Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Be Here Now

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

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Be Here Now[edit]

Mediocre album by a great band (Oasis); there is a good story here, hope that it is conveyed. Co-nom with WesleyDodds. Ceoil 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm afraid. It's pretty comprehensive but is lacking citations, and the prose is a bit clumsy. Specifics from the first paragraph:
  • Citations for album sales.
Good catch, done. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for Ignition's publicity management.
I don't understand; their activity is fully explained and detailed in the article body. Read it. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "retrospectively the album is typically viewed as over-indulgent and bloated" - contradicts with the info box which has pretty good ratings for the album.
Good catch, clarified. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No explanation for why the album got lots of publicity despite Ignition trying to keep it low key.
Self evident, but clarified for you. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the rest of the article (without a detailed look):

  • I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for album covers.
Read up. Not a valid objection. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The charts section is pretty bad. Why only the canadian and US for the album? Also,I have no idea what the different singles charts actually are. All the charts should be linked and there should be citations for the positions.
I agree. I'll tidy it up a bit. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantpole 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantpole, facts supported in the article body are not normally cited in the lead. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The more usuall vote from an editor who who has not taken "a detailed look" is "comment" and not "object" bty. Ceoil 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some cites cover more than one sentence - editors have to watch how cited an article is. If the articles gets overcited there's been a new tendency to oppose due to "excessive citations", so there's the issue of trying to find a proper balance. LuciferMorgan 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have most of the same sources Ceoil used and I can assure the editors many of the cite tags cover mutiple sentences. WesleyDodds 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was saying in short. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for editors I've messaged Quantpole on his talk page and asked if he can revisit the article and assess whether he still feels his vote is valid. Hopefully he will revisit this FAC. LuciferMorgan 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Music and lyrics" section needs a load of work - you can't use sentences like "The tracks are more layered and intricate that before, and each contains multiple guitar overdubs" and word them as though they are factual. This is an opinion, and should be attributed to whoever feels that way. This is reflective of the whole section, and should be addressed. I'll give it a few days, but if it stays that way I'll be voting oppose since I feel it gives readers an inaccurate impression, and "factually accurate" is a part of 1c. Other than this, I can't spot any problems. LuciferMorgan 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every review brought up the points you highlighted; will do. I take your general point that the section needs some more work and tweaking; happily I found a few new sources this morning. Ceoil 11:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, "reflective of the whole section"; this short section has 17 inline cites, and you picked the only one sentence that did not have direct attribution. The fact is cited now, anyhow. Ceoil 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to citations - it's cited fine as far as I am aware, and needs no action on that front. I'm referring to attribution to whoever gave what opinion. For example, to correct this would be "Critic A of X magazine said the tracks "are more layered and intricate that before, and each contains multiple guitar overdubs"." This would show that this is opinion, and not fact like the article seems to imply. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things like "multiple guitar overdubs" are not openions, the album is heavily overdubbed as a fact. This kind of thing is self evident even from the short sample if you have knowledge of studio technique. It goes back to the old argument of citing that the sun is hot. No need to say that, according to X, "the sun is hot", because it begs the question "but what do Y and Z think." Ceoil 17:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the sun is hot is rather different, and I wasn't asking for citations. Please read what I said - "I'm not referring to citations". I was referring to attribution, ie. naming the person who holds whatever opinion. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the issue seems to have been addressed since my comment. So, in the light of that, I fail to understand your defensive nature. I'm not making a criticism as I think the Alternative music Project does some good Wikipedia work, so there's no need for comments like "this kind of thing is self evident even from the short sample if you have knowledge of studio technique". I don't profess to have knowledge of studio technique, though I hope that doesn't make my opinions about the article less valid. LuciferMorgan 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, that sentence looks a lot worse now that when I typed it, and I've struck it; sorry about that. I take you point however, it's been adressed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Mostly good, but some problems with quotes from sources seen below.

  • "turning over 420,000 units..." seems kind of colloquial to me.
Fixed. WesleyDodds 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band's two previous albums had resulted in media frenzy and over-hype..." What does 'over-hype' mean exactly?
Clarified. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The only reason anyone was there was the money. Noel had decided Liam was a shit singer. Liam had decided he hated Noel's songs. So on we went. Massive amounts of drugs. Big fights. Bad vibes. Shit recordings."" is from the lead, and ""He just shrugged and said it would be all right. So on we went. Massive amounts of drugs. Big fights. Bad vibes. Shit recordings."" is from the recording section. Which of these quotes if correct? There must be ellipses (...) if things are left out of a particular quote, which is what I think happened here.
Ok, I've checked both sources, which are based on the same interview conducted by Q magazine. The quote Q printed is longer and covers two paragraphs, and the quote Q has on the website seems to be a synthesis of Morris' sentences. The magazine version is probably more reliable; I'll leave it to Ceoil to address that. WesleyDodds 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its sourced to the print edition. I've straightened it out. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In music and lyrics section, second paragraph, two sentences in a row start with "While...". This is awkward.
Fixed. WesleyDodds 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In marketing section, ""not discuss the album with anyone - including you partner at home. It basically said don't talk to your girlfriend about it when you at home in bed."" The 'you' at the end should be 'you're', but I don't know if that is a typo or a mistake from the actual source?
Fixed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in marketing section, ""We sit in [Oasis] meetings today and we're like 'It's on the internet..."" Internet should be capitalized, but can't check the source. Another quote: "I remember listening to "All Around the World" and laughing - actually quite presurably - because..." 'Presurably' is not a word. Check the source again to correct these mistakes.
Both fixed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section, "pledging not to sell the record earlier than eight A.M." That can't be the correct format for writing times, can it?
God no. Fixed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section, "capping the success of Oasis and electoral victory of the Labour Party" I don't understand the connection with the Labour Party. Could this be elaborated on?
It's a little off topic to get into, so I removed the Labour Party bit. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, quotation ""the fact is that nothing could have lived up to the fevered expectations that surrounded it's release doesn't..." This should be "its" not "it's". Same problem as above: is this a typo or mistake in the actual source?
Checked reference. Fixed. WesleyDodds 08:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall it's pretty good; a good read. Nathanalex 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy edit bty. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If only the Metal Project had such dedicated Project members (sigh). LuciferMorgan 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found the following problems,
  • "So colossally did Be Here Now fail to meet expectations, that it killed off Britpop, overnight ending the careers of also-ran bands such as Cast, Sleeper, and Gene. Years after the album's release, music critic Jon Savage pinpointed Be Here Now as the moment where the Britpop movement ended." - 2 adjacent sentences mention the death of britpop. It looks clumsy and should clubbed into one.
Clubbed. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".... and the height Britpop's popularity." The very next sentence - doesn't make any sense.
Clarified. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oasis were by now having meetings with the Prime Minister of Britain and holidaying with Johnny Depp and Kate Moss in Mick Jagger's villa in Mustique" - Sentence seems unencyclopedic in some way.
Clarified. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Noel Oasis let it known that Oasis had an album's worth of songs demoed, and the general feeling was that they should record as soon as possible." - Noel Oasis? And also link "demoed".
Edited. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sun's showbiz editor Dominic Mohan recalled of the period: "We had quite a few Oasis contacts on the payroll. I don't know whether any were drug dealers, but there was always a few dodgy characters about."" - Could you say when he had recalled, starting the sentence with "In 2007, The Sun's ..."
Source does not give date of quote. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, the Recorded section looks unreadable, keep each studio in a different line. Same with producers.
Done Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TommyStardust (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 July 2007.

Thanks for the comments, the article is tighter now. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article's come quite a long way, a lot of good work has gone into it, and I have to say it deserves to be featured. ErleGrey (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All outstanding issues addressed. Dave101→talk  19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems good enough. Hope the Oasis, Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory? articles reach this level soon. igordebraga ≠ 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Further copy-editting by a third-party required - "and it's 1995 follow up (What's the Story) Morning Glory?", "before it's release", "he received a call telling him he wouldn't be able to". There is also some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"he received a call telling him he wouldn't be able to" - Good spot, that was a v. poor sentence indeed. I've straightened it out a bit now. Found and fixed a few dash issues as well. I've always had problems with it's vs. its, combing the text right now. Ceoil 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything above has been addressed, and I believe the article is more than ready for FA status. NSR77 TC 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, the article looks fantastic to me, but I would really advise an editor to add the {{update after}} template after dated statistics - it flags the statistic after it expires to make it tand out so that it can be updated later; I actually prefer it over wikilinking.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Overall good. But I saw a few grammar and stylistic things that should be corrected. Upon their correction, notify me on my talk page.
  • "went onto become the" - "onto" should be two words (on to)
  • "As of 2007, the album" - as of 2007 should be wikilinked
Only full dates are wikilinked. WesleyDodds 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As of" dates are also wikilinked, since they connect to pages like this one, and are then monitored for updating by this wiki-effort. If you prefer, you may also add the template {{Update after}} to the phrase, following the comma. For more information on how to use it, go here.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not mandatory; excessive blue linking hinders readability. Ceoil 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "artistically it failed to live" - it should be "has failed" to match the tense of the rest of the sentence
  • But now, there should be a comma after artistically, in "Artistically Be Here Now".--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "company Ignition were aware" - I think it would read better if Ignition were in commas, but regardless, it should say "company Ignition was aware" (company is singular)
  • "access to album" - " access to the album"
  • "their last stay on the island" should be followed by a comma
  • "in six months since" should be "in the six months after"
Done. Ceoil 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This passage:

that involved going "into this room in the morning, come out for lunch, go back in, come out for dinner, go back in, then go to bed."

doesn't have parrallelism. Reword the section before the quote so that each verb in the series is in the present (going is the gerund). Let me know if you don't understand.
Done. Ceoil 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unfamiliar with the British dating formatting, but this "On 10 and 11 August 1996" looks wrong, specifically the "and". Also, the rest of the dates in the article are formatted Month day, year, and this should be dated that way, as well as wikilinked.
  • "Noel let it known that" should be "Noel let it be known that"
  • This passage

Noel let it known that he had an album's worth of songs demoed

is in passive voice, which isn't always wrong, but here, obscures the meaning. It causeses the sentence to sound like someone else demoed the songs (possibly the correct meaning) or that the grammar is wrong and Noel did it himself (in which case it should read "Noel let it be known that he had demoed an album's worth of songs"). I would recommend changing it to the latter reading, or specifying who demoed the songs (thus eliminating passive voice).
    • The statement is still in passive voice, but at least it's clearer.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "management took the decision to" - may not be wrong, but shouldn't it be "management made the decision to"
Fixed. WesleyDodds 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attempted to cover up by" - should be "attempted to cover them up by"
  • "In many instances" should be followed by a comma
  • "he dubbed 10 channels" - spell out 10 (ten); the same goes for "first heard the 72 minute Be"
  • "when the album did go on sale" should be followed by a comma
Done. Ceoil 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one had to got back" I know this is in a quote, but shouldn't that be "go back"? If the source actually did have "got back", this should be followed by [sic]
*This statement definitely needs referencing

So colossally did Be Here Now fail to meet expectations, that it killed off Britpop, overnight ending the careers of also-ran bands such as Cast, Sleeper, and Gene.

Also, I doubt the hyperbole of this statement; I'm sure the album did some damage, and even killed the careers of the mentioned bands - but has Britpop every died? I mean, Coldplay kicked in just after the release of this album. Regardless, the opinion needs to be substantiated by a reference.
Fixed this. Oh, and Coldplay technically isn't Britpop. They drew from a strand of Radiohead-influenced alt-rock that replaced Britpop. WesleyDodds 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read this aloud, and you'll see the problem

Reflecting in 2007, Garry Mulholland admitted, "the fact is that nothing could have lived up to the fevered expectations that surrounded its release doesn't change the facts.

Was this quote transcribed correctly?
  • "The Gallagher brothers hold different opinions" should be "The Gallagher brothers hold differing opinions" Currently, it sounds like the following opinions are going to contradict the opinions we just read, when they are actually pretty identical. It's not until I kept reading that I realized it was talking about the Gallagher brothers among themselves.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an insightful review. Ceoil 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Be_Here_Now&oldid=1141923864"