- 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 by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Alice Cooper band's breakthrough album, which took them from mere chicken-slaughtering infamy to pop superstardom—within two years they'd be rivaling Led Zeppelin in ticket sales, and would leave a lasting influence on punk, hard rock, and metal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Media review
- "I'm Eighteen" snippet caption needs editing for grammar
- File:Dwight_Frye.png needs author's date of death and a US PD tag
- This one still needs fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. The film's supposed to be in the public domain, but I can't figure out who to attribute it to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alice_Cooper_I'm_Eighteen.ogg: what is the length of the original recording?
- File:Alice_Cooper_-_Ballad_of_Dwight_Frye_snippet.ogg also needs length of original recording as well as a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it look better now?. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly, but the minimal use is now the same as the not replaceable parameter? Also, lyrics can be demonstrated by text alone, so a clearer explanation of why the sample is needed in the purpose parameter would be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced the minimal use text. Is the "purpose" better? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. You don't appear to have changed the image page...? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, I removed the image instead because I didn't know who to attribute it to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Somehow I didn't notice this source review on my watchlist. Sorry to have left it so long! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- as a minor Alice fan (if that's possible!) I might recuse coord duties to review, hopefully over the coming week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking forward to that! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here we go...
- Copyedited a bit so I don't have any special issue with the prose as it now stands -- tks Curly for responding to and actioning a couple of queries I raised in my edit summaries.
- The only thing I've gone and undone is the past tense in the album cover bit—we're supposed to describe these things in the present tense, as these details remain true today. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't really notice the lack of anything much in terms of comprehensiveness -- background, recording, style, reception and legacy all seemed to be treated in reasonable depth without going into the trivial.
- Media-wise I'll happily go with Nikki's review above.
- Source-wise I'd welcome a review for formatting/reliability from Nikki but I'll probably spotcheck some sources myself, particularly in the Content section, for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This isn't because I think Curly's a risky proposition but I find it's a bit of a challenge to paraphrase discussions of popular music while remaining close to the meaning intended, so worth a look in any such article.
- That brings me to a couple of structural suggestions: I wonder if Content might not be better as Style or simply Music and lyrics, unless those are frowned upon by WP:Albums these days. I also feel the present Content style should be sandwiched between Recording and production and Release and reception, since going from the latter to Content seemed to be rewinding things.
- You're right—I think I may have had the bit on the cover artwork in there at some time, but now there's only the music and lyrics, so I've retitled the section "Music and lyrics". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it for now, I enjoyed the read and am leaning to support but will await your responses re. structure and also look at a few sources before committing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator query: Curly Turkey, what is the status of addressing Ian's comments? I see no progress or movement in over a week, and no support in more than a month. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm misreading, the only actionable comment I saw was the titling of one section, which I changed. As for no progress and no support—what can I say? Wikipedians don't know good music. I guess it'll be another FAC archived over lack of interest. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I'm not planning to archive it as of now, since we have some ongoing commentary and Ian Rose leaning to supporting. I wish I could review but I have a COI, I'm afraid. :) --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I must apologise for my tardiness in returning to the review. Just a couple of things:
- Doesn't look like my suggestion about moving Content (now Music and lyrics) to between Recording and production and Release and reception was acknowledged.
- I'm not sure why I ignored that. Of course, it works better that way, and I've now moved it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I spotchecked Music and lyrics and had only one concern, namely that I couldn't see anywhere in Kofman suggesting that "Is It My Body" was a "sleazy boogie", or indeed referring to the song's musical style at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... I'm looking through my sources and can't find where I came across that. The only "boogie" I can find is here, where it's called "necrophiliac boogie" (I have no idea where necrophilia would come into it). This source describes the vocals as "sleazy", but I don't think it would be appropriate to use these souces that way. I've removed "sleazy boogie" for now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate, I've also just scanned the reference section for formatting and reliability and apart from a bit of redundancy in page refs nothing leapt out, so happy to offer full support -- hope we see more of these... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Just a couple of points:
- "The band moved to Detroit in 1970 and was influenced by the aggressive hard rock scene there. The group enlisted a young Bob Ezrin as producer and spent two months rehearsing ten to twelve hours a day as Ezrin encouraged the band to tighten its songwriting." Two sentences in a row starting "The band... The group ...". How about combining this with a semicolon and putting "they" for the subject of one half?
- Apparently we're constricted to using only "they" or only "it" when referring to groups; "it" doesn't really sound natural here, and the rest of the article uses "it". One of those "foolish consistency" rules I think, but I'm not going to bother fighting it—I've reworded to "A young Bob Ezrin was enlisted as producer". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You use "changing names" and "changed names"; I think this might be a touch colloquial. I'd use "they changed their name to" or "renamed themselves", though I'm not sure if American usage makes a band plural or singular.
- NAmEng uses both singular and plural, but here we're required to stick with one. For istance, "Onomapotpoeia is a Canadian rock band; they are four of the riff-rockin'-est musicians from Banff."—NAmEng requires the singular for the first statement and the plural for the second. Wikipedia requires us to settle on one or the other, and awkwardness ensues. Anyways, I've reworded to "a name change" and "the band adopted the name". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "perpetuated the story": I don't think you can use "perpetuate" if the story wasn't already in circulation. I think you could just say "claiming that it came from".
- If "the" belongs in the link for Guess Who, shouldn't it be capitalized? Same question for the Melvins.
- I seem to remember there was a bloody battle over this issue, and I can't remember which side won. A quick look at the article for the Beatles has "the" in lowercase in the body, but if there's a decision it should be otherwise then please go ahead and change it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "being "in the middle"—"of life" or "of doubt".": suggest "being "in the middle of life" or "of doubt"." as a little easier to parse.
- I went with a "such of" wording, because in the first verse it's "in the middle without any plans". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-- Sources look good to me; I checked a few and found no close paraphrasing or other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, and for checking out some of the sources! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious about the WP requirement that a band be consistently singular or plural throughout the article; where's that stated? Is it in the MoS? Re "the Guess Who", my concern was more that the link should follow the capitalization -- if it's "the Guess Who", I'd just link "Guess Who". Having the leading lowercase "the" in blue as well just looks odd. But it's not something that one could oppose over, so I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns above have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just a concern, really. I've noticed multiple instances of references appearing in the middle of sentences, not following punctuation. I don't exactly recall what policy/guidelines/whatever says about this, but I personally find such to be obnoxious and POINTy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "not following punctuation" you mean "not following a period at the end of a sentence", there never has been a rule that that has to be the case—only that citations not immediately preced a punctuation mark. As for POINTy—what POINT do you think is being made? It's hard to respond when I don't know what I'm accused of. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wanted to do this review for a while, but I'm burnt out after the GA Cup. It looks like all the issues are ironed out. I did not find any problems. Good job!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.