Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ramones (album)/archive2

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ramones (album)[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating the Ramones (album) because I have put a substantial amount of work into it since the last FAC, as well as since it was a start class article (see difference). I believe it now meets all the criteria, as I've added more information and done some major copyediting. I recently rewrote the lead, which happened to be a major issue in the previous FAC. Anyways, please feel free to comment or ask any questions! CrowzRSA 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The paragraph under the quote in "Touring" needs a source. I'll probably return here for a full review soon when I get the time. Have you fixed all issues brought up in the last FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added reference. And yeah everything has been fixed except the fact that File:Ramones Toronto 1976.jpg still does not have an OTRS tag, as requested by User:Fasach Nua. The files uploader, Plismo at WikiMedia, has been off wiki since July 2011. CrowzRSA 21:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the bibliography/cited books under notes? FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple overlink problems, the background section alone has the band linked twice.
  • Comments
  • The article seems inconsistent on whether the band is to be called "Ramones" or "The Ramones". Looking at a similar example, Talking Heads' Remain in Light, the definite article seems to be dropped when the band's name doesn't include it. I don't really mind either way which this article uses (I'd defer to what the majority of sources go with) but it should be internally consistent.
  • Doing...
  • Fixed. I used "the Ramones" because it fits the context much better and is typically used more often than just "Ramones". The band is, in fact, just Ramones, but since each of the band members go by the last name of Ramone, the group is generally called the Ramones, with a lower case "t" in "the." I think it reads better now though. CrowzRSA 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotted a "recognisable" in there; the album has strong ties to the US so the "-ize" spelling is the one to use. The only other one I spotted was "comprised", which, while spelt right (I'm pretty sure it's -ise worldwide) is being used incorrectly (should be "composed of" or "comprises"; User:Giraffedata/comprised of is worth a glance).
  • Fixed.
  • "Rombes described the structure of the piece as "both line in a song and song line across a line in a song."". I'm not really sure I understand what this is trying to say; perhaps it's worth paraphrasing instead for clarity?
  • Fixed. I just removed it since I can't make much sense of it either and it does not seem to be contributing anything significant.
  • The first sentence of "Reception" seems to indicate contemporary reception ("and was well received") but is immediately followed up with a modern review from AllMusic. The Rolling Stone review is from the time of release, and is from a bigger name to boot, so lead in with that one; if possible, it might be best to try ordering the reviews roughly chronologically so as not to confuse retrospective criticism with contemporary material.
  • Doing...
  • Okay, I think it should be fixed now. CrowzRSA 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the box quote from Christgau could be trimmed a little, at 80+ words it's a little long for a snippet. My suggestion would be to replace "You couldn't say they condone any nasties, natch—they merely suggest that the power of their music has some fairly ominous sources and tap those sources even as they offer the suggestion" with an ellipses, though you might prefer to cut something else.
  • Fixed.
  • Again with the quote box, I know that having images parallel to one another, sandwiching text, is to be avoided and my assumption is that this applies to all floating elements too—given that the review box makes more sense up at the top of the section, I'd move the quote down a paragraph. It would still fit as it comes after Cristgau is mentioned in running prose.
  • Fixed.
  • "In 1999, Classic Albums by Collins GEM recognized Ramones as the start of English punk rock". This might be worth moving down to the section that expands upon this influence, as it seems a little confusing here; upon reading it I had to double check why England would be the focus and found that it was discussed later in the article, an unexpanded-upon statement like that would generally be better after the point is discussed, or during. I make sense to myself, anyway, if not to anyone else.
  • Fixed.
  • The rowspans in the custom track list tables being used will cause some problems with screenreaders, which goes against WP:ACCESS. The usual {{Track listing}} template should offer everything that you're getting from the current tables (there are options for extra fields so you can fit the backing vocals and refs in there), while having the benefit of being screenreader accessible. I would also manually remove the rowspans from the release history table for the same reason; repeating the cells for each row is no real loss given the gain for visually impaired readers.
  • Fixed.
  • Remove "Rovi" from the AllMusic refs; the sites have split again and "Rovi" appears not to be a thing any more.
  • Fixed.
GRAPPLE X 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your comments!!! CrowzRSA 05:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with these changes; just giving it another wee comb through for any prose issues but that's all I have left to do and I'll fix anything I see myself; after that I'm satisfied. GRAPPLE X 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noticed one more thing combing through it—"...usually opening for an identified cover band". If they're identified, name them; unless this was meant to be "unidentified". GRAPPLE X 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I'm happy enough to support this provided the last minor comment above is resolved. Caveat: I'm by no means a great copy-editor, so sharper-eyed editors may still find things I've missed. GRAPPLE X 07:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the great comments and support!!!! CrowzRSA 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a fantastic article. Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but I figured I'd do a quick review to input my opinion (From Wikipedia's featured article guidelines):
1.It is-
a). Well written: ✔ Your prose is definitely engaging and interesting.
b). Comprehensive: Only comment I have here is you could maybe say more regarding the cover of Let's Dance towards the bottom of "Lyrics and Comprehension" and I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend in the same section. With all of the information about each of the other songs, not having the same information about these two songs kind of stick out to me.
  • Added more info to these songs. CrowzRSA 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
c). Well researched: ✔ I think this is the high point, even with all the other great things about this article
d). Neutral: For the most part, I think this is good, because with such a significant album, you're going to have a lot of overwhelmingly positive viewpoints, but nevertheless, I think having a negative review under Reception might be a good way to make it come across as being unbiased.
  • I added what little info I could find about poor reception, which happened to be an article which summarized its initial critical reception. CrowzRSA 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e). Stable: ✔ Speaks for itself
2. Follows Style guidelines: ✔ Don't see any errors, somebody with more experience might, but it looks good to me
3. Media: ✔ Great usage of the media that is present
4. Length: ✔ Longer article, but needs to be given the historical significance
All in all, it looks absolutely fantastic to me! Great work Baltergeist (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sadly. Despite the nominator's claim otherwise, several of my (and others') criticisms from the first FAC remain unresolved. I found these problems with the article just from a quick readthru:

  • Reception: this section is highly confusing and needs to be completely rewritten.
  • First of all, it doesn't clearly distinguish between contemporary reviews (from the 70s) with retrospectives. These shouldn't even be in the same section.
  • I'm pretty sure it's fixed CrowzRSA 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For eg: AllMusic, which features twice, comes just after a 1976 Rolling Stone review. There's also an uncited and undated Time review.
  • Contradictions abound: "released on April 23, 1976 through Sire Records and was well received by critics" but "early reviews of the album are hard to come by" and "many early critics giving somewhat negative reviews". What?
  • Cleared things up, but what do you suggest if there aren't any publications online of an old negative review other than the fact that one source infers that it initially received neutral reviews and are in fact hard to find. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reflects in the lead too, where retrospective adulation from the 1990s/2000s is used to prove that the album was released to acclaim in 1976: "Ramones was very well received by critics. It was rewarded numerous five-star reviews, with many writers commenting on the album's establishment of the punk-rock genre"
Fixed CrowzRSA 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That review box also only makes matters worse, presenting the above-mentioned negative RS review as "favorable". Again, retrospectives and contemporary reviews are mixed up.
  • Poor sourcing: one review is from Envato, a "privately held company that specializes in the start-up, promotion and operation of multiple online marketplaces which facilitate the exchange of digital goods". Also, blurbs from a Sire Records flyer have been used as reviews here. I also see Amazon. These issues mean that all the sources must be looked at carefully.
  • What's wrong with using a flyer? When did Amazon become unreliable? What are you saying about Envato, you just state what it says in a Wikipedia article, and Envato is only the parent company, as you can see in the ref.
  • All those book sources: have you seen the entire books or are you relying on Google Books excerpts?
  • A few of them are from Google, but why does this matter? CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: needs a thorough copyedit. I started one a few weeks back, but had to stop, defeated, at "The recording process was a deliberate exaggeration of the techniques used on the recording sessions of the Beatles from the early 1960s, with a four-track recording representation of the devices. ... The mixing of the recordings also used more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by recording studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to previously recorded material."
  •  Fixed
  • Excessive detail on tangential topics: the article often goes into too much detail about individual songs, many of which have their own articles. Examples of this include the Singles sub-section, which lists out commercials on which "Blitzkrieg Bop" featured. Also, the pointless "Cover versions and tributes" section which, by the way, also prevents the article from ending with a great line (from the Classic Albums book).
  • I concur on the singles subject, I removed the commercial info. But why do you think the "Cover versions and tributes" is pointless? It explains how so many different bands have found these songs so intriguing that they covered them. Are you suggesting that this article neglect the fact that these songs have been covered by so many different bands? That goes against criteria 1b. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyrics and compositions: probably needs a rewrite. This section should be about the overall musical and lyrical themes on the record, not the music and lyrics of every song listed sequentially. That I can find at the songs' articles.
  • The song's articles need additional verification and the section is entitled "Lyrics and compositions", not "Musical style". And why would I not give the lyrical meanings in this article? Is this not what the majority of people want to know? The lyrics portray different themes, and each song's concept can be verified with reliable sources, so why wouldn't it be put into the article about an album containing these songs? It's not like this section only talks about the lyrics. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting: needs to be made consistent. Why do cites without a link have "retrieved on"?
  • Release history: another unnecessary section. Why would the general reader need to know about so many release dates and catalogue numbers?
  • So if they own a copy they can see which one they have? CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a smattering of the problems with this article, which seem to run very deep indeed.—indopug (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments! CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to revisit this tomorrow.—indopug (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree and vote oppose per indopug. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • unlink the dollar in the lead and other sections of the prose per WP:OVERLINK
  • Done
  • "the instruments took three days and the vocals four"; this should be modified somehow, let's say "the vocal parts were recorded in four days" or something else; in this state, it sounds slightly confusing and there's a big chance it could be misinterpreted
  • Fixed
  • "initially had mixed review" is it "reviews", because this implies that the record had received one review which was mixed
  • Fixed
  • Robert Christgau gave the album an "A"→avoid stating grades already visible in the table; "and continued with a positive review"→were there some negative aspects in his review? If so, write what Christgau criticized. If not, omit "continued".
  • Fixed
  • link punk rock in the opening sentence of "Legacy and influence"
  • Done
  • must say the tables are quite original (a comment aside from the review)
  • Yeah I originally had the Track listing section in table form but removed it per WP:ACCESS.

Generally speaking, pretty solid article. This definitely has my support.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!!! CrowzRSA 01:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CrowzRSA, the article is fantastic! I SUPPORT it unconditionally.

WP:LEAD: The lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis.

  • Major Point 1: Background "After Craig Leon agreed to produce the album, the band recorded a demo for prospective record labels. After much encouragement, Sire president Seymour Stein offered the band a recording contract" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, first para involving Lisa Robinson should be summarized.)
  • Major Point 2: Recording and production "and the Ramones began recording in February 1976." & "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record, Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 3: Photography and packaging "The album cover, photographed by Punk magazine's Roberta Bayley, featured the four members leaning against a brick wall in north-side New York City." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 4: Promotion "After its release, Ramones was promoted with two singles and several tour dates." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
    • Major Point 4.1: Singles "… two singles …" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
    • Major Point 4.2: Touring "… several tour dates." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 5: Lyrics and compositions "Lyrical themes center around violence, male prostitution, drug use, and Nazism, but the albums also incorporates relationship issues and humor into lyrics. It opens with "Blitzkrieg Bop," which is among the band's most recognizable songs. Most of the album's tracks are noticeably uptempo, with many songs clocking at well over 160 beats per minute. The songs are also rather short; at two-and-a-half minutes, "I Don't Wanna Go Down to the Basement" is the album's longest track. Ramones also contains a cover of the Chris Montez song "Let's Dance."" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, the individual themes of these tracks can be highlighted, also I could not find the "which is among the band's most recognizable songs" in the body, although I can guess from the statement "three-chord assault" and the Cover versions and tributes section.)
  • I think that if the lead were expanded to include each of the song's lyrical themes, it would no longer conform with WP:LEADLENGTH. CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Point 6: Reception "Despite peaking at number 111 on the US Billboard 200, Ramones was deemed influential by many critics; however, initial reviews for the album tended to be neutral." (summarised well in the lead)
    • Major Point 6.1: Accolades "The album has received many accolades as well, earning the top spot on Spin magazine's list of the "50 Most Essential Punk Records."" (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 7: Legacy and influence "Ramones went on to inspire many bands like the Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks, the Clash, and Green Day. Aside from sparking the punk-rock scene in both the US and UK, it has had a significant impact on other branches of rock music, such as grunge and heavy metal." (summarised well in the lead)

Other issues:

  • The lead says "After much encouragement, Sire president …", the Background section says "After persuasion from …", the lead can be closer in meaning, I think.
  • I think the statement "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record, Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles" should be broken into two "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record" and "Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles". How is speed and expenditure related to techniques of the Beatles?
  • Fixed and cleared up wording CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite peaking at number 111 on the US Billboard 200 … . The album has received many accolades as well, earning the top spot on Spin magazine's list of the "50 Most Essential Punk Records." Both sides of as well are rankings, so how is this transition relevant?
  • "Aside from sparking the punk-rock scene in both the US and UK, it has had a significant impact on other branches of rock music, such as grunge and heavy metal." I could not find the fact that it sparked only in these two countries. Also, I believe that this sentence can be more effectively paraphrased. I’m not sure there is a link between the two clauses, the punk rock is mentioned in examples of genres impacted in the Legacy and influence as are grunge and heavy metal.
  • It gives examples of bands which were either involved in US or UK punk rock
  • "Regardless of this critical acclaim, Ramones was not as successful commercially." Compared to what? I think as is redundant or may be sentence can be more clear.
  • I think the Heading 3 Accolades can be removed and merged with the Heading 2 Reception to improve the flow of the prose.
  • I’d prefer mixed here "initial reviews for the album tended to be neutral" in the lead.
  • Do you think the "unsuccessful commercially" needs a mention in the lead?

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. CrowzRSA, it's my first review at FAC, so please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support and great comments!! CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Indopug and Tezero, can you pls revisit in light of changes since your comments and let us know how the article appears to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, my initial review pointed out issues that couldn't possibly have been fixed during the course of an FAC. Further, the nominator has not even attempted to address several of these significant problems—lack of focus (excess details on individual songs rather than the overall album), comprehensiveness (not a word on Johnny Ramone's iconic rapid-fire guitar style!), poor prose (needing an independent copyeditor) and poor sourcing. Most of the 1976 reviews of the album are sourced to an advertisement, and the first sentences of Reception remain incomprehensible:

Ramones was released on April 23, 1976 through Sire Records and initially had mixed reviews. Being reviewed by few critics upon its release, many writers leaned towards a neutral rating. Music critic Adam Brown explains that early reviews of the album are hard to come by, calling initial reactions "basically, non existent." Despite some early critics giving it a somewhat negative reviews

I haven't the time to look at the rest of the article in detail again. But I will say that given that the album is one of the greatest, there is no paucity of scholarly literature on it and the band. These need to be extensively researched (I don't think this has happened—for one, the nominator has admitted to relying on Google Books excerpts) before it can reach the standard of album FAs such as Loveless, Be Here Now or In Utero.—indopug (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, I needed to see where we were at. Clearly there's no chance of this achieving consensus to promote, even after remaining open six weeks. The passage above is a good indication that a thorough copyedit is still needed, and is not an isolated example. On the briefest of scans I noticed "The mixing of the production also used more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to material. The band also used a technique known as doubling, where the vocal line used is sung twice." -- seems to me that "of the production" is redundant; "techniques" is used three times in the two sentences; "also used" appears in both sentences, which each employ "used" twice on top of that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (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/Ramones_(album)/archive2&oldid=1136095862"