Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spiderland/archive1

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [1].

Spiderland

[edit]
Notified: Brandt Luke Zorn, WikiProject Music diff
  • Issues in the lead were mentioned back in July on the talk page and seem to have gone unfixed.
  • I posted the following concerns on the talk page and none were addressed. Also pinged FA editor User:Brandt Luke Zorn who did not respond despite still being active.
  • Among the concerns:
  1. [citation needed] tag in "Background"
  2. [When] and [citation needed] tags in "Production".
  3. "Music" section is very choppy and has a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Also the last paragraph is uncited.
  4. "Don't Look Back Concerts" (citation 27) redirects to a hotel website.
  5. Genius.com (citation 91) does not appear to be reliable.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do. I'm cleaning up a little bit of trivial info on the background section and replacing some possibly unreliable sources with AllMusic, which is definitely a reliable source. It's slow going, especially since I don't have access to the 33 1/3 book outside of the limited preview in Google Books. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These pointers have been handy for a general clean up, though overall the article remains in very good condition.
  1. Have removed Genious.com, and replaced Don't Look Back Concerts with a ref from Pitchfork.
  2. Issue in background removed.
  3. Looking for a source for the 1st two sentences in "Production"...the [when] is gone...its obvious that it was in 1990
  4. Dont agree re the "Music" section being choppy...the short paras are because each discusses an individual song. Having them like this makes it easier for readers to find what they are looking for on a quick scroll through scan.
  5. will update when the Production bit is reffed Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. oh and the issues with the lead were addressed during last summer. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except the statements within "McMahan and Walford began writing together for the band's next record, creating six new songs which the band practiced throughout the summer of 1990. Slint entered River North Records in August 1990 to record Spiderland. At that time there were no vocals or lyrics prepared for the album, so the band wrote them while in the studio" are as yet uncited - cough User:Brandt Luke Zorn. There is no question that they are not true, but text shift has made them out of sorts....hold on. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

There is still a citation needed tag, there is an awful lot of quoting, and it might be worth looking at a better application of WP:RECEPTION to avoid a lot of Reviewer A said B, Reviewer C said D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will give another run through over weekend. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaring issues that pop up to me right away.
    • There's a formatting screw-up in the first sentence of "Background."
  • Done
    • There's a student newspaper citation for a long quote. I don't think writers of student newspapers are reliable.
  • Removed
    • "The album was virtually unnoticed by the American music press or zines.[28][28]" Why are there duplicate citations?
    • Many "dafuq" moments in the prose: "It's black-and-white cover photograph" "which as taken by Noel Saltzman," "but said mitted the band was" "The UK press music press were among the first to notice praise the album." A random "Ho" at the end of the first sentence of the reunion paragraph.
    • Many non-objective statements, each with only one citation, that are presented as fact but would be more accurate to be attributed: "Spiderland has sold in numbers exceptional for an obscure, defunct band who rarely performed live" and "Compared to record sales by contemporaneous alternative rock bands on major labels, sales of Spiderland would be considered modest or underwhelming."
    • "Today, the album is widely considered a landmark indie rock album" "Widely"? There's only two effin citations. How is that considered widely?!
    • "Spiderland has been cited as an major influence on post-rock bands Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Explosions in the Sky.[64]" Nonsensical. It's only one article of a random alternative weekly newspaper assuming those bands may have been influenced by the record. Too obscure and abstract to include this.
    • Most of the legacy section is a quotefarm of only a few retrospective reviews.
    • Why does ref 69 have no timestamp?
  • fixed
    • Futhormore, why are some single-page sources citation the Harvard way and others as full cites within footnotes? Inconsistent.
  • fixed
    • "| Features | Pitchfork" are not part of the titles of those Pitchfork features. I think that should be obvious.
    • Many work field names are improperly presented as URLs instead of their actual work names? For example, thelist.co.uk" instead of The List.
  • Another promotion from more than a decade ago that hasn't kept its FA status. The prose is broken and filled with grammar problems, the article is disorganized in some places, and the cite formatting is problematic. I'm also sensing this article is incomplete and has garnered many more retrospective perspectives not cited here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HumanxAnthro please see the WP:FAR instructions; Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is for listing items that need to be addressed and hopefully seeing that happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note, tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the album, so expecting a lot heavy duty sources to publish lengthy overviews of its legacy and [v. important] placement in alt music history. Rolling Stone' for example, yesterday published a comprehensive overview of the contemporary music scene, the album's genesis and recording, and its enduring legacy. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, agree with everything HumanxAnthro says above. Will address and come back. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update; have addressed some most, but not all, of HumanxAnthro concerns. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update; 80% there on standardizing refs. Its slow and tedious; no wonder I like such depressing music. Will probably had this over to voting from next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer, Ceoil, and HumanxAnthro: what remains to be done here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few Tom Maginnis refs to be converted to snf, and a rewriting of the reception section to give better sense of the album's slow build in popularity and cult status. Ceoil (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest 1 more week, and then voting. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, TenPoundHammer, and HumanxAnthro:: This will be closed out today, so a final look will be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say to Keep because the problems are being addressed and quickly responded to. Even if there an issue or two we didn't catch, those could easily be resolved on talk and or done by the editors themselves. Good job to everyone! 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but can we keep it open as there is nothing like a little pressure and a deadline to keep the work going! Your points above were very good, and would like to see all addressed before am distracted by other shiny things. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To note HumanxAnthro has kindly sorted the remaining inconsistent ref formatting issues. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hog Farm

Reading through this article, as it looks like the FAR is winding down

  • "By early 1990, Rusk had agreed to pay for studio time and committed to a release their next Touch and Go" - I think something is not quite phrased here correctly
    Sorted Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baines 2021 does not seem to be used as a reference
Added this afternoon; to be added to the reception sect. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something seems to be off with the way that the Slint Gallery source is listed - it doesn't have a bullet point leading it, and the others all do
  • Not seeing where the exact release date of March 27 is cited anywhere, or the exact release date for the remaster
    Both now reffed to the Touch and Go records website Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band formed in Louisville, Kentucky in 1986, having met as teenagers playing in the Midwestern punk scene, but soon diverged from their hardcore roots. By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structures." - not seeing this from the lead in the article
    Uh, the lead does say By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structures Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there may have been an understanding - it's in the lead, but is it in the main body of the article? Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah...ok. Silly me. The body does say The album's guitar work is noted for its roomy sound,[13] angular rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, and irregular time signatures, though I accept this could do with expansion, especially for the many music nerds that will read the page. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's still a bit more that needs done before this should be closed. Hog Farm Talk 19:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So with the lead content comment sorted out, (mainly an issue with my lack of caffiene), I think this is good to close without FARC. I don't see anything beyond a few minor quibbles left here. Hog Farm Talk 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sound and looks like we were both insufficiently caffinated. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all. Just wanted to pop in to sincerely thank TenPoundHammer for opening this process and to Ceoil et al. for spearheading the much-overdue improvements. Apologies for my unresponsiveness earlier. After a long period of unemployment most of last year, I found a job in February and have had little to no time for Wikipedia since then, especially intensive writing/researching work. I hadn't checked the page in months and was surprised and grateful to find that you all had taken so much time and care to bring the article back in line with current FA standards. —BLZ · talk 00:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Z1720

I conducted a copyedit of the article to determine if it meets the FA criteria. If you are responding to a comment, please post underneath the bullet point being addressed, as it makes it easier to organise our thoughts. Please also review my copyedit of the article to ensure I didn't inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence. Thanks!

  • "Slint's lineup at the time featured" -> "Slint's lineup during the album's creation"? Since the band broke up by the album's release, we might need to define when "at the time" is
    Its self evidentaly at the time of the recording and release of the album. changed now to be even more clear. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for its roomy sound" What does this mean?
    It means that the micks are picking up a lot of ambient, acoustic sounds. Its a well known descriptor, that we don't have an article for; not in favour of removing, as its something the producer would have been aiming for and many readers would recogonise. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lake of an abandoned quarry, was taken by Will Oldham." Where was this quarry? It is stated in the picture caption but can also be stated in the article prose.
Done - added at Utica, Indiana. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Julia Brightly as their sound engineer." Why is it notable that Brightly was their sound engineer?
    This is a baffling challenge. She was the engineer. On the album. And is credited on the sleeve as such. During any recording process, sound engineers are even more important than pr0oducers in setting tone. Think cinematographers vs directors. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, let me be more specific on why I flagged this: Brightly doesn't have a wiki article and she is the only person listed as part of the production team in that section. As a non-music person, it seems weird that she is the only person mentioned and it felt like she was added at the end of a section without much context. I see in the next section that the sound was critiqued (both positively and negatively) so maybe she can be added more seamlessly in a section about the sound, but if this isn't possible/necessary then we'll leave it. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta ya, with apologies. She was sound engineer "at a gig", not at the "album recording". Well spotted. Removed, with a dose of humble pie. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I speed through these reviews all the time; this is not the first time my comments have not been clear. I appreciate the apology. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(whose recording is described as containing one the best drum sounds Albini ever achieved)" why is this included in the article? If it stays, it should get its own sentence.
    I think its certainly notable enough to be mentioned as Albini is very well regarded indeed, espically for his drum sounds, which influenced countless other bands, producers and engineers. To note your two demands (remove or give a separate sentance) seem to contradict each other; what criteria are you using here. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be removed if it is a trivia fact disconnected to the surrounding prose in the article. If it is important to keep in the article, which I think it is, then I wish it would get its own sentence about the reception of the box set. I am not the expert, which is why I wanted to flag it and bring it under consideration. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tennent is cited to whole chapters. Can this be narrowed down to page numbers?
    No as my copy is an ebook. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a copy of the book with page numbers. I'll try to add page numbers to the article right now. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be great! Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. There is one concern: the new ref 22 to "Tennent 107" was cited to Chapter 4, but the only place "actual singing" appears in the source is on page 107, which is chapter 6. Can you check to make sure that I have the right page number, or cite the passage that is supposed to verify so I can find the page number? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ankeny doesn't have a year.

This article is in a really good condition. Once the above points are addressed I will re-review the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointers Z1720. Give an hour or so and will address. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:OVERCITE, specifically WP:REPCITE (which, although it is an essay, I think it brings up excellent points) there are some places that citations could be merged to help the reader. I have indicated them below, in case there was a reason that the citation needs to remain. If they can be deleted, please do so or indicate below the bullet point:
  • "Throughout the summer of 1990, the band practiced the music for six new songs McMahan and Walford had written for Slint's second album. The songs were recorded in August 1990 with producer Brian Paulson, who was known for his "live" recording style and minimal takes.[11] Paulson later said that the recording "was weird... because I remember sitting there, and I just knew there was something about it. I've never heard anything like this."[11]" Can the first [11] be removed?
  • "Rumors circulated that at least one member of Slint had checked into a psychiatric hospital.[15] Walford later said that there was no truth to such claims, although the band was "definitely trying to be serious about things, pretty intense, which made recording the album kinda stressful."[15]" Can the first [15] be removed?
  • "The opening track, "Breadcrumb Trail", describes a day at a carnival with a fortune-teller.[23] The song is built from complex guitar arrangement with sharp transitions, during which the guitar fluctuates between a clean-sounding riff with harmonics in the verse to heavy and high pitched distortion in the chorus.[23]" Can the first [23] be removed?
  • ""Nosferatu Man" is the second track and was inspired by the 1922 German Expressionist silent film Nosferatu.[24] Its verse includes a dissonant guitar riff which uses high-pitched notes similar to those in "Breadcrumb Trail" and a drumbeat centered on snare and toms.[24] The chorus, featuring "jagged" distorted guitar and a beat with "thrashing cymbals with quick drum fills", segues into an extended jam before the song ends with 30 seconds of feedback.[24]" Can the first and second [24] be removed?
  • ""Washer" is the album's longest track, and features a low volume intro with guitar and cymbals before the rest of the band joins in the recording.[26] The song builds until the final verse, when the tension is broken by loud distortion, followed by a lengthy outro.[26]" Can the first [26] be removed?
  • "The photograph on the back cover is of a dead wolf spider, taken by Noel Saltzman, who also took the uncredited cover photo for their untitled 1994 EP.[32] Saltzman found the spider in a shed while working his summer job. As it would not remain still enough to be photographed, Saltzman killed, froze, and repositioned it with tweezers to take the shot.[32]" Can the first [32] be removed?
  • "The UK music press were the first to report on the album. Albini, who produced Tweez, wrote a review for Melody Maker published on March 30, 1991.[19]" This whole paragraph refers to this source, so can this [19] be removed?

Thanks for considering this. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent points, and have been gladly removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: My concerns, per above, have been addressed and I think this can remain a featured article. Thanks Ceoil for your great work in fixing this up. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 that was great review. Thanks for highlight some bits, and then fixing others before noticed. You know what you are doing, thanks a bunch. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2021 (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_review/Spiderland/archive1&oldid=1030603074"