Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orb

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 03:22, 12 April 2007.

---

The Orb

I've been working on this article for quite awhile now and I think its finally ready for FAC (self nom). Its very well referenced and contains multiple cool free images with a minimum of unfree media. I think it has a good balance of band history, production techniques, and themes/whatnot with some good quotes. I will respond quickly to any suggestions, so feel free to offer up any suggestions you think it needs before its an FA. Thanks! Wickethewok 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this is a most excellent piece of work. I'm still reading through your latest revision but I continue to be impressed at the work you've done here.

While [at EG Records], he met KLF member Jimmy Cauty

Hmm... presumably Jimmy wasn't a KLF member when he met Alex, so that should perhaps be "future KLF member" or even just "Jimmy Cauty"?

Also, I'm a little confused by the statement. Did Alex and Jimmy meet at EG Records, or just during that period of time? Perhaps that could be cleared up. If it's the former, what was Jimmy's connection to the label, if any?

One other small point, there seems to be a few too many links, links which are for consecutive words and things like post punk rock music where the former is a subdivision of the latter and the reader can eventually click through to rock music anyway. I fixed that one, but I think there are others.

Finally (for now, as I've not finished reading), I'm not sure about the footnotes in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body, so wouldn't it be best to cite everything except the potentially controversial in the body only? --kingboyk 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Much thanks, Kingboyk. I added the word "future" in - I think this is better, as I think it makes it less confusing later on. I removed the EG Records thing, as I don't think its particular relevant to The Orb as much as it is just Paterson. I removed some of the excess wikilinks, most notably the publication wikilinks, of which there were several redundant ones. I've heard varying opinions on citations in the lead, ranging from everything should be cited to nothing should cited... so I'm not sure on that... I look forward to anymore suggestions you have. Much thanks! Wickethewok 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The EG Records connection: some of Jimmy's old material was released on EG. (How should that article be named, anyway? EG? E.G.? E'G (as Discogs has it)?)
  • The book I have (Modulations) particularly plays up the EG connection, as they were milking the theme of Paterson as a sort of heir apparent to Eno. I have no idea how much of that's reality vs. just a romantic notion. –Unint 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The sources that I've read just mention Paterson working there in passing and don't mention Cauty in relation to EG. Does Modulations mention if Paterson/Cauty met this way? Wickethewok 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing so specific at all; actually, they make a point about how little information there is. It was just "Alex and his gang" from some point onwards. –Unint 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally responsible for a small gaffe, I'm afraid: a while ago I edited the last sentence of the first paragraph of "History" to give attribution to where the "ambient house for the E generation" actually appeared. However, this forced a mention of the "A Huge Ever Growing Pulsating Brain..." single before its proper introduction. I'm not quite sure how to rearrange everything to get it to make sense. –Unint 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe the source of the "E generation" should go in a footnote? Would that make more sense? But, yeah, introducing the name of the single before we get there is a little confusing. Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"History", section 2, last paragraph: why did FFWD lack direction as a result of the nature of the album? –Unint 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The source I have on this doesn't make quite so explicit a connection, but I tried to make this more clear. Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribute "another acrimonious departure from The Orb"? Actually, I read that reference (#30) and was particularly struck by the way Paterson behaved. Was this an isolated incident? –Unint 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Patterson is a bit odd in couple interviews, though that one I think is the most wonky. In others, though, he's pretty mellow, so I'm not quite sure... Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall structure: from 1995-2004 the history really paints a picture of overall negative critical responses. One paragraph after another takes the form of "many reviewers hated it, though this one publication had a positive quote". In addition, given that, saying that they then "began" to fall into "critical irrelevancy" by 2004 doesn't seem to gel with what's presented by the past several paragraphs. –Unint 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, well basically, according to some retrospectives I've read, it seems that most of the UK critics didn't much care for much Orb stuff from 94-97, though the US critics did. I tried to make this clear - do you have any suggestions on how to make this more clear? As for Cydonia, I think RollingStone was the only one who supported it (I don't think I cited any positive reviews on this one). Bicycles was a balance of good and bad reviews - I've tried to make that more apparent. I agree with your "began" comment, and hopefully I've fixed it. I eagerly await your additional feedback, much thanks for your time and effort! Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Orb were finished after UFOrb in the UK, quite frankly (and rightly so imho!). Yet again I wish I'd kept my old music papers! Maybe the Librarian of Mu could help? --kingboyk 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've done some touch-ups. I hope I've eliminated the boring sort of format that Unint described in the article. If you want, you can check out the diff. I tried to remove a little of the critic opinions and replace them with some of their more objective comments about the albums. I also did a touchup of the intro. I think I've addressed all the concerns listed explicitly above (except for maybe how Paterson/Cauty met, though I don't know if this information is available anywhere). Any additional general/specific/whatever needs for this to become FA? Wickethewok 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some further comments. "Paterson vehemently denies any Pink Floyd influence in his work." Paterson appeared with David Gilmour on the cover of Melody Maker, 27 March 1993.[1] That's a feature you might want to track down; he must at least have acknowledged some connection to agree to the appearance?

• He did acknowledge some vague connections, so I noted the Pink Floyd - Meddle album thing in the article. Here's a reprint of the article online: [2]. Maybe Paterson's opinions of Floyd changed over time? In many other articles I've read he's fairly dismissive of the comparison, but Paterson is a pretty crazy guy like that... Wickethewok 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• He doesn't seem very dismissive there, on the contrary. It's not that important either; I'd consider removing ", though Paterson denies Pink Floyd as a major influence in his work" from the lead and give both sides of the story a mention in the body.

• I'm finding the last paragraph of the lead very messy/jerky still. It doesn't seem to have any direction and is several poorly worded statements glued together.
• Is Mika Nakashima "mainstream"? (In Japan perhaps; I don't know.) Do we know for sure that remixing "bolstered The Orb's popularity" or should we just say it gave them additional exposure?

• I've re-done the third paragraph of the lead, lemme know what you think. Mika Nakashima is pretty mainstream in Japan I believe (she had a #1 album over there and seems to be a popular actress there, too. Wickethewok 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Paterson and Cauty began DJ-ing in London and landed a deal for The Orb to play the chill out room at London nightclub Heaven. Resident DJ Paul Oakenfold brought in the duo specifically as ambient DJs for his "The Land of Oz" event at Heaven.[5] - Some redundancy here, could be merged into one sentence with a little rewording.

• Agreed, redundancy attempted at a fixin. Wickethewok 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've tweaked a few things in the 1st section, "1988–1990: Paterson & Cauty". Feel free to revert or further improve. I've also added a few {{fact}} tags; there's nothing there I believe to be untrue, rather you've slipped a little from your otherwise meticulous referencing.

• Done. Wickethewok 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• "In 1991, Paterson invited studio engineer Kris "Thrash" Weston to join him in The Orb's live performances." Shortly after this, we find them in the studio. Shouldn't we just say he was invited to join "The Orb"? Or, can we explain a little more fully that Weston started as part of the live show only but then became a full member, if that's what happened?

• The book I got this from doesn't really elaborate, so I just simplified it now. Wickethewok 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• "To promote the release of an edited single disc version for an American release, The Orb embarked on their first tour of the United States beginning in Phoenix, Arizona.[21][22]" First source isn't great (primary source). When was the tour exactly? If it was a little later I'd move this sentence as I feel the paragraph would be better if it ended with the sentence before.

• Oct 1991, which I just added to the article. I agree that the sentence before is a much better ending - do you think this sentence is necessary for the article? Wickethewok 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Despite its playing time of almost 40 minutes, "Blue Room" entered the UK charts at #12 and peaked at #8, making it the longest track to reach the UK singles chart". This ought to be cited, I think. I'd also add a note in the footnotes about the UK chart rules. At the time, 40:00 was the maximum (or was it under 40mins?). Blue Room clocked in at, what, 39:59? I believe the allowed running time was shortened since then so for now their record is safe. (BTW, that running time is longer than The Beatles' Revolver album!).
• "Weston suddenly quit The Orb to pursue his own projects". I've put to "pursue his own projects" into quotes, as it sounds rather like "musical differences" to me. Is it a direct quote?

• This is not a direct quote. He got fed up with Paterson, so he left to do solo work basically. Is "pursue his own projects" too euphemistic? Wickethewok 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely. If that's not what he said, just remove it. You explain the reasons in the next sentences anyway. --kingboyk 09:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Important: In several places you mention critical reaction, whilst citing only one source. It would be better to cite several, even if they all say the same thing. Otherwise how does the reader know we're not cherry-picking? :)

• I think I've got em, but if I've missed any still, leave a {{fact}} on 'em or something. Wickethewok 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

--kingboyk 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC) More to come but you can reply now if you like.

• I just want to point out that I will of course be supporting this nomination. So far I've found a readable, well researched, neutral article. All the above is nitpicking and minor. Will finish off my review tomorrow. --kingboyk 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Infinite thanks, Kingboy! Your feedback is invaluable.  :-) Wickethewok 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment. The article is very good and very close. There are some prose issues, of which the following are examples only:

• "his unauthorized use of other artist's work has led to disputes with other artists" - other artist repeated twice in single sentence.
• "The Orb achieved most of their critical and commercial success in the UK in the early 1990s" - The Orb's critical and commercial success in the UK peaked in the early 1990s
• In the 3rd lead para the word Orb appears six times (outside of album titles); can you alternate with either band, group, ot their.
• "The Orb's albums of the mid-1990s" - mid-1990s albums
• "Moving their new work to the record label Kompakt in 2002" - Awkwardly phrased.
• "Though initially The Orb's Monday night performances had only several "hard-core" followers" - initally seems misplaced, initally had only?
• "grew popular over the course of their six month stay at Heaven" - at Heaven is redundant.
• "Paterson began working with Youth on the track "Little Fluffy Clouds". "Little Fluffy Clouds" featured samples from Steve Reich's Electric Counterpoint" - Little Fluffy Clouds is repeated in sucession.
• "Retrospectively, Adventures is considered ground-breaking for the genres of ambient and dance music as well as changing the way musicians view sampling". - a little awkward; a ground-breaking release in the history of ambient ... as well as for'? Not too sure about this one.
• "U.F.Orb reached #1 on the UK Albums Chart to the shock of critics, who were surprised that fans had embraced what journalists considered to be progressive rock" - While this is backed up by two citations, it should be clarified that most (including me) bought the record expecting more of the same ;).
• "though having considered retiring The Orb" - could be better phrased.
• "who had previously performed with The Orb's live show" - reword with.

I've focused on copy here; otherwise the article is well researched, sourced, and insightful. Ceoil 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support—it's very good, and mostly well written (why can't all nominations in this genre be like this?). But I'm concerned about the use of five copyrighted audio excerpts under fair use. WP's practice has become much more restrictive in the past year (stricter than US fair-use common law, indeed). Three excerpts might be safer—you need expert opinion from Danny or someone else at the fair use page. The audio excerpts should be very difficult to "replace", which may well be case given the recency of the band's output. (1) "No free alternative is available which achieves the same effect.", as the file infos say, is weak when it comes to the crunch; and (2) "It illustrates the subject in question (The Orb, Orblivion) for educational purposes." is hard to justify when the surrounding text doesn't refer to specific features in the excerpt, although I must say that thought and skill has gone into the relationship between text and audio. Remember that WP is intended to be freely copied, which conflicts with the notion of fair use. Tony 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The article is comprehensive, well referenced, neutral but not neutered, and certainly amongst Wikipedia's best work. I support only "weakly" at this stage because I continue to find redundancies in the text and occasional less than brilliant prose. That said, Tony has supported unconditionally and he's the copy expert not me. I'll likely change to full support once the text has had a final copyedit and the {{fact}} tags I've just added have been dealt with. Make no mistake though, this is a wonderful effort; I've watched the evolution of the article with interest and not only have you done a superb job I've learnt from it too. Thank you! (Also, it looks like this will be promoted; will that make Jimmy Cauty the first person to have 2 of his bands at FA?). --kingboyk 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is good advice. Tony 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tony, that's hugely gratifying coming from you. Anyway, I think Wickethewok has done all he can with the article; if you're happy with the prose then so I am. Changing to full support. --kingboyk 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I think I've addressed all of Ceoil's specific concerns above (thanks for the feedback btw!) and Kingboyk's. Also, I've reduced the number of samples to 4 now in the article (3 big early hits and 1 later track). I am currently looking over the article for more copy-editing stuff. Much thanks all! Wickethewok 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've done so more touch-ups and will probably go over it again tonight. Wickethewok 01:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Prose is excellent, well sourced. I should take a lesson....Cricket02 19:47, 11 April 2007 (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.