Talk:Spiderland

Concerns about lead

Ordinary I would fix minor issues, but these days I have little time and energy, but felt it appropriate to raise some concerns because this article is presented as one of our best. The lead would benefit from more information - as it stands it raises more questions than it answers: "The album has been influential on the styles of many bands in the post-rock genres" - some examples would be useful. "Spiderland was not widely recognized on its initial release" - what does that mean? "it eventually sold more than 50,000 copies" Is this a lot? My understanding is that sales of around 50,000 a week get into the album charts, so achieving total sales of 50,000 over a longer period doesn't seem much. "became a landmark album in underground music" - in what way did it become a landmark album? SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, I'm the user mostly responsible for writing the article. Keep in mind that was back in 2007, when I was a high-schooler and the FAC process was not as uniformly rigorous as it is today. That said, your concerns are entirely valid and I appreciate that you've raised them here. These are some of the same things I'd say if I were reviewing the article today—I cringe reading some of those sentences back to myself now. Even putting aside prose quality problems, a lot of information in the article is out of date—not inaccurate, necessarily, but not informed by the best-available sources either. Since the time I wrote this, a plethora of new material about this album has been published. There's the Spiderland box set, along with the spate of renewed critical attention that followed; an entry in the 33⅓ series (and while the utility of 33⅓ books varies—some are personal essays, interpretive fiction, or just plain duds—the Spiderland 33⅓ is among the best ones I've read); and a documentary about the band, which is also quite good.

I've idly considered revamping the article from time to time, especially after the 33⅓ arrived, but I've never gotten around to it. I'm going to give it a go this week. If you think a more formal process like FAR is warranted, that may be a good idea too—it would draw input from other editors and would be a good way to formally ensure that it's up to current FA standards (or, alternately, that it's time to delist it). I'm not opposed to something like FAR, although I'd prefer to take an initial crack at improving the page first before kicking that off. —BLZ · talk 20:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The FAR process expects that an attempt is first made to fix problems, which is why I raised the concern here rather than take it to FAR. At one time I would have looked to fix the lead myself (I expect the information is in the main body, or could be found with a few moments research). I used to enjoy fixing leads. But my energy and concentration levels have dropped considerably due to poor health. I like the 33⅓ series. How did you type ⅓ BLZ? (I've just copied and pasted yours). I've been looking for a means of doing that. SilkTork (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is going to sound silly but I type "33 1/3" into the search bar and copy-paste it every time I refer the book series because using the "⅓" character is so aesthetically pleasing and there's no simpler way to type it without resorting to arcane keyboard customization. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

FA maintenance

Pinging @Brandt Luke Zorn:. I noticed a lot of maintenance issues on this article. It was promoted to FA in 2007 but has grown quite bloated and stale. These were just the first few I noticed:

1. [citation needed] tag in "Background"
2. [When] and [citation needed] tags in "Production".
3. "Music" section is very choppy and has a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Also the last paragraph is uncited.
4. "Don't Look Back Concerts" (citation 27) redirects to a hotel website.
5. Genius.com (citation 91) does not appear to be reliable.

If these are not tended to soon, I feel the article may need a visit to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

To note, TenPoundHammer's further valid and astute concerns were addressed in a tough but productive FAR c may 2021, which coincided with the album's 30th aniv, and everybody lived happily ever after. Ceoil (talk)