Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stereolab

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:00, 19 June 2007.

Stereolab[edit]

(Self-nomination). Recently rewrote this article about the alternative music band Stereolab. It's just been peer-reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, and should be FA quality now. - Merzbow 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is bound to ask why the album covers are there (strictly, not fair use). Apart from that, it seems fine. Neil ╦ 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are criticised in the text, so they're there for the purposes of identification. That's the way I see anyway. CloudNine 08:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I made sure to only show album covers for albums discussed in the text (for at least a few sentences), which makes it acceptable under fair-use. I wish there were more GFDL Stereolab photos I could use, but there aren't; I even asked on a Stereolab message board for contributions, but got none. - Merzbow 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on what is and isn't acceptable, so fair enough. Support, as a big Sterolab fan (I'm gonna dig out Dots and Loops later thanks to this), but note below. First, a stylistic thing, but no big deal - for the section discussing the Marxist connotations of Ping Pong, could it be better to have a {{rquote}} template on the right featuring the lyrics, rather than an .ogg sample of the song (or both)? Oh, and "run over" is an idiom (in the 2002 section), "struck by a car" would be better (unless the car actually did drive over her).

Also, all the reviews and critical coverage referred to in the article is American (Billboard chart placements, Washington Post reviews, Rolling Stone, etc); seems a little strange for a British/French band. There's nothing about NME coverage of the band, Stereolab were one of the darlings of the NME in the mid 1990s ... is the article a bit too US-centric, possibly? Nothing on how they were received outside the US other than one Mojo review. Neil ╦ 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sources listed I see Melody Maker, The Wire, The Indepedent, and The Guardian, which are all respected and notable British arts publications. Sure, if we can get opinions from NME that would be great, but I feel the UK press is represented sufficiently.WesleyDodds 09:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

47/57 press reviews are American; there are more from the Washington Post alone than from all UK sources. More than that, there's nothing at all from outside the US/UK. There's also nothing written in the article about chart performance other than in the US (again, strange for a non-US band), and nothing at all about the band's success outside the US/UK. Perhaps I'm being too fussy? Neil ╦ 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw numbers don't matter as much to me as long as a cross-section of critical opinion is displayed. If that's a concern for you that's perfectly fine and reasonable; I just personally feel that differences in critical opinion are well-represented overall. And did you count the Simon Reynolds reviews? He's British but during the 1990s he lived mostly in the US. I cited an article he wrote for the New York Times in "Smells Like Teen Spirit". WesleyDodds 09:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of maybe a bit more concern is the absolute lack of any reference to reception / activity / success outside the US or UK. Neil ╦ 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring foreign language sources (which aren't necessary for the English Wiki, although it might be nice to see what the French think given the nature of the band), that leaves us with press from places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and so forth. None of those countries are particularly noted internationally for their music criticism. Going back to your previous statements, it's arguably more important that the NME's critical opinion is included than that of non Anglo/American sources. Honestly, the critical notices are of lesser importance; how they are viewed in the greater context of music (their stylistic traits, their role in post-rock, their influence) is conveyed sufficiently by the sources present. WesleyDodds 10:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How they are viewed in the greater context of music would include how they are viewed outside the UK and US. The article shows how Stereolab is seen in the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK. That is a lack of worldview. Why are these countries not noted for their music criticism? Because you haven't heard of their publications? Information on how Stereolab have performed, records sold, etc, outside the US and UK would be a very valuable addition to the article. Neil ╦ 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The first sentence of "1994–2001" covers their entire UK chart history (AFAIK they only managed to hit the UK Singles chart, not the album chart). I'm not sure if they charted anywhere outside the US/UK, but I'll see if I can find out. I'm not so worried about US vs. UK coverage given that Reynolds and Hoskyns are British, but if I can find a few more British reviews, I'll quote them. As for non-US/UK, I'll try to find a few album or gig reviews from, say, French newspapers (thanks to Google Translate). Also I'll quote some of "Ping Pong"'s lyrics in addition to having the sample. - Merzbow 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lyrical except from Ping Pong. I also added several more UK references, replacing a couple lesser-known US references. Although I can't find anything that generalizes about how the band was received outside the US/UK, I did find two album reviews from two of France and Germany's top newspapers, and used them. They seem to have the same opinion of Stereolab's sound as the US/UK reviewers, though, so I don't think there's much difference here. I couldn't find anything on chart performance outside the US/UK, however; data on this subject are fragmented, and I don't think Stereolab's music did well enough to hit top 40 anywhere. I'll keep my eyes open. - Merzbow 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm a member of Wikiproject Alternative music, and have reviewed the article at Peer Review. This is a well-written, comprehensive, and informative article that meets FA standards (and didn't even need to go through GAC). More notices from the UK press would be appreciated, but in terms of hard facts the article is virtually complete. It's basically everything you need to know about the band in a clear and informative manner. WesleyDodds 09:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. Your advice in the PR helped a great deal. - Merzbow 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm just a maintainer there, for about a year, but it's been a true pleasure watching the article rapidly develop over the last few weeks. It now seems comprehensive, fascinating, neutral, impeccably researched and referenced, and other effusive complimentary adjectives! He's also been working hard on all the related articles such as Stereolab discography and the various releases. My compliments to Merzbow. --Quiddity 22:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.