Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tool (band)/archive1
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 16:08, 30 July 2007.
Tool (band)[edit]
A self-nomination, and my first one, so please don't bite. The article passed GA nomination on June 12, and has since then undergone a second peer review, both procedures resulted in very encouraging comments regarding FAC. (See the links in the article history at the Tool talk page for details.) Some fellow editors and me have poured a lot of effort into this article, the most challenging issues (and maybe points of special interest for FAC reviewers) were:
- How to tackle tiresome genre disputes about a band that pushes popular genre boundaries?
- How to address the strong focus on visual arts and influence of non-music related artists on the band? (Featured articles on other bands could not really serve as a blue-print in this matter.)
- How can we cope with the lack of all-encompassing biographies or broad-coverage articles on the band? (Since the band refrains from authorizing any and even spreads false information at times.)
In consequence, we have written a quite extensive (that doesn't mean "long"!) article, that heavily relies on inline citations, tries to cope with the surprisingly complex subject matter by dedicating a subsection to the visual arts and musical traits/genres of the band. Of course, we have attempted to minimize the amount of fair use images in the article, and in my opinion, have come to an acceptable, since useful and insightful proportion in relation to CC images. Regarding 1c, please note that some of the sources, especially from the early 1990s, have been researched at a semi-official fansite — direct links to the transcriptions used as a source have been removed recently due to possible copyright concerns and "cite web" replaced with "cite news".
In all, I'd like to say that over the years that I've worked on the article it has become the best established and most concise article on the band that I know of. Obviously, I do believe that the article is fit for FA status, but, I know there may lie stones in the way to that goal, please point them out so that they may be cleared away. Thank you for reviewing this nomination. Johnnyw talk 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Their aspirational work features exceptionally long or complex releases, controversial lyrics and cover art, and unorthodox music videos, which results in a rather ambivalent relationship between the band and today's music industry,[1] at times marked by censorship, and the band's ongoing struggle for privacy.[2]" - This reads like a press release, and violates POV. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I see the press release point (but isn't that a bit subjective?), I'm not sure I see the POV that is being pushed here. Which one is it?--SidiLemine 13:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see plenty of POV pushed in it.
- "Aspirational" suggests all other bands aspire to do such work, and definitely violates POV. By this POV statement, you'd get the impression this is a band nearly everyone aspires to be like.
- "Unorthodox music videos" - this is yet another mere opinion, and I feel that the writer of the article needs to get rid of the numerous adjectives within the article. "Unorthodox" is an opinion, so needs to be attributed to a critic who feels this way.
- "Ambivalent" is yet another opinion. Facts are great, and any opinions should be sourced and attributed. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for both comments.
- Regarding "violates POV", "reads like a press release": I think you are mistaken regarding the violation of NPOV, but will skip the explanation of every single point made in that summary to address your second concern, which in my opinion seems valid enough and is actually the source for your concern regarding the violation of NPOV: Since I at the moment think that factuality of the points made above remain, it think it is rather a problem of tone, than of facts. I'll try to town it down notably, please give it a second glance when you read this. Also: I welcome any specific suggestions regarding these changes. Johnnyw talk 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On March 31, 2005, the official website announced - to the shock of many fans and friends - that "Maynard has found Jesus" and would be abandoning the recording of the new Tool album temporarily and possibly permanently." - You cannot assess whether "many friends" and many fans were shocked, or not. This is mere speculation, and it needs removing - please stick to the facts. LuciferMorgan 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tool has a reputation for "odd"[36] and "some of the most innovative album packaging in the industry."[100]" - Yet more opinion. Please state which critics hold these opinions. For example, it's Mike Osegueda who believes they have a reputation for "odd" album packaging - that's an opinion, not a fact. What is deemed as odd differs from person to person. LuciferMorgan 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your other points, LuciferMorgan, but regarding: "Tool has a reputation for "odd"[36] and "some of the most innovative album packaging in the industry."[100]" - I wonder why you have to state the critic who says this if it is attributed in the footnote? It seems redundant to me. Thanks for your time. daveh4h 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't redundant, because it's an opinion. Let's get it straight here: you're carting around opinions and writing them as though they are fact, and that's simply untrue. The video is not "odd" (that's a misleading statement), but simply deemed "odd" by Osegueda (a statement which isn't misleading). The way it's written suggests everyone deems it a commonly held fact, which is not true. This is reflective of the whole article, which is full of misleading adjectives and statements being carted around as fact.
Based on criterion 1. d. which says ""Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view", I Oppose. This article has a long way to go in order to meet this requirement. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there are problems like this throughout the article, and it certainly is an opinion, but it is an opinion that is attributed in the footnote. I asked about this particular case to use it as a model elsewhere in the article. If it were stated in a more general way and less as definitive fact, would it be acceptable to only attribute it in the footnote? I am not necessarily speaking about this specific example, but I am thinking about other areas we may run into this. I am left with the impression that if it is an opinion, the person who holds that opinion must be stated, even if it may be a widely held opinion. I've no problem with this, and it makes a good deal of sense actually, but just want to make sure. daveh4h 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's not forget that this is not a POV being pushed (or at least this has not been verifiable yet). Neutrality needs to give sources due weight. To cite some of the sources that appear to be representing a rather personal POV might make this impression, but does not necessarily entail a violation of NPOV. In this specific matter (it's about album artwork, not the music video as you state above, just to avoid confusion): out of 4 album artworks, 2 have been Grammy awarded, 1 nominated, and the last distributed by Wal-Mart and others with a full sized censored cover. These facts led to incorporate the comment of the critics you deem as merely opinions catered as facts. Please consider this. Is it a check of style you deem necessary or do you allege an inaccuracy (POV, etc.) of the article?Johnnyw talk 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there are problems like this throughout the article, and it certainly is an opinion, but it is an opinion that is attributed in the footnote. I asked about this particular case to use it as a model elsewhere in the article. If it were stated in a more general way and less as definitive fact, would it be acceptable to only attribute it in the footnote? I am not necessarily speaking about this specific example, but I am thinking about other areas we may run into this. I am left with the impression that if it is an opinion, the person who holds that opinion must be stated, even if it may be a widely held opinion. I've no problem with this, and it makes a good deal of sense actually, but just want to make sure. daveh4h 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I allege a misrepresentation of the information at hand, so the article does not present "views fairly and without bias". Critical reaction is the opinion of critics, not facts. A point of view is being pushed, and that point of view is presented as though commonly held fact. "Has a reputation" suggests everyone thinks the artwork is "odd", and that's simply not true - the truth is that Osegueda stated this opinion, not that Tool "has a reputation". This article severely violates POV with its many adjectives been thrown around as fact (when these adjectives are opinions). 1.c. also says the article should "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and this article doesn't do this either since the views are inaccurately represented. LuciferMorgan 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Osegueda's view, in combination with the second view about the innovativeness are used as example, and I will attribute them to address your concerns. Still, these are not POV-pushing, but substantiate the fact that these two views are actually spread throughout the industry ("Tool has a reputation"), which is supported by the Grammy Awards mentioned in the same paragraph. As a reminder, the Grammy self-description [1] sees the Grammy as the "recording industry's most prestigious award, (..) awarded (..) to honor excellence in the recording arts (..) truly a peer honor, awarded by and to artists and technical professionals for artistic or technical achievement (..)". I think the paragraph follows the principle of due weight. And as of yet, I fail to see which other notable POV is not represented, as you haven't given an example, although I see that better attribution could prevent misunderstandings by other readers. Thank you for considering my objections. Johnnyw talk 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I rephrased the bit, adding an attribution to the AP, dropping the "odd" statement, while containing the essential idea. See the diff for details. Johnnyw talk 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your insistence it is "spread throughout the industry" - no actually, it isn't. There's a POV statement. Critics opinions always differ, so please don't misle everyone and make out Tool are loved by everyone in the industry. As concerns the Grammy Awards, please don't quote their propaganda - yes, a Grammy Award makes them a Grammy Award winner. This is fact. That your assertion (which is your own opinion may I add) that these two views "are spread throughout the industry", "supported by the Grammy Awards", that's all it is: assertion. I'll repeat it yet again: stick to the facts. The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences is one musical body, not an entire industry, and even their Grammy Awards have been criticised and admired.
- I allege a misrepresentation of the information at hand, so the article does not present "views fairly and without bias". Critical reaction is the opinion of critics, not facts. A point of view is being pushed, and that point of view is presented as though commonly held fact. "Has a reputation" suggests everyone thinks the artwork is "odd", and that's simply not true - the truth is that Osegueda stated this opinion, not that Tool "has a reputation". This article severely violates POV with its many adjectives been thrown around as fact (when these adjectives are opinions). 1.c. also says the article should "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and this article doesn't do this either since the views are inaccurately represented. LuciferMorgan 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As concerns "I fail to see which other notable POV is not represented, as you haven't given an example", I've given plenty already though you fail to agree. If you can't see the POV pushing in your own writing, then that's not my problem. I have selected mere examples to show a problem within the whole article.
- As concerns your "rephrasing", it is simply not good enough. The releases have been met with positive critical reception: music journalists such as of the Associated Press have since attributed to the band a reputation for innovative album packaging. - yet again you are using phrases like "such as" to suggest it's a widely held opinion, and therefore POV pushing. Jonathan Drew of Associated Press holds this opinion yes - this fact cannot be argued with. Why do you have to keep using weasly phrases like "music journalists such as" instead of just simply keeping to the facts and not emphasising certain viewpoints? The way you word things still comes across as though it's a press release, whereas this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. LuciferMorgan 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile I think this is not much work to do, I agree with LuciferMorgan a complete trimming is necessary to comply with the FA requirements. Things like "Many illustrous examples describe their sound as..." is not admissible. Even if you did find five "illustrous examples" (and provided a bunch of footnotes sourcing the illustrous part for each one), and listed the five refs describing what you say, how would you agree on "many"? That's the problem. You have to imagine someone who really hates Tool, and you, and maybe also wikipedia, coming to criticize your work with all the bad faith in the world, and be prepared for that. This particular sentence could be rephrased as "Their sound has been described as..." I admit it has less punch, but it's definitely more encyclopedic. Same thing for "Beyond this fundamental aspect..." Get rid of the fundamental. Drop the adjectives, and stick with the dry, boring, unquestionable facts. It might sound sad, but I promise you it will be worth it when you see Tool with all the other FAs out there.--SidiLemine 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I happen to like Tool and saw them live when they did Cardiff last Winter, so if someone with all the bad faith actually did come along imagine that... LuciferMorgan 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give the article a good trimming over the weekend, starting right now. Thanks for all your comments Lucifer and Sidi, I think I had a little misunderstanding there earlier, when I was insisting on what I believed was right (the due weight argument), and see now that my arguments were heading in a wrong direction. Some phrasings are dangerously misleading, even if sourced, this won't stay as it is. Johnnyw talk 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not trimming that's needed, but statements in the article to be more to the point. Writers on Wikipedia have a bad habit of writing "their music has been described as X", but if you write Critic Y said their music was X then who can dispute this? Nobody could, as critic Y actually did make that statement - it improves the clarity of the article, and leaves the article unopen to accusations of bias. LuciferMorgan 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur with LuciferMorgan and SidiLemine on this. After reading only a few sections, I did find quite a bit of opinion, while may be sourced in the footnotes, I, as a reader, found myself stopping to go to each source to find out who actually said what. More attribution is needed. I will read it again after this weekend when the nominator has had a chance to weed through it again. ♫ Cricket02 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many small changes have been made. While I will review the article again after giving it a couple of hours rest, I still hope you'll already find many statements better worded. The latest diff (since 07/27). Johnnyw talk 13:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The latest diff includes the changes mentioned above, copy-editing by dave4h (thx!), and some fixes in the dashes used in the quotations, as pointed out by Epbr123. Thanks for all the constructive comments. Johnnyw talk 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur with LuciferMorgan and SidiLemine on this. After reading only a few sections, I did find quite a bit of opinion, while may be sourced in the footnotes, I, as a reader, found myself stopping to go to each source to find out who actually said what. More attribution is needed. I will read it again after this weekend when the nominator has had a chance to weed through it again. ♫ Cricket02 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I happen to like Tool and saw them live when they did Cardiff last Winter, so if someone with all the bad faith actually did come along imagine that... LuciferMorgan 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile I think this is not much work to do, I agree with LuciferMorgan a complete trimming is necessary to comply with the FA requirements. Things like "Many illustrous examples describe their sound as..." is not admissible. Even if you did find five "illustrous examples" (and provided a bunch of footnotes sourcing the illustrous part for each one), and listed the five refs describing what you say, how would you agree on "many"? That's the problem. You have to imagine someone who really hates Tool, and you, and maybe also wikipedia, coming to criticize your work with all the bad faith in the world, and be prepared for that. This particular sentence could be rephrased as "Their sound has been described as..." I admit it has less punch, but it's definitely more encyclopedic. Same thing for "Beyond this fundamental aspect..." Get rid of the fundamental. Drop the adjectives, and stick with the dry, boring, unquestionable facts. It might sound sad, but I promise you it will be worth it when you see Tool with all the other FAs out there.--SidiLemine 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation source 101 is Rockdetector, which I deem to be an unreliable source. I'll explain why if I need to, but could you find alternative sources to cite the two cited statements. For the Billboard related cite, an official Billboard news item would be deemed reliable. LuciferMorgan 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced both, although I couldn't find an official news release (online) regarding the Sober awards (it was 1993, after all), I found several sources, and used one we already used in the bio, a guitar magazine. The others were the FAQ, and some other transcribed music magazines that are located at fan sites. For the Osseus, a news post by the band was easy to find. Johnnyw talk 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Carey stated that he would like to thank his parents (for putting up with him) and Satan, while bassist Chancellor concluded:..." – "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time or when emphasising contrast
- "Vicarious premiered on US radio stations on April 17, while the record was released as announced on..." – again, inappropiate "while"
- PDF sources need a "format=PDF" parameter in their citation templates
- According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
- "it is more likely that the band made this up in order to create a unique backdrop"– the "in order" is redundant
- "Justin Chancellor said in a recent interview" - avoid using "recent" as it will eventually become outdated
- Some full dates in the footnotes need linking
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dases regarding the correct use of dashes. Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens. "and something else - I don't remember." - this needs either a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash. Epbr123 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "while", "pdf", "image size", "in order", "recent", "date format" addressed, please see diff. I am currently going through MoS#Dases, to address the last point raised. Thanks for pointing these out. Johnnyw talk 13:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question As can be seen in the latest diff (since 07/27), I replaced a wrong dash with a comma, and en dashes are now used in closed page ranges. But: do I need to correct the dashes etc. in the footnote quotes we used, even if they are direct copies? Thanks again, Johnnyw talk 13:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to welcome you all to review your points of criticism, since I hope that all points have been addressed. This is the latest diff including changes since July 27. Johnnyw talk 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Raul archived this nom this morning [2], the bot just hasn't updated the talk page yet. I will look forward to a renomination in the future. ♫ Cricket02 00:56, 31 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.