Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intimacy (Bloc Party album)/archive1

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 Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [1].

Intimacy (Bloc Party album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Rafablu88 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. After the success of Fantasy Black Channel and Silent Alarm, I bring you some Intimacy. I have followed my FA album's templates, so this one copies Silent Alarm but due to its rush-release and minimal promotion is more similar, content-wise, to Fantasy Black Channel. I hope you won't find anything to complain about, but if you do, I'm sure it'll be minor stuff. I've followed the previous advice down to a tee on this, including the detailed comments from Karanacs and Steve. As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article (unless you oppose the nom) if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance and apologies for any future awesome/awful banter. Rafablu88 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Update Fixed dead links and disambiguated. Rafablu88 01:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Update There's been 2 supports, 1 object, and all sources cleared. WesleyDodds is mostly happy but will revisit and make any necessary changes to one of the sections before changing his verdict. Dabomb87 has promised to visit the article. I'm off for a few days and will be incommunicado if anyone wants specific changes made. I'm sure the editors themselves can handle general and/or formatting changes. Cheers. Rafablu88 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment You really are very diligent in your article work, Rafablu, and much more so than I am. I must say this is very good work, not that I've come to expect anything less from you. :) I just have one question. Is there any particular reason you have the UK, Irish, and US chart positions listed before all the others? Timmeh (review me) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I like common sense and my common sense tells me that seeing as we're on English Wiki and a British band's two major labels are in UK/Eire and U.S., it makes sense to put those primary major markets at the top. I'm sure the folks on French Wiki would agree and put their Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique at the top for a French band like Phoenix. Rafablu88 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. I somehow always miss the most obvious answer. Anyway, the article looks like it satisfies the FA criteria. I'll give it one last read and add my support tomorrow, if that's OK with you. Timmeh (review me) 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you'll find that all images have detailed alt text. I was very careful following last time. Rafablu88 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It some problem with squid cache. The squids are returning revision 20090808224225 (without alt text) when the current revision is 20090811151141. I change the retrieve method to avoid the squid caches. — Dispenser 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would help to skip the cache, yes. I often modify pages and then check them right away with the altviewer tool. Also, I fixed a typo that prevented one of the alt text entries from showing. Eubulides (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The squid cache is invalidated after saving, but sometimes it fails. The rational behind using the squids cache instead of the parser cache was that it is what readers see/hear. But bugs can change that. — Dispenser 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about making synth pulse clear as synthesizer pulse? Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two things that I noticed. 1) Please use dynamic columns (code: {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}) on the reflist template so 800x600 users aren't reading 3 words a line. 2) Avoid fixing image with, just use the default. — Dispenser 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slipped through the cracks but changed now. I'd used it on FBC. As for images, this comes up over and over again. MOS:IMAGES says that thumb is advised but that sizes are up to editor's discretion, unless they become something stupid like 1000px. I usually use 233px, not too big not too small, so that people can actually see the detail without having to click on the photo. I always make sure they're nicely placed and merged too. Rafablu88 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced them to 200px which works just as well I think. Rafablu88 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks to me that the article satisfies the FA criteria. Timmeh (review me) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers, for the GA review edits as well. Rafablu88 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a UK printed magazine until the start of this year (hence the italics for when the article was written) and then it went online only. Here's a couple of covers: [2] and [3] And the About Us page: [4] to confirm "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight". Rafablu88 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've just insulted a British institution here. Remember the time when there was no Internet, no Wiki, etc.? Well, then, people used to press a little button named 'txt' on their remotes while watching ITV and Channel 4 to get all their info. Its Planet Sound was the one of the first notable non-print media publications to review music. Here's Teletext's history to enlighten you: [5] Rafablu88 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laughed out loud. I too fondly remember Planet Sound and its parent :)  GARDEN  19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the legend that is John Earls, who got a job there after writing reader reviews before he was 18 and is now the only writer and editor on it after all these years. Actually, I might start his article seeing as he doesn't have one. Rafablu88 22:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, YES!! Finally, an "all resolved" conclusion on sources. Rafablu88 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as significant contributor (would have been a nominator had I been here and not in Denmark) - I too believe this article is FA-worthy and applaud the endless work Rafa has put into it with some help from myself :) I can't find anything to fault offhand but will patrol this page and help to right any possible wrongs that turn up.  GARDEN  19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remove references from Eil.com; it's a retail site and does not count as a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being a retail site is not automatically conducive to being an unreliable source. In fact, they would strive to be extra reliable seeing as they have more to lose, i.e. customers, sales, reputation etc. For example, Amazon.com is often used for information and is trusted my millions, if not billions. Esprit International is one of the earliest and largest retailers on the Web, now operating an extensive worldwide mail order system and a record label. It has one of the largest databases of vinyl LPs and their respective info on the web. Ealdgyth, who does the source comments on FACs, considers both Amazon and Esprit reliable as was the case here and in all my previous FAs. Finally, in all instances, both sources are simply used for release dates, catalog info, track list anomalies etc., info that no other websites have, and not for opinions or anything else controversial. Rafablu88 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that it's not considered a reliable secondary source. It's a retailer, and should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says you, sadly. The person who does the source reviews on FACs, Ealdgyth, has always considered it reliable. When I get a "remove it" from the person who is the expert on sources here then I shall. As it stands, it's staying there. Rafablu88 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a particularly helpful attitude. Can't you find a better source for this other than a retail site? WesleyDodds (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's the only attitude to have after it passed its sourcing comments with flying colours (see above). And don't you think I would have put in those non-retail sources if they existed, being the ridiculously thorough and perfectionist person I am? Rafablu88 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the BBC call it "one of the UK's largest specialist record dealers". That must be enough.  GARDEN  19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they use it as a source in that article as well. That must surely seal it?  GARDEN  19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Ealdgyth's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches (which I always go on and what everyone should go on here), that should prove reliability, especially as the BBC cite technical data from them (which I have, too). But I bet our Wesley will still find fault and continue undermining Ealdgyth's thorough work and conclusion. Rafablu88 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<- Rafa, really, stop attacking Wesley - he's not arguing because he dislikes you; purely because he's concerned with some areas of the article. He might be right, he might be wrong, but you don't need to treat him like a scratch on a Porsche.  GARDEN  21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I, too, thought that was a bit harsh, Rafablu. Timmeh (review me) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've got guidelines, dispatches, and source experts to go by, and he suddenly decides he doesn't like a source and wants it removed. I do my homework and I expect him to do the same if I'm to take his oppose seriously and actually improve what he says I should improve. Rafablu88 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep calm. I've been heavily involved in FAC and FAR for years, and I am not making unwarranted remarks. Just because one person does't challenge a sourcs doesn't mean others can. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I don't think your comment now stands considering the sourcing and dispatch above. Rafablu88 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose over prose and sourcing concerns. Much of the prose is awkward and not entirely clear as to what point it's trying to convey (sample: "The politically charged A Weekend in the City allowed the band members to push forward sonically, but they were not entirely comfortable with more daring arrangements when recording it"; this is awfully vague and unnecessarily long-winded). I visited a few sources to try and clarify the prose based on the original text, but found in several instancies the prose was not reflecting the citations. For example, the article originally said "The first track, "Ares", shares its name with the Ancient Greek God of War and is an attack on the modern generation obsessed with appearances, exemplified by the lines "War war war war / I want to declare a war / My fist breaks your porcelain nose". Expect the article cited said nothing about "an attack on the modern generation obsessed with appearances". Another example is "Impromptu 2007 single "Flux" incorporated some experimental electronic elements, and multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes has noted that it gave Bloc Party the opportunity to move in a multitude of directions on Intimacy". However, the article cited said nothing about "Flux"'s incorporation of experimental electronic elements; it simply discussed that it inspired the band to go in different directions on its next album, but didn't specify why. I have since fixed these two examples, but the rest of the article's citations need to be double-checked. I'm also worried that opinion statements from reviews are being used to support information about the recording process and musical composition, when all can source their statements for is critical opinion; that's what they're paid to do. Coupled with the concern I mentioned about the use of eil.com as a source above, this article needs a look from some uninvolved editors to try and balance out the problems. I'll be happy to revisit the article after it has received a discriminating in-depth look at these problems from others. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't help when you wholesale revert my cleanup efforts, including the items I mentioned I fixed above due to inaccuracy. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replied about Esprit International above.
  • Adam Mazmanian of The Washington Times is clearly referenced in the sentence in "Studio sessions", so whilst being a critic explanation, noone can get the wrong idea about the statement. It is simply there to enrich and inform the discussion since he specifically commented on the studio process. It is the only statement from critics in that section and I wouldn't be stupid enough to source that section entirely from critics, as it needs to be factual.
  • Yes, the "Lyrics and composition" section makes use of critics but as I explained to you about Silent Alarm earlier in the year, they are usually the only sources apart from music sheets and lyrics on the bands website that explain and inform that section. They might be paid to write opinion, but they are usually the experts in music and know what they're talking about in terms of composition. Now I would have loved to have had the actual creators, Bloc Party, explaining this stuff like in A Weekend in the City but they did zilch promotion and zero print media interviews, so feasting on breadcrumbs was the only course of action.
Have you looked at any music magazines (specifically guitar mags)? They typically go in-depth about musical composition. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't mean to sound like a dick, just ridiculously exasperated. Have you or have you not read the article and the comments I have written over and over again? THE BAND DID NOT DO ANY PRINT MEDIA PROMOTION. I can't magic up sources from thin air. I only went with what I could find and I reckon I've done a sterling job with breadcrumbs. Rafablu88 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the producers or any of the technical staff who worked on the record? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One word that typifies the research for this article: zilch. I think that's what the band were going for. Minimal coverage and absolutely no critical magnum opuses like their last time. Rafablu88 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall have a look at the all references. I am pissed off that those two things slipped through but there's no need to generalise the whole article.
  • I will tighten the prose in those examples you mention and would appreciate any more you might have. Again, let's not generalise the whole article based on 1-2 examples.

Rafablu88 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • UPDATE:
    • I've fixed the "Politically charged..." sentence and added an extra ref for good measure.
    • I've cited the Flux elements sentence with an extra ref.
    • The Ares thing was a terrible cock up and has been rectified.
    • Adam Mazmanian was made a tad bit clearer.
    • Added tons more music sheet refs to solidify and enrich the critics' assertions.
      • Will now check each citation and then the prose. Rafablu88 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All citations seem totally fine now. Fixed a few of the prose issues as well. Don't think there's anymore to do but will give it a final workover. Rafablu88 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to be careful how you summarize the information you are citing. There are instancies where the wording borders on original research. Don't be afraid to directly quote sources if this clears up confusion. Also some statements aren't outright factual and are instead opinions that need to attributed. The sentence "The vocal delivery is fragile . . ." is an example. "Fragility" is not a measureable trait of music, so you must attribute the description to the source in the prose. Remember, this is an example, and not an isolated instance; review the entire article for these issues. And as I mentioned before, someone not involved with authoring the article needs to take a look at the prose (I would do it more in-depth, but I don't want to step on any more toes). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Borders" on original research is not original research then is it, if we define bordering as "close to but not over the line". All sentences are cited to where the info was found, and if there's any doubt, the source is only a little click away.
          • I have reviewed the entire article for sources and prose and will do time and time again. I believe your worries have been fully tackled.
          • I don't believe it's suitable to take a stance, i.e. oppose, then say that it stays there until SOMEONE ELSE reviews the article for you. At best, you're only entitled to a comment or a neutral stance if you can't back up your claim with a list of personal examples. I'm not telepathic and can only go on what you write. Rafablu88 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no need to be confrontational; I am giving honest feedback as is standard in FAC nominations. I don't have to list every single thing wrong with the article if it is an overarching problem, because that would just be an exercise in tedium. As I mentioned on your talk page, please mind WP:CIVIL and keep in mind editing sumamries such as "NOT original research; please refrain from editing and keep your comments for the FAC page since you oppose this nom" are not appropriate. Any editor is free to edit any article on Wikipedia. You ask me not to edit the page, but you also say "I don't believe it's suitable to take a stance, i.e. oppose, then say that it stays there until SOMEONE ELSE reviews the article for you". As you seem unreceptive to my edits, that is why I ask that an uninvolved editor take a look at the page. The point of FAC is to garner consensus among the community over whether or not the article fulfills the FAC criteria. Currently my oppose still stands. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--- Well, I have given the article the royal treatment over and over tonight and can firmly say that all your worries have been tackled and edited. If your editing is the only way to remove your oppose then by all means edit away. Although, if I don't like something I will tell you. As it stands, I consider your oppose comments completely satisfied as seen by my responses above and the edit history of the article. Rafablu88 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposes are still considered valid by the FAC director until the person who has voiced opposition strikes it out. That's why FAC nominators typically have to contact editors and ask them if their objections have been rectified. Starting at the body of the article, it's unclear how "Bloc Party conceived Intimacy to defy the conventional expectations of a rock band" is supported by the article cited. I can kind of see how you drew that conclusion from the text, but it's not explicit. You're better off citing specific details, which the article has loads of, instead of generalizing. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I've left it open to you. Change whatever you want and then strike your oppose. Rafablu88 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... happy now Wes? Or are you not finished editing yet? I CEd and moved a few a bits about after you. Nothing major. The article does look better I have to say. Let us know when you're ready to strike the oppose OK. Rafablu88 01:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's still some stuff I want to review/double-check (particularly the studio section, which I haven't got to yet), but I have a busy weekend. Might take a couple of days. One of the problems I ran into was interpretations of the lyrics based solely the liner notes as citations. Unless the band described what the songs were about in them, this should be avoided. (Aside: working on this article and reviewing the sources led me to watch the video for "I Still Remember" about 20 times in the past day. Yes, it's a different album, but it's a really good song). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I removed some of the lyrics things you mention myself. I think lack of sources dictated a lot of this article. It's hard to be comprehensive and engaging with pretty much nothing. (And I prefer the instrumental of ISR more tbh, although I'm generally more of a Prayer/Mercury person from being in grimy east London). Rafablu88 09:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are Wesley's concerns addressed? I'd like to go through the article, but only if the content issues are sorted out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some sources to review. Will probably take an extra day or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can wait a couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2009 (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/Intimacy_(Bloc_Party_album)/archive1&oldid=1136097068"