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "moody, minimalist indie pop"

Article: "a minimalist, melancholic indie pop album"

Author is attributed in-text, but you've misrepresented another from a larger piece of text. Also, "Minimalist (music)" and "indie pop" are unique terms referring to specific musical styles/aesthetics. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "producer Martin Hannett’s dub influenced post-punk, the rusty edges he brought to Joy Division"

Article: "the dub-inflected post-punk sound of English producer Martin Hannett and his work with Joy Division"

Author attributed in-text, misrepresentation. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "All these songs seem in the first flush of love ... 'VCR's ...natural intimacy"

Article: "all of the songs deal with the consuming emotions associated with first love, including the tacit intimacy on "VCR"

No, no, it's "Article: 'According to Emily Mackay of NME, all of the songs..." (in-text attribution) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE

• Article: "the xx had been encouraged to self-produce their album by Russell, who felt it would remain faithful to both their distinctive live sound and the DIY ethic practiced at XL since its beginnings as a rave label."

Unless I missed it, Russell is not mentioned by name in the cited source, and there is nothing about remaining "faithful to both their distinctive live sound and the DIY ethic practiced at XL since its beginnings as a rave label", as though this is unsourced original research.

It was attributed to Frost 2009. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Article: "Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday."

There is no mention in the cited source of the MPC being a birthday present, so this is either unsourced or it's OR.

It's sourced, in a bundle; the second citation didnt show because of a typographical error. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have identified no less than 15 instances of plagiarism in the first three sections, and I did not check every sentence or source. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont trust you with regards to paraphrasing here. You're nitpicking unique technical terms, misrepresenting sentence fragments out of larger article text, including sentences with in-text attribution, and you're attempts to rewrite policy at WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:CLOSE PARAPHRASING are dubious because they've occurred after you made objections to this article on those grounds, and have been reverted since you made them without consensus or discussion ([8], [9]) You appear to have done this to substantiate your objection to this article (or my writing in general) and undermine this review. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple more:

• Source: "they were favourites before the shortlist was even announced"

Article: "Before the nominations shortlist had been announced"

• Source: "The pressures of touring had increased long-standing tensions between Qureshi and the rest of the band"

Article: "The difficulties of touring early on exacerbated the growing tensions between the band and Qureshi"

• Source: "already basic arrangements"

Article: "already minimalist arrangements"

Dan56, can you please clarify something for us? Your position seems to be that as long as you provide an in-line citation and in-text attribution, you do not need to put distinctive words or phrases in quotation marks. However, a glance through this article reveals that at times you seem to agree with me. E.g.:

• "For her lead guitar parts, Croft used a delay pedal and a Roland Micro Cube amplifier with a reverb setting, which McDonald felt would best replicate her 'icy', echo-filled sound on the demos.[2]"
• "He had Croft and Sim sing into Neumann microphones on most of the songs in order to make their vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational as possible."
• "Croft was 'baffled' by the acclaim given to what she viewed as an album they had made 'for themselves'.[30]"

Why have you enclosed these isolated words in quotation marks?

• "Croft, on the other hand, called it a 'pretty confined space' the size of a bathroom.[7]"
• "They rarely sang backup to one another on any of the songs. McDonald felt it was important for the singers be 'in sync' and share the same mental state or mood when singing full takes of songs, some of which he said benefited from when they were both 'quite tired and emotional'."
• "Like Croft, Sim wrote much of his lyrics at night when his emotions ran 'a bit higher'.[21]"
• "Spin magazine's Philip Sherburne wrote that xx brims with a 'young lust' that is at the heart of rock music".
• "Croft and Sim, who are both gay, did not intend for the songs to be heard as romantic duets, as she said they were singing 'past each other' and not to each other."
• "In his review for NPR, Robert Christgau praised their songwriting and wrote that the underlying force behind the album's irresistible music is a 'spiritual dimension' offered by Croft".
• "In the US, the album reached sales of 350,000 copies by June 2012 with consistent weekly sales during its first two years of release, which Time magazine's Melissa Locker said was 'quite a feat' in an era of music piracy, media streaming, and YouTube.[52]"
• "At the Mercury Prize ceremony, he said the time since its release has 'felt like a haze', but that the event serves as a 'a moment of clarity'.[47]"
• "In June, the xx played the Glastonbury Festival in Somerset and, according to journalist Jude Rogers, displayed a newfound confidence through the rest of their summer and 'post-Mercury [Prize] autumn' concerts".

Why have you enclosed these short phrases in quotation marks if you think that in-line citation and in-text attribution exempts you from using quotation marks for verbatim words or phrases? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe he does; close paraphrasing, if that's indeed what it is, is not the same as verbatim copying. Tezero (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that was a poor use of verbatim, but if the distinctive word or words appears in both the source material and the "paraphrase", then it's too close. Look at this example:

• Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."

Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left"

The only change here is: We often → they usually and everyone at the office → XL's staff. The sentence structure is unchanged, and swapping in a synonym or two is not paraphrasing, it's plagiarizing. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, consider these examples:

• "He had Croft and Sim sing into Neumann microphones on most of the songs in order to make their vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational as possible."
• "According to Emily Mackay of NME, all of the songs deal with the consuming emotions associated with first love, including the tacit intimacy on 'VCR', the yearning expressed on 'Heart Skipped a Beat', and the premature affection warned of on "Crystalised".[23]"

In the first example, Dan56 deemed it necessary to enclose the word intimate in quotation marks, but in the second example, the word intimacy, which is paired with the word natural in the source material, is not enclosed even though it is the exact word used in the "paraphrased" source. Changing natural intimacy → tacit intimacy is not paraphrasing, because a proper paraphrase will render the thought in the editor's own words. At the very least, this demonstrate that Dan56 sometimes puts distinctive words in quotation marks and other times he does not, even when they are essentially the same word. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Essentially the same word" isn't good enough to necessitate quotation marks; it has to be literal word-for-word copying. That's the point of quotation marks, barring the usage of brackets and ellipses. Tezero (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain that well enough, but "intimacy" is the exact word used in the source material. I meant that Dan56 enclosed intimate but not intimacy, though both are taken directly and unchanged from the source. I meant that intimate is essentially the same word as intimacy. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the two words don't mean the same thing. "Intimacy" strictly refers to a close personal relationship with another person, while "intimate" in the context McDonald used it can refer to sexually suggestive or just that the vocal quality sounded warm or cozy. Also, the sentence that it is in quotes for doesn't attribute McDonald directly in-text, but the preceding sentence did ("...he said ..."), so the quotes reinforce for readers that it's still his voice like in the previous sentence, but without having to be repetitive and write out "McDonald also said" so-and-so "intimate". Regardless, this seems like a major nitpick in response to a reviewer retaining their support rather than just letting the substance of your review speak for itself. Dan56 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

More comments from RationalObserver

As Spike Wilbury pointed out, brilliant writing would never rely on close paraphrasing, so any article that does, such as this one, would fail FAC criteria 1a, but FTR, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright:

Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.

Also, per WP:NFCCP:

Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.

So really, our policies and guidelines already strongly discourage close paraphrasing that appropriates from source material without enclosing that material inside quotation marks. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I responded to your examples and in accordance with "WP:PLAG#What plagiarism is not", there are times when it's unavoidable. Your attempt to rewrite policy to substantiate this review by crusading this issue at WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM has been unsuccessful ([10]), and this review is holding this article to an unfair standard set by your personal criteria for paraphrasing, not Wikipedia's. Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure; this is known as close paraphrasing (which can also raise problems of plagiarism)." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Earwig's copyvio detector indicates a strong possibility that this article violates copyrights. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It highlights material in this article that is generally quotes from the Sound on Sound source that is quoted in this article or names (civil names, brand names, band name, etc.) You're hoping again that other reviewers will take it at face value instead of actually taking a close look. Dan56 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Oppose sorry Dan, but close paraphrasing is as unacceptable as plagiarism in any articles. Given the above issues listed by Rationalobserver and the fact that this article doesn't at all discuss the album's singles beyond listings in the infobox (therefore preventing this article from being comprehensive), I suggest withdrawal and giving this a thorough copyedit to get rid of all copyright violations. Take to the GOCE if needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, the few instances of close-paraphrasing involve critics' voices and are always attributed in-text per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism → "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." I don't see how you can say "close paraphrasing is as unacceptable as plagiarism in any articles". Furthermore, there is no requirement at MOS:ALBUM to elaborate on singles; there is a promotion section that mentions their releases and lack of airplay. MOS:ALBUM does recommend merging single information here when "there is rarely enough information for songs and singles to all have their own individual articles", but all the singles have their own articles. Dan56 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, close paraphrasing that contains distinctive words or phrases outside quotation marks is plagiarism. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be extensive detail, but they should at least be mentioned in the lead. It would also help to talk about their composition at some point, and perhaps what critics said of the songs themselves (commercial aspects not withstanding). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Snuggums, and I think this is a strange objection on the part of Dan56 when you consider that he has written more than 600 words to describe the accompanying tour, and he mentions the "reverb setting", but he won't mention the singles in the lead at the request of another editor. Is the reverb really more notable than the singles on which reverb was used? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, the information in the lead is based on due weight, and singles weren't an important part of this album's story, based on what the sources available on it have written about it. "Composition" (Music/lyrics) of some of the singles are discussed in #Music and lyrics. The licensing of songs (not as singles) did help this album commercially, and that was noted in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, singles take more space to cover with text and are less representative than reverb is of the album as a whole. Tezero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? Discussing the singles that emerged from an album (how they were selected, how they performed, etc.) seems of particular interest, whereas the current discussion of the use of reverb on the album is firmly inane. As I pointed out several days ago, reverb is used on every recording everywhere, and the way it's written about here is just silly. There might be something notable or interesting about Croft's use of reverb, but we'd never know it from reading this article. I admire Rationalobserver for going a lot further down the rabbit hole than I did, but this whole FAC has devolved into a farce that illustrates why no-one should spend their time criticizing Dan56's writing. He's displayed rude behavior the willingness to strap on his guns and do battle over any little thing, being obstinate and sometimes simply dismissing others' opinions as "gripes" not worthy of his attention. Someone please put this nomination out of its misery. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing aside, I'm not convinced this is comprehensive enough to meet FA criteria, especially given Indopug's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, I addressed Indopug's comments immediately after he made them and resolved his concern that this article was missing information from the New Yorker article, which I subsequently added to the article, including the specific item indopug mentioned--the sexual orientation of the singers. What other concern do you have about how comprehensive this article is? No important information about this topic is missing. Dan56 (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't give much detail on specific songs in terms of how they are composed or if some songs were generally better received than others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the point of summary style (Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details). Because this article's topic is the album, that's what's generally discussed, the album. The best sources on this article had no discussion of certain songs' reception. Also, not only did the most reliable sources on this topic not mention how certain songs were received, there were hardly any reviews on the singles themselves, but even if they did that information would be appropriately incorporated in the singles articles per summary style. If anything, though, the first paragraph establishes the similarities in composition or as a whole ("The songs on xx are built around a framework ...". "Songs such as "Crystalised" and "VCR" begin with a melodic ostinato and some understated musical elements, such as a xylophone on the latter, before they lead to quietly sung"). Also, the PopMatters review summarized in the second paragraph of the Reception section reinforces this idea that the compositions of the songs are somewhat uniform ("...consistent structures and tempos of the songs..."). The article doesn't give much detail about those things because that would be too much detail, especially when five of the album's songs (the singles, as well as "Shelter") have articles of their own. Information on the songs should back as an example discussion of the album rather than stray off-topic on forced discussions of individual songs. I used the same approach on Marquee Moon and New York Dolls (album)--general discussion of the album, with certain songs described to support or reinforce those discussions of the album('s music/lyrics). Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm..... while there are separate articles for some tracks, it would help to perhaps elaborate for those which don't. In any case, I just don't think this is FA material right now. After ensuring there are no paraphrasing problems (I know you've insisted they aren't a concern right now, but still is best to recheck in case), probably better to go for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, most of even the lengthier reviews don't elaborate on those songs. Reviews such as Pitchfork's, Slant's, The AV Club's, and NME's stick to either the tracks with articles ("VCR", "Islands", Basic Space") and "Heart Skipped a Beat", which is why I chose that song to elaborate on with a sample and caption about its composition. Otherwise, there's not much encyclopedic language that could be added in the form of some analysis of their composition. Those reviews tend to wax poetic on the album in general. But could you please elaborate on what specifically doesn't make this "FA material right now"? Is it an actionable objection? Rationalobserver's personal standard for paraphrasing has been disputed against WP's standard, including in the examples he cited in this review. Dan56 (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, Rationalobserver's points are concerning, even if he's mistaken in them. In case there are errors, it's probably best to withdraw the nomination, get other editors to thoroughly spotcheck, and then renominate or—even better—go for GAN. As pointed out, the lead also is inadequate- doesn't even mention the singles (I don't find "they didn't perform well" a convincing reason to not even briefly mention them) or what critics said of the album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If he's mistaken in them, how are they a concern? Either you agree with his paraphrasing standard or not. Reviewers are free to check anything without spotcheck tools for themselves--they are all external links, including archived links to prevent linkrot. You pointed out the lead before, and I addressed that. There's no requirement to elaborate on singles just because this is an album article. "Although none of the album's singles were hits" is enough weight to a topic in this article that's given only two or three sentences in the #Promotion section. The lead follows standards of relative emphasis → "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." I did my research, the singles were of little importance here, and I gave it a sentence fragment in the lead in order to summarize the most important part about the singles--that they were not successful, but rather the songs licensed to other media was successful in promoting the album. What's given you the idea that they should still be written about more in the lead when they obviously weren't important to this article's topic? I have, however, added that critics praised the band's sound, since that is a verifiable summary of the reception, per #Release and reception → "Critics particularly praised the group's sound on the album.^[7]" Dan56 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright:

Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.(emphasis added)

FTR, Dan56 is trying to convince the reviewers that my position is not supported by policy; however, Flyer22 recently said: "While Dan56 has often contributed positively to Wikipedia, I do see that he has engaged in a lot of WP:Close paraphrasing at the article in question. So I understand your concerns on that front." Rationalobserver (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 continued to say: "...But I don't believe that use of a single "distinctive" word, for example, should automatically be called plagiarism simply because the copyrighted source has used that same "distinctive" word. Dan56 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright: "Regardless of plagiarism concerns ... Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.(emphasis added) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, if he's mistaken in them, how are they a concern? Either you agree with his paraphrasing standard or not. Reviewers are free to check anything without spotcheck tools for themselves--they are all external links, including archived links to prevent linkrot. You pointed out the lead before, and I addressed that. There's no requirement to elaborate on singles just because this is an album article. "Although none of the album's singles were hits" is enough weight to a topic in this article that's given only two or three sentences in the #Promotion section. The lead follows standards of relative emphasis → "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." I did my research, the singles were of little importance here, and I gave it a sentence fragment in the lead in order to summarize the most important part about the singles--that they were not successful, but rather the songs licensed to other media was successful in promoting the album. What's given you the idea that they should still be written about more in the lead when they obviously weren't important to this article's topic? I have, however, added that critics praised the band's sound, since that is a verifiable summary of the reception, per #Release and reception → "Critics particularly praised the group's sound on the album.^[7]" Dan56 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It turns out they weren't a mistake- the close paraphrasing needs to be addressed and FAC isn't the place to do all the cleaning. In its current state, it would automatically fail a GAN for paraphrasing too closely. For this, it's best to withdraw and clean the article out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, what close paraphrasing are you referring to? The ones with in-text attribution? The ones where phrases were too technical to paraphrase? The ones RationalObserver misrepresented with sentence fragments cherry-picked out of larger sentences in the article where there was a source attributed in-text? Is it the inflated size of RationalObserver's comments throughout this review and rhetoric that give you the impression it's more serious than actually is? Dan56 (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver found a nasty load, even if you say it was stretched. I'm sorry, though will say he's not as deceptive here as you seem to suggest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you taking it at face value, SNUGGUMS, or did you bother reading my responses to his "review"? Because that's what the first reviewer did before taking a closer look at what RationalObserver pointed out as close paraphrasing. Dan56 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's some problems I see looking through again.....

*FN's 5 and 8: what makes "Dummy" reliable?

It's listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as an acceptable source. According to their "About" page, it's an online magazine founded by Paul Benney and John Burgess, who previously founded Jockey Slut. Furthermore, the source is an interview with the xx, and that's what the material is attributed to--the band's words to the interviewer. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

*FN12: I'm skeptical about "Prefix"

It's a pub used by both AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic ([11]). Also, this source in particular was written by the magazine's founder/editor Dave Park ([12]). Ironically, this was one of the few reviews of xx to give any meaningful composition details about songs that either weren't singles or weren't "Intro"; this source is only being used to cite composition info for "Heart Skipped a Beat" in the audio sample box. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

*FN55: Subscription error, hard to verify

Here's a reprint published elsewhere of that original Music Week article. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• May as well use a reprint Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to make more sense to use the original source, SNUGGUMS. It wouldn't be faithful to the details in the citation--i.e. Music Week--since it's a different website it'd be linked to. Anyway, it isn't necessary for readers to have access to every source (WP:RSC), if that's the issue you're suggesting. Otherwise, the subscription required template is used as needed alongside the citations, such as in John Hay. Dan56 (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

*FN75: gives a Harvref error

I've fixed it, SNUGGUMS. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On a plus note, no dead links. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, what I had to say about close paraphrasing in this review have been reinforced. Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It would probably still help for other editors (such as Flyer22 herself) to come in and leave input for this specific case. There are other concerns listed by others, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What are your remaining concerns, though? I feel as though I've done my best to address them so far. Dan56 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has gotten better, though will end on this note- Retrohead brought up points that would definitely help. I don't exactly feel confident right now supporting with the extensive scrutiny and concerns this has received from others (yes- this includes Rationalobserver, at least work something out even if you disagree with him). I'm also not sure what other editors are gonna say when reviewing this. Overall, I'm neutral. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

• It is standardized to have the album's duration placed at the end of the track listing and to introduce the record label in the 'Release history' section.

The total_length parameter is "not necessary in most cases (as that information will usually be covered by an infobox), but useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)." (Template:Track listing) I was considering the labels column, but the information wasn't uniform among the sources--different sources had different labels for the US release for instance, or none at all, but had the correct date. Some sources did not mention the label, such as the Australia source. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And I don't see how harmful it can be. If I want to check an album I'm interested in, it would be logical to expect to see song's duration and overall length. Not sure if I'm following the second explanation. The record label who distributes the album is merely a fact. What is printed on the vinyl/CD, that what it is.--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not harmful, just extraneous and not useful in the way the template parameter was intended for originally. As for the label, there can be different distributors depending on where the album is released--the Germany source says it was "Young Turks/XL/Beggars Group", while in the US it was released by Rough Trade according to PopMatters. The sources for Ireland and Australia's release dates don't have that label information available. Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:ALBUM#Release history, you ought to provide the label (regardless how many they are), and also incorporate audio format and catalog number. I don't know for what the Template:Track listing was meant, but the second example (Greatest Hits by Queen) features that option.--Retrohead (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That guideline is worded as "This information can be", so the table isn't a necessity at an article to begin with. Not every article has those sources available to it that cover dates + label consistently/correctly; I wasn't able to at either New York Dolls (album) nor Aaliyah (album), where I had to dig for several sources myself and even then I couldn't find the correct label for each country. As for the track listing template, Template:Track listing says that it is "useful in some [cases] (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)". The example you are citing, Greatest Hits by Queen, has the headline 1981 UK edition, which suggests there are other editions listed at that article's track listing section. At this article's section, there's only one, so the total length being noted only in the infobox should suffice--"not necessary in most cases (as that information will usually be covered by an infobox)". Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• There could be done a fair amount of prose trimming for things that are understandable. For example, "were subsequently signed to a recording contract" would retain its meaning without "to a recording contract".
• I'm little puzzled how McDonald was impressed by the "moments of silence"? I haven't read the source, but I assume he thought that the halts were places wisely.

The quote elaborates on it further, but that's all McDonald says in the source to explain himself more. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the wording in the original source? I'm struggling to understand how an audio engineer can be impressed by silence? I think he meant that the halts were used appropriately, not that they sounded "impressive".--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"I thought they were amazing. I'd already heard a couple of songs and I was already interested in the band anyway ... There was a lot of empty space in the xx's music ... the best stuff was the most sparse." (emphasis added) Would rewording it as "impressed by the intimate quality and use of silence" be better? Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have paraphrased the engineer correctly, leave it as is. Again, I haven't read the interview, but it seemed beyond my common sense at first read.--Retrohead (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• The third and fourth paragraph of the 'Lyrics' would read better if they were flipped. I expect the story behind the album's title to precede the lyrical subject explanation.

The title--explained in just that one sentence--only has relevance in this section because it introduces the idea of the band's age being subject to critics' interpretations of the lyrics. I think third paragraph should remain third since it introduces the basic themes on the album, whereas the title and their age are of secondary importance. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Describing a number of festivals as "well known" is a peacock word to a certain degree. And can you lose some of the commas in the sentence, having something like "They intermittently toured for 18 months"?

Would "high profile" be better? "Major" is what the source uses. Is this better? Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant to lose the "well known" description. And dropping the comma after "18 months" will make the sentence flow better.--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But I think it's correct grammar to leave it if "including..." is being introduced after. Would "for 18 months, which included most of 2010" sound better? Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was the sentence to be: "They intermittently toured for 18 months, including most of 2010".--Retrohead (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

k, done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I assume that the other band members aren't linked because they don't have articles on Wikipedia. But if they are noted musicians and fairly present in the media, they should be linked, despite this omission.

I don't know if they fit the threshold of media presence or notability, otherwise they'd have their own articles like Jamie xx. Both Oliver Sim and Romy Madley Croft redirect to the xx, which is already linked several times in the article and the infobox (WP:OVERLINK) Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if they are redirects to the band's page there's no point in linking them.--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll wrap my comments without a vote. Feel I'm not competent enough in this music genre to offer an opinion on the article's promotion. There was also concern with some unnecessary linking and music terminology, but I see that was already discussed. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Nikkimaria

Ian Rose has asked me to do some spotchecking on this article, in an effort to resolve the dispute above. I don't see anything that I would consider a copyright violation, at least in the material I checked. However, while limited close paraphrasing can be done with proper attribution, I would caution you against over-relying on that provision - fair use becomes harder to justify the more it's applied. The intent of "limited" is that such paraphrasing is used sparingly, and it seems that this article goes quite a ways beyond that. There are also a few instances where efforts to avoid close paraphrasing seems to have led to text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)