Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Made in the Dark

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [1].

Made in the Dark[edit]

Nominator(s): Seraphim♥Whipp


I'm nominating this article because, looking at a selection of other album FAs for structure and content, I believe this article is of good enough quality to become a featured article. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments- A thorough copyedit is needed; here are examples of problem sentences that may need fixing:

  • "As Taylor and Goddard worked on some of the songs as a duo" as a duo --> together
  • "Al Doyle has stated that Hot Chip try not to be beholden to the original recordings when playing their music live." This seems clunky to me.
  • "Goddard considered varying styles and influences a key factor in the band's music is that it has always originated from different styles and various influences,[9] but also explained that creating music can be difficult because a member could introduce a different influence." I don't understand what the first phrase of the sentence is trying to say. Also, pick a tense and stick to it ("creating music can be difficult", "a member could introduce a different influence")
  • "The concept of the song "Wrestlers" originates from a text message sent from James Murphy of LCD Soundsystem." Take out sent, we know that the text message came from James Murphy.
  • In an interview with Pitchfork in October 2007, Taylor addressed the proportion of electronic elements by saying there would be just as much electronic stuff as live material; he said the band don't "do things by adding one thing and taking something else away", but rather "throw everything into the mix":-I don't think just in "just as much" is necessary; don't-->doesn't.
  • Also, per Wikiproject Album's external links guidelines, include links relating to the album only; sites that concern the artist belong on the artist's article.
I'm still not satisfied with the external links; someone who more familiar with music websites should decide whether the remaining links belong on the article and find links that have to do with the album. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the MySpace one, and added a Last.fm one instead, which was used in Giggy's By the Way example. I've tweaked the Musicbrainz one so it points directly to its album page as used in another FA, Pinkerton (album). Seraphim♥Whipp 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review more thoroughly tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Never mind, Giggy said most everything I wanted to say. Meanwhile, I copyedited the Musical style section, which as far as prose is concerned, was the section that needed the most attention. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your comments. I have fixed points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. With point 1, the band members, Taylor and Goddard, generally work as a duo, with the rest of the band participating in later stages. With point 3, the language got a bit confused in a copyedit so I've given it the tweak it needed. Seraphim♥Whipp 01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re. point 1: your explanation makes sense, but I think the proposed wording would say it better. —Giggy 10:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed :). Thanks for making some fixes Dabomb87. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead definitely needs work; it focuses almost solely on sales/charts/single releases. Plenty of good stuff to copy off at WP:FA#Music; I like By the Way and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) as some (random) good examples.
  • "The band took a different approach in recording Made in the Dark to make it sound "not quite so homemade";[8] Hot Chip often uses bedrooms to record their music." - switch this around so you mention bedrooms before the quote.
  • That's... um... all the info there is on recording and production?
  • "saying there would be as much electronic stuff as live material" - try not to use words like stuff unless you're direct quoting...
  • The first sentence of Musical style goes for waaaaaay too long.
  • Not liking the short paragraphs in the Lyrics section... could you put them all together into a few that flow better....?
  • Be consistent with quotation marks/italics in Album title section.
  • Might also want to talk about cover art (if there's anything worth saying) in that section.

And yeah, that's about it. —Giggy 10:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I've worked on points 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Point 3: Now that you've pointed it out, it does look very short in contrast! I'll see what more I can find on production, recording and I'll look for some stuff about the artwork. Finally, thanks for the fixes and for fixing those mis-spells! Spelling names weirdly is a terrible quirk of mine. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little note, I am actively writing a new lead section off-wiki. I try so hard not to introduce OR, POV or weasel wording, that it really ends up stifling any flair or creativeness. But I'm working on it and hopefully you can expect to see a lead that is less clinical and stiff. Seraphim♥Whipp 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed point 1, worked on point 3 by adding more to production and recording (though I will still be adding more) and started a promotion section, (again, I'll give that a little more work). Seraphim♥Whipp 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork section added. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments;

  • "During the week of its release it reached..." - does the week in which it charted really matter?
  • "which reached number 53 in the UK Singles Top 75" - I'd have that as "on" (not "in") as that's how I refer to charts... is it just me? (same for all other charts)
  • "One of the defining features of the album is the strong presence of romantic ballads; the album included more than any previous release." - the part after the semi colon can be scrapped; it's implied (to an extent at least) and doesn't really do much.
  • Pitchfork Media shouldn't have italics (check refs and article text... Ctrl+F is your friend).
  • "Rolling Stone described the title track ballad" - "title track ballad".... not a fan of the phrasing.
  • "feelings of love and happiness had contributed to the album's romantic feel" - can you use a word other than feel one of the times?
  • Rather than quote someone specific in the lead, could you go into critic opinions in more detail (eg. critics generally approved of the honing of skills on this album.... they disliked the ballads...). Don't worry, it's not OR as you're just backing up stuff you say in the critical reception section anyway.
  • My comment above was a suggestion that you merge the Album title and Artwork sections.
  • The infobox should note the singles released (I forget the syntax, but check the infobox's page and it should say).

—Giggy 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good stuff, which I shall get done tomorrow (I'm practically falling asleep at the keyboard tonight). Only thing, with Pitchfork, I had used italic because I thought it fell into the category of magazine/publication. But obviously you've got numerous album FA's experience on your side, so I concede defeat and will change it tomorrow :). Seraphim♥Whipp 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Pitchfork Media it's an internet publication; those don't get italics (as opposed to print publications). —Giggy 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 to 6 done. With point 8, rather than merge the text of the two sections together, I gave them subheadings under a retitled production section. 7 and 9 to do, plus checking the date formats for consistency and I'll find reliable sources for chart positions. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the consensus on http://acharts.us/? Did it get decided as reliable or not? I think we leaned not just recently...
Otherwise sources look good, couldn't check the links, the link checker tool timed out on me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed on one of Efe's FACs, though I can't remember which one... I shall try and find it. —Giggy 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the FAC you are looking for. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we decided it was non-reliable, so it should be replaced. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to replace acharts in some cases, though in others I'm unable to find anything. I'll leave it up to Seraphim Whipp to decide what to do in these cases. —Giggy 02:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status on this now, anyway? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now only reliable sources are used in the article, with achart sourced ones commented out. I have tried to find reliable chart positions for those, but haven't yet found anything usable. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments

  • "There were mixed comments about certain elements in the album such as the ballads; two reviewers noted a disparity between the energy of different songs." This sentence needs to be either split up or rewritten.
  • He discussed "Wrestlers" in the band's interview with The Sun, believing that the song is "musically and lyrically quite direct" because "it doesn’t have thousands of layers", in contrast to the song "Bendable Poseable." Change "believing" to explaining, you can't "believe" something in a discussion.
  • The article never clarifies who "Taylor" is (besides the navbox at the article). Write the first names of the band members and their role in the band in the first mention of them in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darren Simpson - engineer (assistant)": For some reason, the dash/hyphen looks different from all the others.
  • "Some of these concepts included, dual colour illustrations, circles and the coating on copper, verdigris, after oxygenation has occurred." Comma use, please. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date autoformatting: To use it or not? (see User:Tony1/Survey of attitudes to DA removal#Proposal to remove date-autoformatting) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Points 1, 2 and 3 (hopefully) fixed. Seraphim♥Whipp 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have accidentally used a hyphen - fixed. As to the second point, I can't really see what's wrong with the comma usage. Is it the verdgris commas? Those are parenthetical. The others are used as part of the three part list. Perhaps the first comma should be replaced with a semi-colon though. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence was reworded by Sceptre - sounds less awkward now. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support-The lead looks a lot better now. I may have a few things later, but This is a well referenced, well written article. The only issue I have is comprehensiveness; more info on production and recording would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more to those sections, though I am still working on them. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I helped with the prose before Seraphim Whipp nominated the article, and I am her friend, so I have a very slight conflict of interest, but probably not to the level which would prevent my support. However, there are a few tiny prose hiccups, such as one or two commas being where they shouldn't and not being where they should, but I can't really criticise my own writing that much. In short, as long as the prose is upto standard, I'll support. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As all my above concerns are addressed, I support. —Giggy 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: I don't see one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images:
      • Image:Made in the dark.jpg is not low resolution (0.2megapixels), needs to be reduced; otherwise rationale and use are fine.
      • Image:Cropped version of KylieShowgirl.jpg is fine, free-image-wise, I'm just wondering how much this picture helps the section (I know it's talking about her, but I would think a picture of her with the band, if possible, would be better than nothing; a random picture of Kylie seems...odd, particularly of her dressed as a showgirl.)
        • It's the picture everyone uses to illustrate Kylie. Maybe that's why it was used? Sceptre (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other image is fine (free and licenses are correct, and used appropriately). --MASEM 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Images are good for FAC, then. --MASEM 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank-you for your input. I'll have a look on flickr again to try to find a better free image of Kylie. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the lead to show that a polish is required throughout. It's not in too bad shape, but 45–60 minutes by someone good (and distant from the text) would make a difference. Overlinking: please note that MOSLINK says not to link the names of commonly known countries (i.e., nationalities, too), especially anglophone ones. Tony (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your comments and edits. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Made_in_the_Dark&oldid=1078802781"