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 GrahamColm 04:08, 15 June 2014 [1].

New York Dolls (album)[edit]

New York Dolls (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1973 album by the New York Dolls. It is considered by writers to be one of rock music's greatest debut albums and an important influence on the 1970s punk rock movement and future generations of rock groups. The article is properly sourced and written, appropriately illustrated, and does not leave out any important information about its topic. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Pedro[edit]

— Links

— Prose

——— Lead

A comma follows the year in MDY dates (MOS:DATEFORMAT). Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It flows better this way, though. Although there is nothing at WP:LEAD about flow, nor about chronology. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add something like "in keeping with this reputation" or something in that vein. Though how much you can add without getting into WP:SYNTH might pose a challenge.--¿3family6 contribs 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split the second sentence. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Background

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "rock and roll" to "rock music". Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "while on the New York Dolls' first tour of England". Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Recording and production

Removed/replaced two of them. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would "occasionally involved himself" be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, fixed misspelling. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is, though lol. Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Critical reception

The characterization was taken from the book (that is, the source that summarizes the review by NME). Also, a previous discussion at WP:MOS (Archive 154) (which I took part in :$) did not come to any conclusion to prohibit its use, just determine on a case-by-case basis. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Reference style

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, AllMusic is no longer published by Rovi - since 2013 it's published through All Media Network.--¿3family6 contribs 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed most of the issues raised, did my best to respond to the others, Prism Please correct me if I misinterpreted any of the points you raised, and thanks for starting the review process! Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the points I addressed; I give you my Support. prism△ 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Abhinav0908[edit]

Support Read the whole article twice and i feel that it is well written and well sourced. The lead summarizes the article very well and the prose is well worked and formatted. I don't see any problems with it. So it passes as a featured article according to me.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Johnny338[edit]

——— Lead

IMO, another "who" would inhibit the flow of the prose (consecutive "who"'s) and isn't really needed for readers, since Rundgren is the only individual mentioned in the sentence and wouldn't be confused with any other. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda figured that you would disagree. As I said, it's extremely minor. In fact, it's probably better the way it is on second thought. Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Background

Would changing "sophisticated" to "refined pop production" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it gets the same point across while avoiding repetition! Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...impression of the New York Dolls was that of a humorous live act who are technically ..." Better this way? Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Music and lyrics

I copy-edited and split the first sentence into two and paraphrased the last sentence in simpler terms. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks much better. In the future, because Christgau is known for his, shall we say, "unusual" style of writing, I think it would be better just to quote him rather than paraphrasing him, as it has the potential to kinda stop the momentum of the reading (as the original paragraph here did, IMO). Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Legacy and influence

The sources cited explicitly say these things tho and they (writers Tony Fletcher and Stephen Thomas Erlewine) are just summarizing something widespread or common about the album's reputation), so there's no "vague or ambiguous claim(s)". It'd be a weasel-word case if I wrote the above and cited a writer who says "it is one of the greatest debut albums" instead of "it has been viewed as one...", thereby creating the impression of a widespread view rather than just one writer's personal ranking. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! Blame my lack of experience in that regard. Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article looks very good. This is a very well-written article, and I think it deserves an FA nomination. Keep in mind, though, that this was my first FA review, so please forgive me if my suggestions seem unnecessary. Johnny338 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Np Johnny338, as long as the article looks up to snuff with WP:FACR to you. Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HotHat and Myxomatosis57[edit]

Note It might be timely to remind reviewers that FAC and the promotion of articles to FA is not based on votes, but on reaching a consensus after critical comments have been resolved and formal checks completed. Reasons for supporting such as "per above" and generic statements like "a quick readthrough reveals no problems" carry little weight are unlikely to be taken into consideration. Graham Colm (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Done, changed to ((reflist|30em)) Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the missing pages for the Mojo/Anon.1995 citation ([2]). Are there others? Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I followed Jerome Kohl's advice for citation formatting when volume and/or issue number of a periodical is not given, which he offered in a past FAC ([3]). Basically, in those cases, the day and month portion of the full publication date is used in the issue parameter rather than the date parameter so that there is a consistent citation style, i.e author-year. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Is this better, Nikkimaria? I've revised it to touch on more musical/aural qualities. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have I addressed everything Nikkimaria or are there are other things needed to support the article? Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Malik Shabazz[edit]

Support with two reservations. I question whether File:New_York_Dolls_-_Trash.ogg satisfies the NFCC. I'm also surprised the book TRASH! The Complete New York Dolls (Kris Needs and Dick Porter, ISBN 978-0-85965-369-5) isn't used as a source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gongshow[edit]

(1) In the lead: "only charted at number 116 on the Billboard 200". This may just be personal preference, but I tend to interpret "charted at" as the position for a specific chart period (e.g., "charted at number 116 in its first week of release" or "charted at number 116 three weeks ago"), and not the equivalent of "peaked at" or "reached". Could one of those be used instead?
I checked GoogleBooks and found articles/results that use "charted at" with this meaning when referring to peaks for past albums ([4], [5], [6]) More importantly, though, I felt that "charted at" offers the layperson more because the sentence is about charting (plus an opportunity to pipe link record chart), offering more than "reached" or "peaked at" would, IMO. Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, especially the latter. That works for me.  Gongshow   talk 07:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Release and reception: "It ultimately sold fewer than 500,000 copies." The Rolling Stone source is eleven years old, which isn't to suggest that the album has since passed that threshold, but perhaps the sentence can be changed to something like, "As of 2003, it had sold fewer than 500,000 copies."
Done. Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Cheers,  Gongshow   talk 07:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, great work!  Gongshow   talk 06:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by 3family6[edit]

At this point the article is in excellent shape. My comments are all minor ones related to the writing.

Support All the issues that I raised are now addressed.

I am trying to remember where I encountered this on Wikipedia, but I thought that in American English, the term "its" is used, while in British English the term "their" is used (as in "its debut album" vs. "their debut album). Forgive me if I'm wrong about this.
I don't know about that, but an article like the Beatles uses "their" a few times in the lead, just as an example. I do know of the "are" vs. "is" difference when referring to things like groups of people, but that's it. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are, I found something: Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. "In American English (AmE), collective nouns are almost always singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree. However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats." So you need to make sure all references to collective nouns in the article follow American standards rather than British ones. FYI, The Beatles follows British guidelines.--¿3family6 contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't? I think all the "their"s in the article refer to the band (a collective noun), while most if not all the "its" refer to the album (not a collective noun). Dan56 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collective nouns are singular in American English, that's what I'm trying to say. So "its" should be used in place of "their."--¿3family6 contribs 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, in order to be consistent, how do I reconcile that with sentences like "However, they were unappealing ... because of their", "Their performance at...". I've looked at most the sentences, and they wouldn't read well if many of the "their"s were replaced with "its", which none of the sources use either for the same reason I suspect--wouldn't "the New York Dolls" be a plural pronoun? Dan56 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took some time to think about how the sentences could be reworded, and I'll give some examples:
  • "However, they were unappealing to record companies because of their onstage cross-dressing and vulgarity, while most record producers were reluctant to work with them." This can be reworded as "However, the band [or New York Dolls] was unappealing to record companies because of the band members' habits of onstage cross-dressing and vulgarity, and most record producers were also reluctant to work with the band."
  • "The band toured the United States in promotion of the album, but were difficult to market and developed a reputation for rock-star excesses." All that needs to get changed here is "were" to "was."
  • "According to Sylvain, they were club-going youths who had gone to New York with different career pursuits, and the band was meant to be a temporary project:" This DOES NOT need to change, as it is emphasizes that the individuals are acting separately.
  • "After the band had signed, Mercury Records wanted to find a record producer who could make the most out of the New York Dolls' sound and the hype they had received from critics and local fans." Change "they" to "the group."
  • "Mercury booked the New York Dolls at The Record Plant in New York City,[9] where they recorded their self-titled debut album in April 1973." Change to "Mercury booked the New York Dolls at The Record Plant in New York City,[9] where the group recorded its self-titled debut album in April 1973" or something similar.
  • "Rundgren, on the other hand, said that the band's sensibilities were different from "the urban New York thing" because they had been raised outside Manhattan and drew on carefree rock and roll and Brill Building pop influences such as the Shangri-Las:" Change "they" to "the members."
Obviously this list is not exhaustive, but hopefully it will give you an idea of how to rewrite things. I know it is a nuisance, but the article needs to follow MOS standards of consistent use of national English in order to be a featured article. Once this issue is addressed, I will happily support the article's promotion to featured status.--¿3family6 contribs 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I wouldn't do the work if needed, but since Comparison of American and British English is still just a Wikipedia article, I thought I'd research it a bit and found this: "Quirk et al. (1972), p. 361, ... 'But even in [American English], a plural verb may be preferred whena plural seems obligatory elsewhere in the sentence : The audience are raising their hands to signify their approval." (Salama & Ghali (1982) American and British English Preferences: Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, Prepositions, Vocabulary) This might explain why I don't recall any sources phrasing the New York Dolls with singular verbs or w.e. Also, I'd imagine it'd make for repetitive, clunkier prose (eg. "However, the band ... the band members..."). Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the exceptions I mentioned above, where the actions of each individual are taken separately, as opposed to all individuals being considered a collective unit. I found a source here from Oxford English Dictionaries that goes over collective nouns. As far as I can tell from everything that I'm looking at, if the term "band" or "group" is used, it's treated as a singular, whereas "band members" or "musicians" is treated as a plural.--¿3family6 contribs 13:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand. How does what Quirk et al. say relate to "each individual"? Do you mean the example cited by Quirk? If so, I don't see how "The audience..." sentence suggests actions of each individual anymore than the sentences you mentioned above from this article. The sentence from Quirk et al. doesn't use "audience members" or "members of the audience". Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing this: "However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats." I.e. "each member of the team each took their seat." As far as I can tell from everything I have read, when talking about a band, you should use "its" or "it."--¿3family6 contribs 23:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did some digging (see Cognitive English Grammar page 35 and Preparing for Call Center Interviews, and basically what I found is that because the band name is a plural noun - The New York Dolls, the grammatically correct usage is as a plural, i.e. "their", "they", "are". So, in this case, referring to both the band and the band members is grammatically the same. If the band name was a singular, i.e. The Clash, then you would have a difference between references to the band and references to the band members. So, in this case, the article is all set.--¿3family6 contribs 00:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their intention (if it was shock value) is in any source, apart from just why they did it for the album cover. From one of the books cited, I understand that it was Johansen's concept for the group to indulge in overly theatrical showmanship when performing live rather than it be intended to shock people. As far as the lead is concerned, IMO, the two sentences are connected by the idea of them cross-dressing/wearing drag, not why they did it or whether they had a reputation for it. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading it, I think its fine. The first couple times I saw it, it just seemed an abrupt transition.--¿3family6 contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the main part of the Background section, a sentence concludes with "...signed a two-album deal with a US$25,000 advance." Should there be a space between US and $25,000? Perhaps rewrite as $25,000 USD? I'm not that familiar with the MOS guidelines in this instance.
Looking at the article for US $, the space is included. Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence confused me: "According to Johnansen, the band's lyricist and concept leader, 'Frankenstein (Orig.)'..." To me it sounded like "Frankenstein (Orig.)" is a person. I just haven't seen "lyricist" used that way before.
Johansen is the lyricist, so I've revised it to make that clearer. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The commercial reception is given in the "Release and promotion" section. I know this is a minor issue, but could you perhaps move the information about the commercial reception into its own section. I'd suggest creating a "Reception" section with "Commercial reception" and "Critical reception" as sub-sections.
Well, how the album was received by critics didn't have anything to do with how it was promoted, whereas how it sold is directly related to how it was promoted and how the band's activity (touring, performing live) was received by audiences/consumers, i.e. the people buying it rather than the critics reviewing it. Pieces of the section, like how difficult it was to market the album and how divisive the band was on listeners, would have to be pieced out, and I think there's only a paragraph's worth of "Commercial performance" material--MOS:ALBUM#Article body recommends merging shorter sections into longer one. The way it is now is less complicated and is more suitable for the information available, so I'd like to have subsections only when really needed. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine.--¿3family6 contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple sentences seemed odd to me: "...is the only one "so far to fully define just exactly where 1970s rock should be coming from." "...it is by far the year's most compelling hard rock album and that at least half of its songs are immediate classics..." The present tense here I found confusing. I don't know if you should change it or not, I'm just giving you my impression.
I understand, although the critics were making these claims in present tense (thus contemporary rather than retrospective reviews), and these remarks are introduced by "[critic A] wrote that" or "said that", which should make it known that it is still their wording. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, I just found myself getting confused, so I wondered if you could make it clearer in those sections that it was the reviewer's own use of the present tense.--¿3family6 contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "wrote that" and "said that" did that, and it's self-evident in quotes like "...maybe the world right now..." and the fact that they wouldn't be writing of the album's quality in past tense, because they obviously think in their reviews that the album is good rather than was good. Dan56 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, the article is very well written and referenced, and will be a nice addition to Wikipedia's featured content.--¿3family6 contribs 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More