I'm nominating U2 because it meets all featured article criteria. Moreover, all concerns from previous Peer Reviews and FACs have been addressed, through major revisions and a September 2007 copy-edit by Wikipedia's outstanding League of Copyeditors. The Campaigning and Activism section is the only weak point, but it does not detract from the article in any way. Thanks in advance for reviewing and offering your opinion!
Minor oppose With a few nitpicks that need changing:
The last sentance of the lead says "The band are active in human rights..." Wouldn't it read better to say that Members of the band... While some of the campaigning and activism section mentions some charity performances, most of it deals with some of the members of the band working for causes. Plus, unless acting as a performing unit, its not really "the band" is it?
Changed to "Band members are active, as a band and as individuals, in human rights..." - perhaps my prose could be polished, but it is factually correct and clearer i suggest. --Merbabu (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"U2 have also enjoyed reciprocal influential relationships" Reciprocal influential relationships??? Oooohhhh... Sounds dirty... maybe some better phrasing here. Did they perform with these artists? WOrk on their albums? What is the nature of the relationship? Its also fully unsourced.
Good point. I've changed it to U2 have also worked and/or had influential relationships with Green Day, [etc].... While I suggest this is an improvement, it's still not brilliant. Perhaps others might show a stroke of prose genius. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, you mention cover versions of U2 songs, but you don't mention U2 doing any notable cover versions of other's songs? Are there?
Are there notable cover versions that U2 have played? To the best of my knowledge, U2 playing covers has extended only to live shows (common) and as quickly recorded throw away b-sides. I don't think that is notable - they were never sold as singles, on albums, or were chart success. One exception would be The Saints are Coming which is mentioned in the article, but it's mentioned in the "Campaigning and Activism" section. Perhaps this should be repeated in the covers section. Hmmm. --Merbabu (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, U2 has not done any notable cover versions except for Saints are Coming. Let's see -- Unchained Melody, Everlasting Love, Can't Help Falling In Love, Stand by me (in concert), All Along the watchtower, Paint it Black, Night and Day, Satellite of Love -- nope, nothing that rocked the charts. They have a large songbook and a decent enough lyricist that goes by the name of Bono so they don't really need to. I agree it's not worth mentioning except for maybe Saints are Coming (but that was only so big because it was a duet with Green Day and it was tied to post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans revival). Wikipedia brown (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The campaigning and activisim section has some issues as well, including external links in the main text (see WP:EL. This is a no-no". Also, the sentance "U2 and Bono's social activism have not been without its critics however. There are authors and activists whose work is reprinted by such publications as the politically left Counterpunch which has often carried articles critical of their being too close to power and their attempts to help as doing more harm than good." Citation anyone??? If such criticism exists, it should be cited. This is one of those sentances that contains an external link.
Fixed: Removed the first external link altogether (a recent inclusion that wasn't adding anything to the article). Also, expanded the counterpunch statement by referring to specific criticisms and articles and linking them in correct citation format. Wikipedia brown (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The awards section is ONLY a redirect. Could we get a summary paragraph of some sort here? Hit the highlights or give us something here?
Thanks for pointing that out. I went ahead and added a paragraph summarizing their achievements so far. Wikipedia brown (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Notes section starts renumbering itself? Why two #1's and two #2's etc. This is confusing and should be remedied...
Hmmm - this was an effort to elaborate on some interesting but overly detailed and tangential info. ie in this version Ie, they were notes, rather than references and are linked in the article with different notation. The intent of the notation in the prose was to show that these weren't just references, but further explanations. See the Australia article where this works quite well.
However, on second thoughts, the info is not that important for this article - it can find a place in a more specific U2 article. I have now removed it - for the best i think. --Merbabu (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
None of these is huge, but taken together represent a tidy list of things needing clean up. Fix these and you will have my support. Overall, its a darned good article, but some of this stuff is definately not feature worthy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Individual years should not be linked. The influence is just a sea of links; just a bunch of linked artists. POV: "based on real-life events and they find their emotional impact from the compelling reality of those situations." I think U2 have got a lot more criticism than is written here, that they're popular because of the campaigning rather than their music and how Bono uses charity to further his band's publicity. "U2's typically superlative standards." - another example of the fanboyish gushing prevalent throughout this article. indopug (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply - i agree with you on the individual years - and can fix, and the influences section could be tightened. Also, the specific "superlative" POV concerns I agree too and have fixed this. However, I think it is equally POV to simply say that we need more criticism, particularly as you say you "think" they have received more criticism and offered you own POV about what that might be. Perhaps it's better to that notable criticism be included (if it is available), rather to just offer your own. "fanboy gushing prevalent throughout the article"? hmmm. --Merbabu (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply - Both instances of POV that you pointed out have been fixed -- thanks for alerting us (funnily enough I think I included both of these instances through the course of my edits -- that makes me the gushing fanboy). I included two additional points of sourced criticism, one under lyrics and themes (an article from Slate.com that I was looking to add for a while but finally got around to), and an additional criticism about the efficacy of debt relief in general (the abcnews article mentions Bono specifically -- the only thing I would ask my fellow editors is does this belong in a general article about U2, or just Bono's article?). Other than this, I agree with Merbabu that the criticism does not tend to be notable enough -- how many people publish a rational diatribe against U2's causes in a respectable source (this does not mean a bulletin board discussion where everyone agrees that Bono's ego is bigger than U2's record sales -- even if there are many such forums where that conclusion is reached). Anyway, your comments are appreciated, please let us know if there's anything else you can think of. Wikipedia brown (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Support The prose is excellent, the article is detailed and cited, and not to mention it is well balanced and has good flow. Popular culture articles are always quite prone to being the worst when it comes to quality, but this one just amazes me. Significant contributions since my suggestion to retry for FA with this article put me at a loss for words. -- ReaperX 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support All the fixes I thought needing done are, well, done. Good job. This is a great article, and you should be proud! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support -this almost made me like the music! Jimfbleak (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - after many failed FACs it's finally ready. igordebraga≠ 14:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support very good. A couple of very minor things could be tweaked but over the line. I'll list below.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Friendships with Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, and Keith Richards encouraged the band to... - to me 'encourage' is a verb done by a person, whereas the subject here is the friendship itself. It is tricky but a minor reword could help. Different verb?cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Very true ... changed the word "encouraged" to "motivated". Wikipedia brown (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The band's continual members... - it is a slightly odd construction. I can see why it is used and what it means - maybe 'The bands members have been.....for the duration of its commercial existence' or 'since formation' or something.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Very well written and sourced. A lot of dedication in this article. (good band too) —Burningclean[Speak the truth!] 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support The article has improved significantly since the last FAC; improvements to prose, removal of trivia and OR, as well as being well-referenced. The article is finally ready. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Random break for editing ease
Oppose for now: This article has too many prose and POV issues:
The lead needs rewriting: try basing it on the Radiohead lead. I say move sales/awards to the third paragraph and remove all those social organisations from the lead.
*"In the early years of the 21st century" is horrible (When do these early years end exactly?).
Rewrite the second paragraph to summarise their career and musical style correspondingly; right now it moves abruptly from beginnings to stardom. The third para can be sales/albums along with the social causes. Avoid "continue to enjoy high levels of commercial and critical success." - the record sales will explain their success enough. Include a sweeping quote from RS/AMG.
"impassioned" [vocals] is POV.
Is it POV, or just descriptive? Is anyone arguing they're not? Is this not taking POV too far? "Impassioned" doesn't necessarily mean that they are good. How else can it be described? I am happy for alternatives. --Merbabu (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're but a word like "impassioned" really has only positives connotations; yeah, we need an alternative. indopug (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
*"mega-stardom" is unencyclopedic.
"Mega stardom" is gone - replaced with a Rolling Stone quote The Joshua Tree, brought them success that Rolling Stone described as "the leap from heroes to superstars" --Merbabu (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Also removed "mega-stardom" from Joshua Tree section and just made it "success" to avoid POV concerns. Wikipedia brown (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Why is a 1980 pic in the 76-79 section?
I'd bet that this is not quite 1980 and the image page suggests so. Thus, I've changed the caption to "late-1970s". --Merbabu (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Link full dates please (September 25,1976: space after comma too)
punk rock guru, Steve Averill = > a punk rock musician and family friend of Clayton's. Actually, i noticed Wikipedia Brown removed this - maybe it's not important. Thoughts? --Merbabu (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember that quote distinctly, but cannot find it in the references (although I didn't write it - he he). Now changed to generally positive. Other suggestions welcome - ie, on the whole positive without glowing/rave and with some criticism. --Merbabu (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Say that Island were major label.
That section already says Island signed U2 in March 1980 - as does infobox. --Merbabu (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*"recognize that they would have "step up their game"" is more suited for a magazine article than an encyclopedia.
That's a quote from the source, but now reworded: It did not sell well outside of the United Kingdom, which put pressure on their contract with Island and focussed the band on improvement. Although I think "step up their game" was more succinct. --Merbabu (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
* "hopes and frustrations of adolescence, such as fear over sex, identity confusion, death, and uncontrollable mood swings": rewrite; wrong placement of comma.
changed to "hopes of adolescence as well as its frustrations such as fear over sex, confusion during maturation, loss of innocence, and uncontrollable mood swings" Wikipedia brown (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I trimmed this further. Part of it was not very well referenced. Now simply,
Bono's lyrics were unfocused and seemingly improvised, but the frustrations and of adolescence were a common theme. --Merbabu (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"unusually lucrative"; who says it was "unusual"?
The writer referenced at the point - the following sentence explains. --Merbabu (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That explains that it was lucrative; unusually would be a POV. How about "very"? indopug (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"received no radio play; it also didn't": should be period not semi-colon: this mistake occurs in many places.
Hhmmm - I don't agree that it's incorrect, but I have removed this instance and a number of others. Semi-colons are not just used for listing, but can also be used to join what would otherwise be separate but closely linked sentences. --Merbabu (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Now there's "The album received reviews and limited radio play." indopug (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"the rhythm section no longer intruded, but flowed in support of the songs." what does "intruded" and "flowed in support" mean?
*"became the band's biggest hit at that point" is completely redundant as the next sentence would suggest so anyway.
I don't think it is redundant - the following point explains that it entered the top 40 in America. There are other countries with charts - being the first to enter the top 40 in the US is not the sole criteria for a big hit - it's merely one example of the increasing success. Should we list all the chart figures? Obviously, not in this summary article. I have, nevertheless, tweaked the wording. The whole point is soundly referenced and an important part of the story. --Merbabu (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
is "weird works" used in the source too? indopug (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Translating the complex..." Rewrite sentence, why begin with a gerund? avoid passive voice. "showing a television audience of millions the personal connection that Bono could make with audiences.": POV (fan-boyish gushing, even). "Songs criticised as being "unfinished", "fuzzy", and "unfocused" on the album made more sense on stage." - what? So, if there was criticism of the album, why isn't it mentioned directly; "the album was criticised for..."?
*Whats a "songwriting mission"?
=> "songwriting responsibilities". --Merbabu (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"Friendships with Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, and Keith Richards..." rewrite sentence in active voice.
*Remove "we were from outer space" - pointless and breaks flow.
oh - i thought that was OK. but it's gone. --Merbabu (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"The album juxtaposes antipathy...band had been reading." cant that come after Joshua Tree is introduced? "The Joshua Tree—so named as a "tribute" to, rather than a "metaphor" for, America" - rewrite; we had no idea it was a metaphor so "rather" shouldn't be there. "Rolling Stone as one of rock's greatest" is used twice in the article. Actually rephrase that whole statement in more quantifiable terms (sales, stadium tours, critic's quotes). "stadiums, sold out arenas and stadiums around the world."
*number one and #1, pick one.
Done ("number one"). --Merbabu (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*"mixed-to-negative" what is that? Why not just negative?
just "mixed". positive + negative = mixed. --Merbabu (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like at leas t some of these releases to be pre-qualified with which album like "U2 released their fourth studio album XYZ in 1984.." etc.
Not sure I understand your point here. Is that a sample format or sentence structure? --Merbabu (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing much; for eg: I want "In November 1991, U2 released Achtung Baby." to be "In November 1991, U2 released their sixth studio album Achtung Baby." at least some of the times so that one can keep count of which release it is. indopug (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"audacious" => "dramatic" --Merbabu (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove that quotebox. "Live satellite uplinks to war-torn Sarajevo caused controversy." how, why? I dont think the way you referenced ref 76 is correct (3 different books in the same ref) "The extravagant shows were intentionally..." thats opinion that needs citing like "According to X, the extravagant shows were intentionally..." "Quickly recorded and released during a break in the Zoo TV tour in mid-1993" - use active voice not passive voice; many such mistakes throughout: rewrite.
Could you point to another band FA where such a referencing is used? Does the MoS allow it? indopug (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I need to sleep now; more later. indopug (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. You raise a lot of fair points and changes should be made. Some of your points though are either stylistic preferences over actual problems. For example, your highlighting of using 3 refs in one footnote. If it's the same point, what's the problem? It looks better than having 3 footnotes refs in the prose. I've seen this style used a lot - indeed I've used it, and as yet have not found anything to suggest it is "incorrect" - in fact, many texts i use for history articles (ie, books) do this.
Further, you seem to
But, as I said, much (most?) of what you highlight is fair enough - I agree with the prose poitns - and I or others will change soon. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had a good go at Indopug's suggestions. More work from me tomorrow. thanks and 'nite --Merbabu (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, the lead is much too long for a featured article. As last time, I find myself having a hard time being excited about the quality of the writing here... but at least now it seems more focused and on-topic. If the lead can be cut down to a paragraph, I'd support. Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply Hi Mangojuice, can you take a look at The Smashing Pumpkins, a rock music-related featured article? The lead there is three paragraphs that are about the same length as the ones here. Also please see that R.E.M., currently undergoing an FA review, has an even longer lead in terms of raw words. And I'm sure I can find others. I don't see why length is a huge concern as long as it's concise and doesn't have unnecessary details. If you feel that there is extraneous information in the lead, please let us know and we'd be happy to consider removing it, but since I haven't seen a guideline that says the lead has to be one paragraph, I'm not a supporter of this change. Wikipedia brown (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The lead section should include only the most basic and important information about the subject: if a reader has never heard of U2, what do they need to know about right away? They probably need to know the basic facts: who's in the band, where they're from, and some rough dates. They need to be told the band is extremely popular and critically acclaimed. U2 is somewhat known for its activism, so that should be mentioned too. The rest is detail: it's needed in the article but it's also already there. I haven't looked at the other two articles you mentioned but they probably have similar issues because bands are very simple topics and do not need lengthy introduction (as opposed to a more complex topic like Redshift, which has a very long but seemingly appropriate lead section). Mangojuicetalk 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've now looked at Smashing Pumpkins and R.E.M.. Both could stand some real cutting. There is no need to get into R.E.M.'s label once, let alone twice, or to discuss so many of their singles in the lead. Similarly, the Smashing Pumpkins lead's second paragraph is mostly unneeded at the introduction level, and the second sentence of the last paragraph removes the need for some of the other stuff there. Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. This all seems very arbitrary. We agree that only notable facts should be included in Wikipedia articles (as you know, notability has a strict guideline associated with it at Wikipedia:Notability). However, what you're saying here is that there's a second tier of notability that allows only certain bits of information to be included in the lead. This isn't the case, at least it's not spelled out anywhere. It's a matter of style and community consensus, based on the topic. In this case, no one has complained about the length of the lead, so I'm inclined to believe that it's your own personal style to have short leads in featured articles. I took a look at red shift and other science articles such as roche limit. If I was spartan, I'd say some of the stuff in those leads is completely needless: in redshift, you don't need two sentences to detail gravitational redshift, which I don't consider notable in the grand scheme of things. Granted, astronomical redshift is a very important topic as it led to a better understanding of our universe, but gravitational redshift, while maybe an important concept in physics and astronomy journals, has not had anywhere near the significance. Roche limit -- admittedly the most important principle in planetary ring-formation, but do you need 4 paragraphs and do you need to talk about Saturn's E-Ring and point out possible confusion with other roche concepts? And who's to say redshift or the roche limit are "more complex" topics than U2? I could probably hand you a piece of paper with a PDE on it that fully describes both phenomenon. Can I do the same with U2? Back to music articles -- look at Bob Dylan and Radiohead, the first two featured articles that I happened to pick from the list of music-related FAs, both have long leads. My point here is two-fold: music leads tend to be longer than you presuppose and there doesn't seem to be a strict guideline on lead length, so every article (not every general subject) has to be evaluated separately. And here my ultimate point: I'm not against cutting the lead if there's consensus. And by the way, can you point to a music article that you think has an appropriate sized lead? Thanks. Wikipedia brown (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's not like a "second tier of notability", it's just a question of good writing. I looked through some other music articles, and I'll say that most seem to have leads that are no longer, or not much longer, than is necessary. See Gwen Stefani for instance: 3 paragraphs, but she has a career with a group, a solo career, and a career in fashion: a lot more basic stuff that needs inclusion in the lead. Tool (band) is similarly about as short as it needs to be. Godsmack is good. Pearl Jam is three paragraphs, but tight. But anyway, my point isn't that U2 doesn't adhere to some required standard, but that it has too much detail in the lead considering the subject, which makes the lead a bit long-winded and boring. Mangojuicetalk 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, just so long as we don't allocate a specific length the lead has to be. If you say that it's boring, that's a fair criticism. What part specifically is boring and long-winded? Having sweeping, superlative quotes from Rolling Stone and the like may serve to make the assertions of their popularity more interesting. We'll try to add some to spice it up, but I really don't think a full rewrite, as Indopug suggested, is in order. Thanks for your continuing cooperation and advice, Mangojuice. Wikipedia brown (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The original suggetsion by Mangojuice to have a "single paragraph" length lead is in direct contravention to Wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:LEAD, articles of greater than 30,000 characters should have a 4 paragraph lead. This one is currently 3 paragraphs long. A one paragraph lead is excessively short for an article of this size. In order for a lead section to fully summarize the article, as WP:LEAD requires, the lead section for any FA article is likely to be longer than a single paragraph. The lead should be an article in minature, and should cover all of the major points. If there are specific problems with the language (unengaging or hard to follow), that might be a specific and actionable criticism that can be remedied, but just "its too long" is both unreasonable, and against the Manual of Style on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will support if the lead is trimmed; it doesn't feel tightened up, and it should for a FA. One paragraph is not necessary, I just thought it was a reasonable goal in this case. Mangojuicetalk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We'll work on tightening up the lead - cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Mangojuice, I believe you are mistaken about the purpose of the lead; it should NOT just "include only the most basic and important information about the subject", but (as per WP:LEAD) "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies". In short, provide a summary of the entire article. In this case that means the lead should include a summary of U2's history, musical style, campaigning and success. If anything, the lead as of now does not summarise the history well enough (read my comments above). indopug (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the existing history component of the lead sits as nice compromise between these two opposing opinions. (he he). --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm fine with the length/no of words in the current lead. I just want better organisation and tighter prose. indopug (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply on lead - Wikipedia Brown and I have made some changes according to Indopug's and MangoJuice's recommendations - as best as both can accomdated together. ie, we've shuffled the order around, removed some of the redundant statements, and culled the list of charaties and campaigning, etc.
The changes make sense, but one problem I see now is that the first paragraph is small (fine), the second large, and the third small again. Looks a bit odd - in my opinion, but I'm happy to be told otherwise. Perhaps, the sentence that's starts with "U2 have pursued a more traditional sound..." could be the start of the third.
I now support. This is much better. I think best thing that was done here was to move the part about the Grammys to the 3rd paragraph: before, after reading the first paragraph I felt like I already knew what I needed to know to read the article and the other two paragraphs were (mostly) not adding stuff I needed. Now, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs feel like they're contributing and it's much more satisfying to read, well done. I think I can tighten it just a bit further, so I'll give it a try. Mangojuicetalk 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Only two broken links -- one updated, the other one has been unlinked and the journal referenced. Also slightly changed some URLs to conform to script's likings. Wikipedia brown (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This article is particularly full of hidden comments to editors. From what I can tell there is no edit warring going on here, so these comments seem designed to discourage new editors from editing the article without reading a lot of discussion or a lot of experience. I think that once this article is promoted, these comments should be mostly removed, because WP featured articles are an introduction to Wikipedia for a lot of editors and we want to encourage them to contribute and not stress them out about making mistakes (WP:BOLD), and also if there's no edit war going on (as is implied by featured status) then they aren't needed. Mangojuicetalk 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as a little paradoxical to mention that featured articles should be stable and then, in the next breath, suggest removing helpful hints to encourage new editors to edit them. Sure, if new editors are sure they've spotted a howler but otherwise entropy, if nothing else, dictates that we should discourage further edits of featured articles unless new or conflicting sources come to light or events necessitate the addition of text. Surely having articles that anyone can edit is a means to an end (a great encyclopedia) and not the other way round? Alice✉ 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Support with the tiny caveat that the first paragraph of the lead may be ever so slightly WP:OVERLINKed; perhaps the wikilinks to the various instruments, etc, can be moved to subsequent sections? Has it been checked for accessibility to those using text readers? Overall, an excellent example for other popular culture articles to follow! Alice✉ 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I agree with the overlinking in the first paragraph – they are essentially definitional links – and I have now removed the instrument links (as I have done a number of times over the last 12 months – but gave up). It would probably pay to check the whole article again, but I believe it’s fairly good in this regard. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
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.