Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phil Collins/archive2

Phil Collins

Hello, all. Self nomination of Phil Collins. As you may previously remember, this article was nominated prematurely to FAC about 1 1/2 months ago by a new member to Wikipedia and was rightly rejected. I have spent the last month making this a labor of love of sorts, and the article is a vast improvement over the original. Among new additions -- references/notes/inline citations (with the deletion of anything that could not be referenced), audio samples, removal of most grammar / passive voice, expansion of the introduction, elimination of the "list" feel which originally overtook the article (including a seperate page for the looong discography), renaming of the sections, and a host of other improvements. Article went through peer review [[1]] and I believe 99.9% of additions have been made. I also have the original FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phil Collins/archive1. I think you'll notice a substancial difference between the time of its original nomination [[2]] and its current format [[3]]. Thanks for the review! --Ataricodfish 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Meets all the Featured Music Project except some problems with image copyrights. Any image used under fair use needs to have a listing on the image page of why its use in the article Phil Collins qualifies as fair use, and must have its source credited. Tuf-Kat 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tuf, I added source information and related fair use information to each photograph. There was a Genesis photograph on the page prior to my working on the page with unknown but a definitely copyrighted photograph showing the band's classic lineup. I really liked the image, but it had no information and it's surely copyrighted, so I removed it from this page (It remains on the main Genesis page). I replaced it with an album cover that's equally amusing and considerably easier to reference, although I'm hoping to hear back from the webmaster of the official website regarding the use of promotional photographs in the future. (also posted on Talk page) --Ataricodfish 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The source info is good, but that's not a fair use rationale. You need to explain why you think its use is fair, according to the legal principles of fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more info, and Image:Robertjohson.jpg for an example. Tuf-Kat 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the example. I reviewed the Robertjonson example as well as prior examples in other featured articles, such as Marilyn Manson. Fair use explanations have been added to the photos on the Collins page.--Ataricodfish 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Also added fair use explanations to audio samples.--Ataricodfish 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support, as all my major concerns have been addressed, and the article is well-written and apparently comprehensive, though I must admit I'm not a fan. I do have two suggestions though: consolidate some of the short paragraphs, of which there are a lot, and consider moving the sound samples into the article body (e.g. two systems: Music of Nigeria or Music of the United States). Tuf-Kat 07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tuf, thanks for your constant reviews of the article. Especially since you're not a fan of Collins, I appreciate that you have taken the time to review the article several times.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - article appears to be up to scratch. Good work. Essexmutant 11:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Essex, thank you for your vote and for reviewing the article.--Ataricodfish 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - vast improvement since last peer review - well done! The writing however still needs some work. Here are some examples but I think the entire article would benefit from a copyedit.

1. lead paragraph contains elements of POV/overstatement. These are not indisputable facts, therefore need to be made more neutral. "haunting rock classic", "propelled Collins into an international superstar" (it's a bit awkwardly written and "superstar" is not encyclopedic).

I believe I eliminated the potential POV statements in the lead.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

2."Early life and career" - "ambition to wield the sticks" - that's a really, really awful phrase.

"Ambition to wield the sticks", as well as much of that section, was prior to my arrival to the page. It's difficult to edit sometimes, as I don't want to eliminate someone else's work solely on my review. I've cleaned up the section some more, and removed this phrase.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

but if someone else's work is really, really bad, by all means change it ;-) just kidding. Remember - be bold Rossrs 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

3.General copyedit needed to remove awkward sentences. Examples : "When his turn arrived he knew all the parts", "although the decade failed to treat Collins as well as the previous..." etc

I have a general problem with wordiness, although I eliminated much of these phrases during the peer review. I have made another read through and made some eliminations (although personally, I liked that decade line). I believe it's cleaner now.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the same problem. I read everything I write about 400 times and still find things to remove. I know exactly what you mean, and yes it's much better. Rossrs 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

4.Writing style needs to be tightened to remove superfluous or inappropriate words - examples "In total, Collins sang the lead..." why not just "Collins sang the lead .. etc". "climbed as high as #3" - why not "reached number three". "explaining his lack of invite" (the correct word is "invitation")

Made these corrections and more.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Incorrect use of future tense - "it wouldn't be until 1976", "1985 would be a banner year". all tenses should be past. should be "in 1976 he ....." and "1985 was a good year" etc.

I corrected these and didn't catch any other instances, although I could be wrong.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

6. The word "Collins" is overused, even for an article about someone named "Collins". For variety the article needs a few "he"s and "him"s to be used instead.

Made some changes.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

7. Cites and punctuation - in some cases the full stop appears before the cite, sometimes after, and sometimes both. Should be before the cite in all cases.

Corrected this as well.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

8. The fair use rationales for the images are well done, but I think the Rolling Stone image is a problem in that fair use could be best demonstrated by some discussion of the fact that he was featured on the magazine cover. It's significant as mentioned on the image description page, but this is not mentioned in the article. The problem is amplified by the fact that it's used as the lead image, and that the logo and part of the headlines are cropped. Suggest swapping it with the screenshot image, which is not an ideal choice for the lead paragraph but which would be better, and ensure that Collins' featuring on the magazine cover is at least mentioned in the article.

I have exchanged the two photographs. I perfer the magazine as the lead photo, but I'm also not that experienced with the concept of fair use. I will keep the solo image at the top for now and will see if anyone else makes note of it.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. Aesthetically, I prefer the cover too, but I think it's better this way. Rossrs 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

9. There is no critical discussion of either his music or films. I think for a musician/performer/songwriter/actor - some comments, positive and negative, are essential. Rossrs 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I began putting critical reviews, as it was mentioned in peer review, but hesistated after seeing critical reviews on other Wikipedia articles. Critical sections always appear biased by whoever's writing it to back up their views of a performer, with people of the other camp then protesting to note the bias and begin including other views to balance it out. Personally, I believe critical reviews should appear on the articles for the individual albums or singles. Also, this article tetters on the recommended 32K, and I didn't want to create a large article. However, I will be glad to attempt a critical section if this is the main issue.

Anyway, thanks Rossrs for reviewing this article twice now. I appreciate that you have taken the time to read the article twice and post your comments. Please let me know if the other issues have been addressed properly.--Ataricodfish 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I still think critical comment is important, but you're right. Even the choice of comments used is biased by what we as editors want to include. But the same argument can be applied to anything. I think to gain a more rounded understanding of Collins as a performer we need to know for example - were credible reviewers liking or disliking his work? Did he alienate reviewers by taking the middle-of-the-road route after Genesis' progressive start? Was his music considered to be "good" or just "popular"? Was he considered to be an insightful lyricist? A good songwriter? Did reviewers feel his live shows demonstrated his capabilities as a performer? Or was he just a crowd pleaser? They are the kind of things I think could strengthen the article, so I'll stand by my earlier comment. It could be done in a critical section, or could be scattered throughout the article, like for example the comments about the Ark 2 album. But really great job you're doing with the article. NatusRoma's advice further down, is right on the money.

Thanks again for your review and compliments. This article has taken up much more of my time than initially expected, and I think everyone is surprised after peer reviewing an article just how much hard work it takes to get it to featured status. I have added some reviews (only two so far, besides the Ark 2 reviews) and put them into the article, because as mentioned, I'm not a fan of having a separate header for critiques and I think that's just asking for trouble down the road. I'm trying to figure out a way of putting the other reviews into the article without disrupting the flow, and will try again later.--Ataricodfish 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rossrs, I've added five additional critical reviews, including one for a film, since the page was nominated. I took your suggestions of scattering them in the article, as I'm not a fan of separate critical sections as I think that is asking for vandels in the future. --Ataricodfish 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - I think the review comments were well chosen, particularly the one about the possible "disaster" of Peter Gabriel leaving. Nicely done. Article is well written, well illustrated, even, thorough without delving into trivia, and non-NPOV. Rossrs 00:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Rossrs, Thank you very much for your support. You have seen the before and after of this article, and I can assure you a lot of work went into it. Thanks for your help and suggestions in the process. --Ataricodfish 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. And I can assure you, I understand exactly how much work goes into getting an article up to scratch. I don't doubt how much time and effort you've put into this. Rossrs 09:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Question - what is meant by this sentence? "In the 1980s, the group scored a string of successful albums, including their first UK top hit Invisible Touch (1986)". Top what? I've checked some reference material and it wasn't their first top 10, or top 5 or even first number one album, and I can't see anything significant about the chart placing. Or should it be US rather than UK? Can you clarify please what is meant here? thanks Rossrs 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is called an example of poor fact checking on my part. :) No, when I reviewed the article, I doubled checked the statements regarding chart position and only varified that, yes, Invisible Touch did indeed make it to number one in the UK. However, you're totally right that this wasn't the first Genesis album to do so, so I chalk it up to being originally written incorrectly and then overlooked in the editing process. I deleted this.--Ataricodfish 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The lead is too long: please see WP:LEAD. AndyZ 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Andy, thank you very much for your comment. It was my understanding that the lead was appropriate at four paragraphs. I was using the template for the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project, which says at L1, "Typically, the lead ... is from two to four paragraphs long". However, I noted that User:Petaholmes has condensed this to three paragraphs, which WP:LEAD recommends, and I agree and appreciate the editing. The list of names in the lead was from a prior editor, and as I mentioned in response to Rossrs, I hesistated with deleting too much work by other users. Is the lead approproiate now? Thanks! --Ataricodfish 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To follow up on Andy's comment, after this and a similar comment by another editor was made during the FAC for Pink Floyd [[4]], the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project now recommends 2-3 paragraphs instead of 2-4. Thanks for your suggestion. --Ataricodfish 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Don't hesitate to be bold in changing other people's work if you think that it's not up to snuff. I've often significantly altered text that other people have written, and other people have often significantly altered text that I have written, with positive results. Also, don't get too hung up on the 32kb line. It's not really a big issue anymore, and many featured articles are much, much longer than 32kb. NatusRoma 06:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Natus, thank you for your comment. This is my first Wikipedia article for which I've done more than just spell check, vandel edit, or add a piece of information. My initial concern was that the Wikipedia community wouldn't like it if I turned this into AtariCodfish's article, so I tried to save other editor's statements whenever possible. --Ataricodfish 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that. As long as "AtariCodfish's article" is good, I don't think anyone will care The Catfish 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Catfish, I appreciate the comment. I reviewed be bold as well, as was recommended earlier. I'm very happy with how the article has progressed.--Ataricodfish 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the numbered notes in the text do not have a note in the list of notes that shares the same number, which is kind of the point of numbered notes.--nixie 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

nixie, thank you for pointing this out. This comes down with my confusion with the numbering system and my recent adds of new notes. However, this was corrected rather quickly, just tested, and everything matches. --Ataricodfish 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Minor objection - good article, but could the "Band" section be expanded or turned into a prose? I don't think a bulleted list of his band members with only one (er, two) sentence lead in that section is appropriate. Also, why is that section and the discography section below further reading and audio samples? Correct me if I'm wrong, but those should be at the bottom, with any text above it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Flcelloguy, thanks for the comment, and I appreciate that you reviewed the article. I personally like where further reading is because it's immediately after the article text itself. My logic; if you've read this and would like to read more, here you go. As for the audio samples, it was the same logic; you've just read about the guy, now here's a list of samples in historical order for the article just read. I modeled this after the Marilyn Manson featured article, as I liked how the audio section was featured and ordered. I placed the discography and band afterward because they are lists and, I feel, would be distracting placed earlier in the article. I don't know if there's a general accepted format on Wikipedia for this, but I personally like how it is set up.

As for the band list, originally the article had a LONG band list of every member in the band ever, including studio musicians. I liked the information but felt an entire list was inappropriate for this article and that a summary of the current band would suffice. I created a separate article, Touring and studio musicians of Phil Collins, and cut-and-paste that information over. I had briefly considering deleting the band section and putting it in a "See Also" section at the bottom, but I thought it looked unprofessional with only one link, (That touring link), and nothing else, and I also thought the information was informative in its current format, so I kept the article as is.--Ataricodfish 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I need some more time to re-review this article; I'll get back to you soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Eternal, thank you very much for reviewing the article and for your vote of support. --Ataricodfish 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Support per all support nominations above. Captain Jackson 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)