Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Line on the Horizon/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [1].

No Line on the Horizon[edit]

Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Hello, I'm nominating No Line on the Horizon for a couple of reasons. I think it is a very thorough and comprehensive look at the creation, development, and release of the album, with information regarding the original concept behind it, the groups of recording sessions, the creation and inspiration of the songs, as well as the release, promotion, and reception towards it. The article was successfully promoted to GA some time ago and underwent a Peer Review before its first FAC, which it failed. The issues brought up in the failed FAC have, I think, since been addressed, and it recently underwent a second Peer Review with all of the points brought up there being addressed as well. I believe this article is the most comprehensive overview of the subject on the internet, and that it is now ready to join the elite clientele that comprises Wikipedia's Featured Articles. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments after a quick peek.

  • A few citation dates use Day Month Year format. I'll make them ISO style like the others for consistency if you don't mind.

--an odd name 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with Google cache. --an odd name 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that; it went dead only earlier today, before I had a chance to archive it. I'm hoping that it's just a database error/update, and that it will be up again shortly (the other certification years all seem to work fine). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the IFPI and they fixed the broken link; the source is no longer dead and it has been archived in case it goes down again in the future. I believe that the reason it went down was because they were updating the page with information on Q3 certifications. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead should not have citations. The material does not seem that contestable to me to warrant them.
  • Per WP:CHARTS, limit the amounts of charts in each table to 10 plus up to 8 derivative charts.

RB88 (T) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm slightly confused by this; do you mean 18 charts combined for the album and singles? Or 10 charts for the album, 10 for each single, etc? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CHARTS is for the singles, so I think he means cut down the singles charting to 10 different charts. Makes sense to me, because every chart appearance can be noted in the article for the single. Suede67 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHARTS is for both: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." This applies separately to BOTH the album chart table and the singles chart table. To stop repeating the same chart, I suggest merging all the singles into a single table, see A Weekend in the City. Also keep the single markets to the English-speaking world only. The article is about the album after all. The rest of the singles detail must be put in the respective pages. RB88 (T) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay; eh, one last question though. I'm not too familiar with charts myself, so what exactly constitutes a secondary chart? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. you can have US, UK, EIRE etc ... up to national chart number 10, and then you're allowed up to 8 derivatives like Billboard Independent, Ultratop Alternative etc. should you so choose to include them, too. RB88 (T) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers; I've done that now. Does it look acceptable? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References 103 - 106 are broken. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those references don't have anything to do with the article; that's just me copy-pasting the charts from A Weekend in the City to try and work the suggested format for the charts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, once I fixed the format those broken links went away. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • Well, atu2.com is in regular contact with Principal Management and has had several exclusive interviews with people very close to the band before, including Neil McCormick, Joe O'Herlihy (think I spelt that right), and Willie Williams. They were also the media sponsor for an Academic Conference on the band recently. However as the same claim is backed up by another source (Rolling Stone), I'll remove it to save some hassle. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the link from the Q and Mojo reviews and cite the print publications themselves (check Metacritic for page and issue numbers). We don't know (and I doubt) the atu2.com has permission to republish them.
  • Replace Acharts.us with everyhit.com.
  • WP:GOODCHARTS states that Acharts is a reliable archive for each one of the countries used in the chart box with the exception of the United States (which isn't listed at all); why is a switch to everyhit necessary? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This takes precedence always: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. It came up in one of my own FACs and we scoured far and wide and no third-party sources were found for ACharts. EveryHit was used by the BBC and in Parliament believe it or not. RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I can tell, EveryHit is only for the British charts; what should I do for the other five? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The other ones, expect for Canada, can be accessed through the Ultratop derivative websites or Billboard. RB88 (T) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go through the publishers' names in the refs and sort out differences. A quick glance shows both Pitchfork and Pitchfork Media, Independent and Irish Independent etc.
  • Pitchfork is done. The Independent and the Irish Independent are two different newspapers (one is British, the other is Irish). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, web content does not merit italics unless the publication is in print also (not applicable if you're citing Billboard.com though)

RB88 (T) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit confused by this; so something like Rolling Stone would remain in italics while content that is only available online would not? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- Current refs:

  • 13 and 65 need to be RTÉ. Abbreviate it in ref 37.
  • 14 should be The New York Times.
  • 17 should be The Irish Independent.
  • 21 should be CNN for consistency.
  • 52 and 73 should be Pitchfork Media.
  • 69, 74, and 93 do not need italics.
  • 99 needs unabbreviation.

RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current refs 15, 19, 29, 30, 35, 47, 49, 81 are sourced from reprints at atu2.com. I doubt the website has a license for all of them, if any. So, the links should definitely be removed. And then you have to source the material from the print publications themselves (or the websites if published there). RB88 (T) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, though the Hot Press articles are now part of the archives (meaning that a subscription is needed to view them). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Just add "Subscription required". RB88 (T) 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:U2nloth.ogg - The purpose of use only really discusses the lyrics, which could be included as a quotation in the article. Why does the listener need to hear the song? Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that including an audio accompaniment which can be compared to the cover art and the lyrics would better show the correlation of how the image inspired Bono to write the song. Additionally, the sound sample is indicative of the direction the band took in recording the album, showing how it fits about halfway between Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind sonically (though I note that the rationale did not include that); I have now altered the rationale so that it reflects this point. Do you feel that it now meets Criterion 3? If not then I will be happy to remove it if it is the only obstacle towards your support, though I feel that for this latter purpose especially it's use is essential. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Awadewit has been notified of a response but has not yet returned to the nomination page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is stronger, yes. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 5 November 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/No_Line_on_the_Horizon/archive2&oldid=1138467938"