Self-nomination The article's previous nomination was closed before sufficient votes were given, so I'm hoping to get enough responses this time. All The majority of the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed, and little has changed with the article since then. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think it's entirely accurate to say all the concerns were addressed. When the previous nom closed I was still opposing the article but reviewing changes. I can spot at least 2-3 of my issues that were decidedly not resolved. One major item is white space. The way you've chosen to layout the article leaves huge chunks of white space at higher resolutions. --Laser brain(talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I misrepresented the conclusion of the previous FLC, I thought I had take care of everything. I reworded the nomination slightly to reflect this. My monitor is a fairly low resolution, so perhaps you could tell me which sections in particular are problematic? Drewcifer (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Any section that contains an image and precedes one of those collapsible boxes is not scalable because of the box. In other words, as resolution increases, the text continues to shrink around the image but the box continues downward, leaving whitespace. I'm not sure how to better describe the issue. --Laser brain(talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment All the sourcing issues from the previous FAC were resolved, I double checked quickly them again, and they look fine. The link tool is showing two dead links and a timeout though, you might want to check those. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, I took a fresh look at this today after not reading it for a while, and it looks vastly improved from when this nom was posted. I'm changing to support. Oppose, I am disappointed that this is listed here again without much changed in the article. There was ample opportunity for a substantive peer review as I recommended last time but I see that has not been done. Outstanding concerns:
Prose (1a); comma usage and other unpolished prose. General copyedit needed by an uninvolved editor.
A substantive copyedit is still needed. Issues still easily spotted, and in many places the recent copyedit introduced changes but not necessarily improvements. --Laser brain(talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence is still confusing.. why use the term "component"?
I'm really not sure how to respond to this as a criticism. "Component" implies that NIN in the studio is part of a bigger entity, ie "Nine Inch Nails". NIN live + NIN in-studio = Nine Inch Nails. Each is a component to the larger whole. Seems pretty straight-forward english to me.
"In 1991 the band then embarked on a world tour that continued through the first Lollapalooza festival, where the band 'stole the show' despite numerous equipment problems." Like what?
The source does not specify, but is this really that important of info? Does the article really need to say "The wha-wha pedal was unplugged" or "An amp was broken" or "The mic stand was missing a washer" or any of the other 100 completely mundane, uniteresting, uber-technical things that might have gone wrong? Looking at the article's scope (NIN Live Performances as a whole) is such detail necessary? Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's not important, take it out. I'd rather it just say they were successful instead of saying they were successful despite problems but not specifying what the problems were. It's unusual for a professional band to have such technical problems that a journalist felt compelled to write about it. We're not talking about the things you mentioned, we're talking about problems major enough for the audience to notice. --Laser brain(talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found a source that specifies the technical problems: "monitors weren't on, guitars were out of tune, the mic stand was nowhere to be seen." Seems like pretty mundane stuff to me. What do you recommend? Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a judgment call. If they are mundane then I recommend just taking out that phrase in the interest of being concise. --Laser brain(talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why nothing about the visual production of the shows prior to 1999? You answered in the last FAC that you couldn't find anything, but unfortunately that's not good enough for FA. --Laser brain(talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So, I've made a few big edits, hopefully to fix the above problems. I had the article copyedited by a third party. I decided to take out the tables (since they were a formatting issue, but also since some people have already mentioned this as something they weren't too fond off), and moved them to List of Nine Inch Nails tours. Let me know if there's still any high-resolution formatting issues. I also added some pre-1999 stuff in the visual elements section. Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all of your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I had trouble getting beyond the first sentence. Why is it "generally understood to be a separate entity" rather than "is a separate entity"? And what do the words entity and component mean here? BuddingJournalist 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It is generally understood to be seperate since they are officially one and the same. It's impossible to say definitively "is" since such rhetoric has never come from the NIN-camp. Admittedly, it's a messy situation language-wise. "Component" implies that it is part of a larger whole. "Entity" was a little wierd, so I reworded that part. Drewcifer (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I redid the lead from scratch. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the "generally understood..." is gone (which had been bothering other editors too, it seems), so that's a non-issue now. However, the lead could be improved:
"Nine Inch Nails as a live band has toured throughout the world" Why the "as a live band" qualifier? Seems redundant. Don't tours generally feature live bands?
"including perfvormances" typo, and "including" is not the best word here. "giving performances" or just "performing".
"Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, though typically in complete creative control of the band's musical direction in-studio, has assembled a live band to interpret each major Nine Inch Nails studio release" I did not understand the "though" here. Did he release creative control in assembling these live bands?
"These performances have usually been in the form of promotional tours...in many festivals...many other single performances" Long sentence. Conflict between "usually" and "many" other performances.
"since its inception - Reznor" hyphen is not used for separation.
"always-changing" "always" is not the best modifier. Try "constantly changing"
I also skimmed the rest of the article and noticed that your transitions to quotations need work (commas, capitalization, flow, etc.). BuddingJournalist 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed all of your concerns, I think. If there's any further quotation-issues, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I also have problems with the lead section. To have "is generally understood" in the first line of an article isn't good; starts of articles should be more definitive. "Component" is an odd word. "Representation" or "manifestation" might be better. It's not that unusual for a studio artist to assemble live bands when going out on tour, especially when the artist tends to play most/all the instruments himself/herself; think Stevie Wonder or Paul McCartney. Smallish bands with well-defined personnel will add players on tour; think Genesis or R.E.M. or Nirvana. So there should be some way of getting this across. Also, the lead section seems too short. A paragraph summarizing the challenges/successes or failures/commercial and critical reactions to NIN live would be helpful. Does the NIN sound translate to the concert experience? Or do they adopt a different sound/approach? Is NIN more commercially successful with records or on tour? What type of venues do they play, and what are the grosses like? What has been the critical reaction? Indeed, the article as a whole needs to explore these topics more. I see some interesting reviewer comments buried in footnotes ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: The "Critical and commercial success" section that's been added would be better called "Critical and commercial reaction" or "Critical and commercial reception", so that you don't prejudge the contents. I seen both those names in other tour articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I redid the lead from scratch, let me know if you like it. Also renamed the Critical/commercial section. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I like the article in general, it is very thorough in my opinion. some other editors bring up some good points I also support: Critical and commercial success could be expanded and summarized in the lead; how does the NIN live show compare with the average "concert experience"? Also, I'm not sure if the History sections flow very well; I think some more detail of what the live band did during hiatus' and recording times could help. If the flow is improved, I am prepared to give my full support.
As for Laser brain's comment of how copyediting is still needed, could he provide some specific examples? I thought my copyedit did well in improving the natural soud of some sentences. I am not an expert in proper writing or grammar, but I think there was some good improvement. -- ReaperX 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reaper_X, I hope my comment didn't come across as unappreciative! We actually do need an expert in proper writing and grammar to copyedit this and other FA candidates. Random examples, but they are everywhere:
Grammar/prose: "Certain songs in particular are typically accompanied with specially-designed visual aids, including synchronized lighting effects and projected stock-footage montages."
Comma usage: "The concert was cut short, however, as the meeting was raided by a fictional SWAT team, and the audience was rushed out of the building."
The article is almost entirely written in passive voice, which has the effect of obscuring or eliminating the subjects of sentences. Example: "In April, a 'resistance meeting' was scheduled in Los Angeles, where game participants were invited to attend a fictional Art is Resistance meeting, and were rewarded by an impromptu concert by Nine Inch Nails." Aside from being overly long, passive voice completely eliminates the subjects from the sentence and we don't find out who scheduled, who invited, and who awarded. Many of your edits introduced even more passive voice into the article. --Laser brain(talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I took care of the language issues you pointed out above (I know they were just examples, but its a step in the right direction). In the meantime I've asked for another person to give the article a further copyedit. As for some other points of business: I completely redid the lead, let me know why you think. To respond to some of Reaper's comments: I think it's very unnecessary to mention what band members did during touring hiatuses. After all, the topic of the article is NIN live performances, so what happens between those performances isn't really that important, unless particularly notable. I also expanded the critical/commercial section, and mentioned it in the lead. As far as the History section's flow, goes, could you give some more specific examples? Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I thought flow could be improved with the mentioning of the band members activities between performances, but you bring up a very good point. That and I appreciate your expansion of the critical/commercial success. So...
Support I love the comprehensiveness of this article, especially considering the subject matter. -- ReaperX 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and your support! Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've gone through the article and begun some copy-editing, per Laser Brain's request for a "General copyedit needed by an uninvolved editor." I'm attempting to remove some awkward wording, and such. I've also added tags to two statements I believe need to be clarified. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"has performed and toured throughout the world, including performances" - performance overuse...possible reword? changed to "has performed throughout the world, including tours in North America.." Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
"It was poorly received and was asked to leave the tour after 10 dates" - "it" seems to refer to the tour...clarify that it refers to the band?
"In 1991, the band then embarked" - would it read better without the "then"?
"Early tours and Pretty Hate Machine tour (1988–1991)" (section title) - why is PHM in italics?
"After the Self-Destruct tour..." - Drewcifer's always telling me about short paragraphs; here's one for him. :)
Ouch. Fixed. 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"Reznor held auditions in December 2004. Reznor stated" - change second Reznor to "he", perhaps? Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
"During the first arena show in 2005, Jerome Dillon was forced to stop midway through the show and was subsequently hospitalized.[clarify]" - I dunno, it seems clear enough to me—perhaps remove the "through the show" to make it a bit more crisp (and remove the clarify tag).
I'm not really sure if I follow you on this one. Removing the phrase would make the fact incomplete and worded awkwardly.
Aah, you're right. In any case, suggest you remove the clarify tag, unless you can think of a way of clarifying further. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"Since the release of the Ghosts I-IV" - italics?
"in support of Ghosts I–IV, also stating that "the band has been reformed"" - change album title to "it" (I suggest) and cite the quote.
"purchasers legal name." - needs an apostrophe. And is this section really necessary?
FIXED APOSTROPHE and MERGED WITH PERFORMANCE 2008.
"Nights of Nothing Tour" - Nights of Nothing is only mentioned once elsewhere in the article, as a song. I'm a bit confused.
REWORDED SLIGHTLY (Nights of Nothing isn't a song, it was a three-night showcase of Nothing bands. I've clarified the language to reflect that).
Cool, thanks for the support and all the help. Drewcifer (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. At a quick look, the article appears comprehensive and well-cited. However, the prose needs a great deal of work before this is ready for FA status. I stopped reading closely in the first section of the history section and just skimmed the rest. These prose examples come from the lead and the first few history paragraphs; I suspect the same problems are rampant through the rest of the article.
I have no idea what this is trying to say "re-interprets studio albums in promotion of new studio releases."
I've reworded this sentence "While Reznor controls the creative and musical direction of Nine Inch Nails in-studio, the touring band re-interprets the studio albums for a live setting." AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
This sentence is really awkward "The live performances have served as promotional tours as both supporting and headlining acts, such as festivals Woodstock '94, Lollapalooza 1991 and 2008, as well as many other single performances, such as during the MTV Video Music Awards."
Awkward wording "only with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions made by live-band members or other guest artists" - should be something like "with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions from others"
Reworded to "with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions from others artists". AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
remove redundancies: " to interpret the songs in a live form during tours" to "to interpret the songs during tours"
reworded to "Reznor has typically assembled groups of backing musicians to interpret songs during tours" AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
Why are some names of band members in italics? I think that might be a violation of WP:ITALICS
The paragraph before the names says that names in italics are members who have contributed to studio releases. Drewcifer (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion to Asterisk as opposed to italicize. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool, switched italicization to cross-marker thingie. Drewcifer (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
CommentWhat does "re-interprets tracks" mean. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It's understandable that there is some of the confusion. The Nine Inch Nails album performance of a song verses the stage performance of a song is often sonically different. Where as others artists may perform a song live much like it was recorded, the Nine Inch Nails live shows often feature different instrumentation entirely, from musicians who had no hand in the original recordings - effectively re-interepting the source material. It is further expanded upon in the history section. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What you want to say is that they rearrange songs for the stage, not reinterpret. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. Lightly tinkled with the prose, and Support now (as alt music project member). Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank so much for your help and support. Drewcifer (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two headers (===), see WP:MOS#Images. indopug (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, but the article seems the worse for it. I would have though image promixity to the relevant text should override. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Currently reading through the article. I appreciate that the tours has been given its own list article, as I suggested; it particularly helped get rid of the collapsable boxes, which I felt were redundant and ungainly. Given the trimmed-down scope of the article now, I would strongly suggest this article be renamed Nine Inch Nails backing band, since that's basically what the article is about, and Reznor has made it clear he essentially is the band (per the famous credits in every NIN release "Trent Reznor is Nine Inch Nails") and only needs a full band for gigs. It's a much better, clearer title for the article. I'll follow up wih more comments as I go through the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. While the article does encompass the live band - it is in the context of the live tours of Nine Inch Nails. The article additionally addresses touring on the whole, visual elements, and the live performances. The article title "Nine Inch Nails Backing Band" is too narrow. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think there needs to be as much focus on the visual elements and live performances. The majority of the article deals with the changing lineups; that's a fine enough scope to devote the article to. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I too disagree. If one were to break the entire article into its proportional focuses, I would say that the lineup changes is much less then half of the article's content. There's 6 sections, and only two of which deal with the lineup (the Live band members section obviously, and only portions of the History section). What your suggesting seems a little self-fulfilling to me: that the article's focus is too broad AND that the article should be renamed to be more specific. Drewcifer (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I just think you can get the same points across with a better title. "Nine Inch Nails live performances" is awkward and a bit esoteric. People see "Nine Inch Nails backing band" and it's clear what the article is about. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly my point: the article isn't exclusively about the backing band. There's much more here. Though renaming the article NIN backing band would obviously make the line-up portions of the article make more sense, it would also make whole sections of the article out-of-place. For instance, why would "Visual elements" be in an article about a backing band? This is exactly why I said it was a self-fulfilling change, since neither step works without the other. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nine Inch Nails "backing" band isn't ideal. But I would expect an article titled "Nine Inch Nails live performances" to be a discussion of specific performances. Maybe the article is too general for that title. Lemme think. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not tied to the current article name, though I oppose WesleyDodds suggestion. As a possible compromise that addresses the full scope of the article, what about "Live Elements of Nine Inch Nails" or "Elements of Live Nine Inch Nails" - but really I don't know the scope of this FAC. Perhaps we should take renaming discussions to the talk page? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
AtaruMoroboshi, AFAIK its outside the scope of FAC, and yes, should be taken to article talk. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I bring it up here because if the page is moved the FAC needs to be renamed as well. Renaming discussions are often settled in FAC (one I was personally involved with was the moving of "R.E.M. (band)" to R.E.M.). As for the names Ataru suggested, I think those would be too cumbersome and not helpful to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've finished reading the article. Here are my comments.
I think that first paragraph in the History section could work as part of the lead. Just start off the History with Reznor hiring band members.
Establish more context for the creation of the live band in the prose. My suggestion is to summarize the quote in "Early tours and Pretty Hate Machine tour" ("I could have just gone out with tape machines or 50 keyboards . . .") in the section. The quote box itself can stay; I just think Reznor's rationale needs to be better established in the body of the article.
I remember reading that Reznor said the sound of the live band influenced the sound of Broken, ie. very heavy and guitar-oriented. Can something about this be included?
Some of the Year Zero project details seem unnecessary.
Comment What specific details do you believe need to be unnecessary? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Live releases" section can be done away with.
I disagree. Most band articles have some sort of discography section, and since the live band has had an output in the form of a few live releases, I'd say a similar section applies here too. Drewcifer (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"Critical and commercial reception" section seems somewhat redundant, given there are constant references to how each tour was received in the History section. Still, only somewhat redundant; there's plenty of good information in the section itself. Remove redundancies and possibly move some stuff around.
I disagree. The cool thing about the chart is that it sums up alot of the article in a single pretty small chart. Granted, the code is pretty massive, but the chart itself is pretty compact. And for being so small, it offers alot of information, synthesized for the reader's convenience: who played when, how long they were part of the band, who played what instruments, who replaced who, the relative tenures of each member, the various incarnations of the group, major tours, major releases, etc, etc. It certainly doesn't take away from the article, and I would argue it offers up alot of information. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Other article renaming ideas: "Nine Inch Nails live band", "Nine Inch Nails in live performances". Having read the entire article, very little would have to be changed in the prose to accomodate a change to either of these names, or my aforemention "Nine Inch Nails backing band". It would most require some rewriting of the lead and the removal of some superflous details.
I'm not against the idea of renaming the article, but I don't think that any of the suggestions so far serve the topic better then the current title. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the facts in "Guest artists and collaborations" are unimportant, since they're one-off occurances. The ones I think should be kept are the Lollapalooza '91 "Head Like a Hole" jams (if they were performed regularly; I vaguely recall that they were) and the David Bowie team-ups. These can be integrated into the history section.
Aside from that, there's some awkwardness in the prose that I'll try to fix myself. Otherwise the article is pretty solid. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.