Hello everyone. I am here today in the sincere hope that the old adage "third time is the charm" proves true. This is the third trip to FAC for No Line on the Horizon, an album released by God Bono and the rest of the U2 gang just over a year ago. Both previous FAC nominations seemed to fail primarily as a result of the lack of reviews; what was brought up at those times (as well as the GAN and three peer reviews) has been addressed as well as my editing schedule on Wikipedia permits. In recent days it has undergone some copyediting (many thanks to Steve for his continual assistance to me on this), which I believe now means that the article meets all of the FAC criteria. Do you agree? Disagree? Just felt like dropping by to laugh at a badly written nomination? Whatever your reason for stopping by and reading this, I hope that the article proves an interesting and thorough read on the topic at hand. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the cover art; kind of necessary for it to be included in the article. It qualifies as fair use since it is being used to illustrate the album. The rationale for its use is covered on the file page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Featured article criteria - Inappropriate use of non free content Fasach Nua (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how it is an inappropriate usage of the image, and how it fails the FAC criteria. It meets the guideline regarding Non-free images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". Critical commentary on the cover art is present. So tell me: how is the use inappropriate, and how does it fail the FAC criteria? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are nothing more than advice on how to do things, the policy is much more important, the guideline refers to criteria one of the policy only. The image can be easily be described with text, and the reference you have given is more than an adequate description Fasach Nua (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of any pop album that doesn't contain a FU low res image of the album cover, whether they are featured articles or not. However, I've never done a survey so I'd be happy to have them pointed out. Have you had this discussion before on album covers, either about a specific album, or more generally? I'd say it's fair to assume there's broad acceptance on their use. --Merbabu (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? In a FAC nomination for a music album, someone is objecting to an image of the album cover? If someone is going to review an album FAC nomination, the least they can do is review previous music FA articles to familiarize themselves with standards/things that are acceptable. The album cover is used to identify the subject of the article, just like in every other FA album article. The argument that the cover could be removed and simply be described with prose in its place can be made for any image ever made. These types of objections are not constructive to passing/failing this article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't like Fair Use, but I do not see this as a reason to fail an FAC as fair use in this context has broad acceptance. Agree with Y2kcrazyjoker that this FAC is not the place to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of fair use images on album pages as it has wikipedia wide implications. There might be a relevant project page to do so. --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After conversing with a few other users I can see the reasoning behind Fasach Nua's stance a bit more clearly, but I do (and will continue) to disagree with it. Yes, non-free content should be kept to a minimum, but there is a fine balance between reaching that minimum and going beyond it. I do not know of any FA article on a song or album which does not contain cover artwork. The common sense consensus appears to be that album artwork is an instance where fair-use images are acceptable, and I would say that their removal is definitely reaching well past that fine balance. I do not plan on removing the image on the article, but will leave it up to all of the other reviewers to determine for themselves if the inclusion of the album artwork in the article is acceptable or not. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another voice in support of fair use of album covers for album articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Hello from your neighbor FAC to the north. :) I took a quick peek at this article, and although it is well-referenced and the prose is readable, I have some concerns:
"In July 2006, U2.com confirmed that the band were collaborating with producer Rick Rubin, in southern France and Abbey Road Studios"
Sort of strange phrasing here. One place they were recording was a studio, the other was the southern half of a country. If the source gives a more detailed location for where they were recording, you should probably include it here. (If it doesn't, there's not much you can do).
Yes, this was something that I'd looked at before the last peer review. None of the sources that I could find said what the exact recording location in France was, so I think that we're unfortunately stuck on this point. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An interview with Q revealed that will.i.am had worked with the band "
I suggest adding the word "rapper" in front of will.i.am so readers don't have to click on will.i.am to figure out who he is. Possibly most people interested in U2 will not have heard of him.
"The band reworked it with Steve Lillywhite during a break in the recording with Eno and Lanois."
Is it explained earlier in the article who Steve Lillywhite is? Producer? Musician? The curious reader wonders.
At the end of the Rick Rubin section the article reads "[U2] subsequently employed Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois as principal producers and co-writers. Steve Lillywhite was also brought in to produce a few of the tracks." Do you think producer be slipped in there to clarify? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Get on Your Boots" stemmed from a guitar riff The Edge created and recorded at his home."
I know who The Edge is, and you know who The Edge is, but please pity the poor reader who doesn't know, and explain who he is. "U2 guitarist" will do.
The Edge is introduced as the guitarist earlier in the article, during the Eno/Lanois sessions section ("In November 2008, guitarist The Edge noted that the band were scrambling..."); is the next mention far enough down that a second introduction is needed, or is it fine as is? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice opening, but does a band have a career? Perhaps that's just for musicians, but I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong. "since U2's inception in [year]"?
WP:OVERLINK: "producer" (which is a chain-link from his name, anyway).
", but" twice in two sentences (one without the comma).
"The band had planned"—rhyming jingle. "intended"?
re-scheduled has a hyphen? Unsure.
"many noted"—ah, see our new WP:Words to avoid guideline. Did they note it inside their heads or in public? Not sure. "Observed" is no good, since it's a kind of subjective call.
How about a comma instead of "titled". Same later on.
I haven't looked further than the lead. It's not bad, but probably needs an independent copy-edit.
PS Over at the constabulary, they're a little jittery about 30 s sound-bites (WP:NFCC#2) when the album is still selling well. I've put on a turn there over their utter inflexibility, but beware of this fair-use claim. In any case, could you put it on the right-side under the quote-box? Tony(talk) 12:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments thus far; I've made changes to all of the points you've brought up about the lead. I did ask a few people if they would be able to do a copyedit before I nominated, but they seemed to think that the current prose is acceptable (and my eyes are so saturated from this article that I doubt I'd see anything no matter how hard I looked!). I think I'll leave the "Moment of Surrender" sound sample as is for the moment since it does comply with the length standards; if the length does become an issue then it shouldn't be too difficult to reduce it by a couple of seconds. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think Tony is probably right in that certain sections will need a polish. All I really did was smooth out some of the bumpier parts, hopefully leaving few enough passages-with-issues that anything specific could be resolved during the FAC. I still stand by that, but if no-one's chipped in with a detailed prose review by the middle of the week—with specific, easily-actionable comments—I'll try to have another run through. One thing: I disagree with Tony's comment about the opening passage; IMO, it's more idiomatic to say "of U2's career" than "since U2's inception". Plus, the latter (very, very faintly) implies there was a longer gap, way back when. So whom do you listen to? Rock, meet hard place. :-D (I'll have a think on it and try to come up with a third way.) SteveT • C 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
There are an overwhelming number of (sometimes complex) tables and infoboxes in this article:
A too-long album infobox. You can make this shorter and simpler just by replacing those recording studios (which should be dealt with in the prose) with "June 2007 – December 2008 at various location".
Formats table—I suggest removing this entirely. Albums are normally released in a variety of formats; the way you have them listed here is like a shopping catalogue that would interest only the avid collector. At best it can be summarised in two more sentences of prose
Review infobox—can also go, because the format of the table is such that you have to include to less-prestigious sources (Blender, RTE) at the expense of highly respected publications such as Time and The New York Times, due to the presence/absence of star ratings in the reviews. Ultimately, the infobox fails to summarise the critical opinion sufficiently.
I'm a little leery about removing this. The New York Times may be well known in America, but in the UK people will be much more likely to look at a source such as Blender when looking for reviews. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing—jeez this is complicated. But I guess there is no other way. However, I can't say I've seen too many rock album tracklistings with a producer column...
Charts—Fine, but two things—what year did the singles chart? And certifications does not equate no of copies sold. It indicates no of copies shipped. So unless you have sources that explicitly mention "the album sold [so many] copies", don't include that column.
I've added the year to the singles table; when the fourth single is released, I'll add a year column to the left-side to make it easier. I disagree with your point on the certifications though. Most album articles I've looked at have them, and I think they are an important component relating to their reception. I will remove the Sales thresholds though if you think that it's addition is mistaken. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Succession boxes—And this improves the article how? (I generally have never seen the point of succession boxes—why the focus on #1 albums only, for one.) Also, unreferenced. Strongly suggest removal.
Whoah, wait... succession boxes are part of a chain. If all other #1 albums have them this will be a broken link. So the argument shouldn't be whether there's a succession box on this article but whether either they should ALL go or whether they should ALL stay which is outside the scope of this review. Personally I like those boxes because they put an album in its immediate historical context. But, as I say, you have to argue for them all or for none at all. If the adjacent albums had succession boxes I would strongly argue that this album should have one too, otherwise we're messing with people who want to navigate through a chronological procession of album articles. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not a lover of all succession boxes either, I oppose removing these, because it breaks the chain. It has to be a project-wide decision at WP:WikiProject Music or some such similar project to either do this or not do this everywhere. It can't be done on an article-by-article basis. Also, I don't think referencing should be an issue – it's up to each individual article to cite that it was a number one album on a given chart, and the boxes just link these 'distributed references' together. The maintainers just need to ensure that no album gets skipped, but they are pretty good at that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a Project-wide decision for them to be included and needs a Project-wide consensus to be removed then it seems that it is bigger than this one article. As a result I've restored it for now. Melicans (talk, contributions) 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ovelinking—street sign, stadium, set designer, limited editions. Audit throughout.
I've done a check and delinked a lot of stuff, but you may want to give it another quick sweep and see if there's anything else that should go. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff that should be linked, if possible—Jewish music, Hindu music, Sufi singing.
Linked Jewish and Hindu music. No article exists on Sufi singing that I can find. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Deupree blasted the band"—I doubt blasted is formal language here.
Replace a few of the "band"s with "group" to add variety.
I've combed the article and changed quite a few of "the band"s into "the group"s or "U2"s. Melicans (talk, contributions) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Main article tags are unnecessary for the tour and Linear; just link their first instance in the prose of the section.—indopug (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the "Reception" section, I have several concerns. The box's review ratings are very U.S.-UK centric – 9 from them and 1 from Ireland. U2 is a band with global appeal, so what about the rest of the world? Continental Europe, Asia, South America? Even if you don't translate a review article, the stars graphics (or their equivalent) are easy to see.
I've added one or two reviews, but it's proving very difficult to find any in continental Europe and Asia with a star system. One that I did add from Spain was removed just a few minutes ago for that reason. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a few days of searching I haven't found anything from continental Europe, Asia, or Oceania (foreign or English language) which assigns a star rating that can be included. I'm afraid it looks like we're stuck with what we've got. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the MTV Asia and Herald Sun reviews and removed the Entertainment Weekly and The Guardian accordingly. I'm a little leery about adding in any others at the behest of major music publications like Rolling Stone, Q, or Mojo though. It's noted on the talk page (I think in the archives) that the present breakdown of reviews reflects the Metcritic average (72) fairly closely, and I'm hesitant about adding in lower ratings from less known sources at the expense of higher ratings from well known sources for that reason. There's now one review from Canada (Toronto Star), one from Australia (Herald Sun), one from Ireland ( RTE), one from Asia (MTV Asia), three from the United States (AllMusic, Blender, Rolling Stone) and three from the United Kingdom (Mojo, NME, Q). I think that is a fair breakdown given where the majority of reviews and music publications are based. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the text, very U.S. and UK centric.
Another review aggregation effort with a long history is the Pazz & Jop poll, long run by Robert Christgau. You can find the 2009 results for albums here (No Line finishes 32nd with 26 mentions out of some number of reviewers that I didn't quite see) and the results for singles here (a scattering of U2 mentions).
The article doesn't say how many copies have been sold in the U.S. so far; if you give first week sales, you should give the rest (artists with devoted followings often get big initial sales but then tail off quickly).
I'll do another search, but despite my best efforts previous this is one thing I've never been able to find. It seems near impossible to find sales data released by the companies. We can assume it's at least 1,000,000 since it was certified Platinum, but those figures are as of late last year. The only source I know of is mediatraffic.de, but that is considered unreliable. Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent statistics I can find are an Associated Press report from October 2009 (one million copies); the only other I've seen is a Billboard article from September (991,000 copies). Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This statement needs a source: "First-week sales in the United States were over 484,000, the band's second highest figures after How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." (And not that Reuters story, see next item.)
I'll do a search, but as far as I'm aware Reuters is considered to be a reliable source. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of this statement is not correct, despite whatever that sloppy Reuters story says: "It was their seventh number one album in the United States, placing them third behind The Beatles and the Rolling Stones for the most number one albums in the country.[81]" See Billboard 200#Most number-one albums which has U2 in a tie for 8th. I don't know where a good source is for the full ranking, but third cannot be correct; there were plenty of news outlets, including Billboard here, that mentioned Jay-Z getting his 11th and passing Elvis Presley's 10 for most by a solo act.
I've removed it from "placing them third" on; hopefully that will solve the problem. One error does not an unreliable source make. Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd double check the assertion about #1's ranking on the UK Album Chart as well.
In terms of the album's commercial appeal, the article seems to be overweighing the positive (stressing initial sales and chart placements) and underweighing the negative (overall sales and lack of a hit single). As a result, the last paragraph about low album sales, is jarring to read after all this touting of debut figures. It looks like this part of the article was written as the album was released and not revised. With albums, the race goes to the tortoise not the hare!
I've expanded the paragraph and moved it a bit further up so it flows right after the sales figures and such (also making it a bit more chronological); hopefully this makes it less jaring. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more people than just Bono were disappointed by the sales. What about the record company? What did Paul McGuinness say? What did other industry observers say?
Added in viewpoints of Clayton and expanded that of Edge. In the process of looking for quotes by McGuinness and industry observers. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any metrics for how much radio airplay the songs from the album got?
In the tour section, I strongly disagree with the use of 'supporting', in both the section title (just call it "360° Tour") and in the text. As the article alludes to briefly, the notion of a tour supporting an album is a vestige of an industry era gone by. Nowadays for established acts it's almost always the reverse: the artist will make a lot more money off the tour than they will off the album. If anything, making an album gives an artist an excuse to stage a big tour. Unless there's a source saying that when the tour visited certain countries there was a significant spike in album sales, this term should go.
In the tour section, you should briefly mention what role the album's songs play in the show. A block of new songs opened the show in Europe, but that was broken up somewhat in the U.S., was it due to audience restlessness? Was the total number of 'new album' songs comparable to previous tours or were they de-emphasized a bit? And maybe mention "Moment of Surrender"'s role as the show finale.
As far as I've seen from building the Tour article the reason for this was never discussed by the band, but I will do another search (can't promise I'll find anything though).Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more at the Tour section (I'd omit the "U2" in the section title, it's kind of redundant given the context), it should be focused on the tour's relationship to the album, not be a summary of the tour. Thus this sentence is irrelevant here: "The idea for the stage, with some initial design suggestions, had been proposed to the group by the set designer, Willie Williams, at the end of the Vertigo Tour in 2006.[95]" Instead, see if you can incorporate tour show reviews that assessed the role of the No Line songs, good bad or indifferent. Also, bring the section up-to-date: the tour grosses for 2009 are available, and how it ranked for the year. How many HD cameras were used for the Rose Bowl shoot is irrelevant here; instead focus on how many No Line songs are included on the DVD, and what role they played in this show (a somewhat diminished one, as I read the song listing and sequencing). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But U2 is part of the tour's full name; if we omit it from the section heading, then isn't that using an abbreviated name instead of the proper? Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading this idea, I think it is bordering a bit too far on the optimistic scale for the simple reason that so much of it seems to require a great deal of original research. I've been searching since this was posted close to a week ago, but I have found absolutely nothing on why the setlist order was changed, what role the songs play, or comparisons with previous tours. Any major adjustments that I could make along the lines suggested would be so far up the OR lane that it would be unreasonable to make them; the only exceptions are the current tour gross and the number of songs on the DVD. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to integrate the position of the songs during the concerts in both legs (though it required the use of a primary source; see Steve's comments below). I can't see how I can do any more on this front without delving into OR. 2009 gross has also been added. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked much at the other sections, but this is something. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on referencing: I'm a bit nonplussed by the citations style, which consist in most cases of a deadlink on the title, followed by an archive link to the item in question. I have not encountered this method before. What is the purpose of retaining the deadlink? I notice, incidentally, that the live link in Ref. 1 goes to a subscription service, which should be noted. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previously the link on the title was removed, leaving only the archive link. However, we were told to reinstate them (can't find where now) because there are times when the archive website has problems/goes down (such as is occuring today as a result of maintenance on the website), and so the links were reinstated. The subscription link is now noted. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen this method of linking employed anywhere else; I wonder who told you it had to be done this way? I'm not making an issue of this, but I am curious. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't remember where it was, just that it hppened; it was a half-year ago at least, but I can't find it on my talk or in the previous FACs/PRs/GAN. It may have been on another user's talk page, but I can't recall where. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from SteveT • CLeaning support, pending resolution of source questions/issues (below). This is another nicely done album article from the nominator. Any comments, suggestions, prose and content issues I've covered in edit summaries and hidden comments while performing a light copyedit over the last week or so. All that remain from me are sourcing questions.EDIT: All subsequent strikes here were from me at 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC), SteveT • C
Image review:
File:NoLineU2Promo.jpg—album cover in infoxbox. Although I'm sympathetic to Fasach Nua's view above—indeed, I respect his/her position a lot—current consensus is that non-free album artwork is suitable for identification of the subject where a free version is unavailable. Wider community consultation is needed to overturn that seeming consensus; as such, individual FACs are not the place to have this discussion.
File:Riad Fez 1.JPG—claimed free CC licence by uploader/photographer; tagged appropriately.
File:U2 Way.jpg—uploaded with free CC licence from Flickr source; checked by Commons review bot and confirmed as tagged appropriately.
The way the ((cite news)) and ((cite journal)) templates render the references means that where the author= field is missing, they display the information in a different order (especially dates) to how they do when the field is filled. Where news and journal articles don't have an author, and where possible, I tend to fill the field with "Staff" to produce a consistent output. This isn't a deal-breaker, by the way, just a suggestion to make it more uniform.
Comment: This is a characteristic of the templates. The whole idea of using them is to just put in the relevant information about a cite and let the template writers worry about formatting them consistently. Even if the writers aren't doing the job well at the moment (to which I agree), inserting filler values like this distorts that process. And some news outlets will run an uncredited wire service report, which means inserting "Staff" is not always correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I only suggested it might be useful for some of them. Like I say, not a deal breaker. SteveT • C
My error on that; I copy-pasted the entire citation instead of just the ref name. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Named ref "rs032309" (current no. 100) shows archiveurl error, and the original link redirects to Rolling Stone's homepage.
Very strange; for some reason the archiveurl is missing from the template, but it is there in a previous revision from 9 May. I am having no difficulty in opening the page and displaying the content, so I have restored the archive. I believe that the reason it went down (and is continuing to do so on a second check) is because the Web Citation Archive is currently undergoing maintenance. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper and magazine names, e.g. The New York Times and Billboard should be italicised. Some are, some aren't.
I think I've gotten all of these now. Looks like there were only three of them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 8, "Calder, Simon (2007-11-10)": has no publication details.
That was the result of using the wrong parameter. I've corrected my oversight. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To aid verification, it's worth going through the references to link to publications' first instances, instead of their second or third. Some examples: Hot Press, National Post, Mojo. Q. There are others.
Comment: This approach is very hard to maintain on an ongoing basis, since even a slight movement of text will often change what the first instance is. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but after it's done, and once an article's structure is more stable (usually closer to the end of the FAC), it's very easy to keep on top of it. Post-FAC, the content won't be changing anywhere near enough to make it an annoyance to update. SteveT • C
Current ref no. 24, "The Superleague of Extraordinary Gentlemen, NME, 2009-02-23": what is it? A special edition of the magazine? A separate book?
Just the title of the article inside the magazine. It was incorrectly put in italics. I've fixed that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 27, the film Brothers, isn't very useful for verifying that the song "Winter" appeared on the soundtrack. Is there anything better? If not, at least use the time= parameter to indicate "end credits" or something.
How about the list of nominations and winners? I've substituted the ref for that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 29, "Exclusive interview with U2. NRJ. Canal+. 2009-02-23": what is it? A radio interview? Magazine pull out?
Feel free to tweak to whatever your preferences are, obviously, but for me that rough format gives the reader enough information to work with. We can just live with the italics. SteveT • C
Current ref no. 30, "Long, Drawn Out Confession": the note about the subscription implies this is a video interview; it should probably say outright, and also include the names of the interviewer and interviewees.
It is a video, but I'm unsure of what you mean by "say outright". Do you mean a switch from ((cite web)) to ((cite video))? If so, the title will then be in italics (which you noted concerns about above). Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I think in the interests of giving the reader enough information, we can live with the italics (indeed, I'm not even sure that would be incorrect in this case). So, you could format it as:
Bono; The Edge; Clayton, Adam; Mullen Jr, Larry (2009-11-27). Long, Drawn Out Confession (Video). U2.com. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-12-05. Note: Subscription required for access.
Obviously, I can't access it, so I don't know who's in it, so tweak the people= parameter accordingly (and that "Video" in the medium= parameter is just a suggestion too). SteveT • C
Current ref no. 42, "Absolute Radio interview with U2": not sure that should be italicised.
I don't understand why it is. The name uses the title field, which defaults to italics. I thought using |title led to plain text? I changed the template from ((cite episode)) to ((cite news)) and this led to the correction of the italics, but every other detail then being excluded. Any suggestions about which is the right one to use? Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For output consistency, perhaps go with ((cite video)) in the same manner as the two suggestions above? SteveT • C
Current ref no. 51, "Download 'No Line'": why is there a [sic] template in there?
I have absolutely no idea. Another user stuck it in there for whatever reason when I wasn't looking. Removed. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref no. 54, "Le Grand Journal": what is it? A video?
You've got a lot of cites to primary sources to verify information such as when the album was released on particular formats; although these are (generally) accepted, it would preferable to find secondary sources where possible for as many as you can, especially the YouTube link that's used to confirm the band streamed one of their concerts over the service.
I went through in a previous FAC and substituted all of the primary sources I was able to then. I'll do another search now to replace ones that have been added in since that time, such as the YouTube cite. In some cases though, such as the "Long, Drawn out Confession" page, the "U2ube" videos by Clayton, and the development of Linear, this is impossible to avoid since other reliable sources simply don't cover the information mentioned. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Subsequent reviewers might want to look at it, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. SteveT • C
Are we happy with radioandmusic.com as a reliable source?
Since it may prove to be contentious and I can't find any demonstration of reliability, I have removed it. This also unfortunately means that I have had to remove the certifications for Ireland and Italy, since neither IRMA or FIMI provide searchable databases that I can find. As a result I've switched out the Italy field in the charts for Mexico. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I spotted that after I originally left these comments, but felt it prudent not to remove the question, just so we had something on this page. SteveT • C
No comment on the webcite issue already raised by Brian; will await a response.
On second thoughts, it doesn't bother me one jot. SteveT • C
I won’t pretend this is a comprehensive list of source questions/issues; however, successful resolution (or rebuttal!) of these will make further examination easier, and hopefully all that'll I'll spot is the odd typo. Best, SteveT • C 10:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some and left some replies. SteveT • C 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I switched to support above; all that remains are some minor points still in those hidden comments I left (renewed here). Otherwise, nice work. SteveT • C 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your contributions and for your support; I'll try to address the hidden comments on the morrow if I can find anything for them (as it's close to midnight right now and I need to be up fairly early). Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've addressed all of the hidden questions now. They were definitely limited editions according to the source, so I've removed the word 'considered'. I've done several searches but haven't found any updated sales numbers as of yet that can be included. All that I've seen are forum posts, lists with it as one of the top-selling albums (albeit minus sales figures, even in the original press release by the IFPI), and stats by mediatraffic.de (which as part of the United World Chart is considered unreliable according to KWW, who has done a ton of work on WP:GOODCHARTS in the past). I was a bit confused by your last question regarding the size of the tour's stage; I've tried to clarify the sentence as best I can by explicitly referring to it as a concert stage and providing a reason for the design. Anything else that I could put in (such as the sound systems in each of the four legs, each individual system alone powerful enough for an arena concert, etc.) would probably be overly technical for an article on the album and is easily found on the Tour page. I hope this clarifies all three of your questions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Nice work. SteveT • C 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be worth noting some of the common musical motifs (however few) that appear throughout the record. For example, the electronic flourishes that Eno contributed to the record and were much ballyhooed prior to release. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Have to admit I've read over it a few times because of past mentions on certain talk pages, and I think it's finally at a level where it's ready for FA. I applaud the efforts of MelicansMatkin for sticking with it and writing an excellent article. ceranthor 19:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Read the article from beginning to end, and I'm satisfied with most of what I saw, prose-wise. Did find a few minor issues, which I detail below:
Recording and production: "In January 2007, lead singer Bono said U2 intended to take their next album in a different musical direction to their previous few releases." Not saying that the grammar here is wrong, but a more common way of putting it would be "in a different direction from their previous few releases." Which should it be?
I think that "from" does make more sense and it sounds a bit better than to, so I've made the adjustment. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Winter" appears in the accompanying Anton Corbijn film, Linear and the 2009 war film Brothers." Hate to be pedantic on the punctuation, but there should either be another comma after "Linear" or none at all in the sentence. Personally, I don't know if one is needed.
In the Songs of Ascent section, I doubt if the Achtung Baby link is necessary, considering there's already one just a little bit up in the text. Interested readers will have likely already clicked on that one.
Formats: Some hyphens would be useful here in areas with "## page", such as "24 page".
I've added in some hyphens, but someone may want to check to see if I have used the correct format (there seems to be so many different varieties, and I'm always confusing them! ^^;) Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple have unneeded spaces, but I'll get them when I'm done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: Not a big deal at all, but I found it a bit odd that How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb has a link at the start of the fourth paragraph of this section when it's unlinked toward the end of the third. I would consider moving that one.
Oops, I think that happened when I shifted the paragraphs in the section around a couple of weeks ago. I've made the switch as suggested. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"had become well-known to the public from to its use in iPod commercials." Drop "to".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I've gotten rid of that pesky "to". Thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, I appreciate it! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – After the fixes, I think this is there. Quite a nice article overall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Support - I have not yet read the whole article, but what I've read is very good. Nice, tight prose and a wealth of information combined to produce an engaging and comprehensive read. Thanks for addressing all my concerns. Some specific comments so far:
In the lead: "Prior to the album's release, U2 said that Eno's and Lanois's involvement, as well as the band's time in Fez, Morocco, resulted in a more experimental record than their previous two albums. Upon its release, No Line on the Horizon received generally favourable reviews, although many critics noted that the album was not as experimental as previously suggested." Can U2's original statement be brought out more clearly? It seems like an incidental remark, so the connection is not immediate when we arrive at what the critics note at the end. The specific term that applied in this case (pre-release publicity, announcement or whatever) rather than "said" would help.
I've reworded it to the following: "Prior to the album's release, U2 announced that Eno's and Lanois's involvement, as well as the band's time in Fez, Morocco, had resulted in a more experimental record than their previous two albums in an attempt to revisit the transition between The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Upon its release..." Is this a bit clearer? It's supported by ref 17, which references this statement in the "Sessions with Eno and Lanois" section. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'At the end of the sessions, the band chose to include "White as Snow" to balance out the earlier, rockier tunes.[25] With the exception of this track, U2 had tried to keep the theme of war out of the album.' - we aren't told that "White as Snow" has a war theme until the later Composition section, so some context is needed here for the second sentence to be meaningful.
I think that's a byproduct from when that sentence in Composition was in Sessions. I've reworded it to "At the end of the sessions, the band chose to include "White as Snow", a song about a dying soldier in Afghanistan, to balance out the earlier, rockier tunes", though I know this now means there is some repetition. Since it is sourced below, I haven't bothered to use the ref again. Do you think the change helps to provide the needed context? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The film originated from a U2 video shoot in June 2007, during which Corbijn asked the band to remain still while he filmed them to create a "photograph on film"; the band did not move but the objects around them did.[37] Impressed, the band believed that the online album listening experience could be enhanced with moving imagery. In May 2008, they commissioned Corbijn to create the film." - I found this confusing; the film originated in June 2007, yet it was not commissioned until May 2008. Would it be accurate to begin instead, "The idea for the film originated ..."?
Yes, that's actually a much better wording! Thanks for the suggestion; I've implemented it now. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In February 2009, Bono stated that by the end of the year U2 would release an album consisting of discarded material from the No Line on the Horizon sessions. Bono labelled it "a more meditative album on the theme of pilgrimage".[9] Provisionally titled Songs of Ascent, it will be a sister release ..." - confusing, because we start the sentence with the impression that this is something that happened over a year ago, yet we segue into "it will be" and so forth.
Hmm, I'm not quite sure what to do with this one, since it's something that is still slated for the future and, I admit, is on the verge of WP:CRYSTAL depending on what alterations are made. Do you have any suggestions? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work better? SteveT • C 10:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works a bit better. Thanks. What do you think PL290? Is the wording less confusing? Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback thus far. I'll be fairly busy with work over the next week or so, so it may take me a bit longer than usual to respond to any further comments or concerns (though I'll do my best to get to them as quickly as possible). Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my initial points. I've now read the whole article, and my remaining comments follow.
"'"No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Mullen's experiments with different drum beats; Eno sampled and manipulated the patterns, and the rest of the band began to play over it.' - "it"?
"It" refers to the pattern of drum beats. I've altered "it" to "the beats". Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Reception, we're initially given the impression of terrific sales: "No Line on the Horizon debuted at number one in 30 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[82][83] As of June 2009 over five million copies had been sold worldwide.[84] Within one week of release, the album was certified platinum in Brazil, a record for the country.[85] In the United Kingdom, the album became U2's tenth number-one album, making them the fifth-most-successful act on the UK Albums Chart.[86] In the United States, it was U2's seventh number-one album; first-week sales exceeded 484,000, the band's second-highest figures after How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." But suddenly the next sentence, which ends the paragraph, surprisingly and blandly states, "By October 2009, sales had increased to just over one million copies, the group's lowest in more than a decade." We then have a large paragraph about disappointing sales, ending with, "McGuinness believed that the conditions of the music market were more responsible for the low sales than any decline in U2's popularity." Can these two paragraphs be balanced out (or perhaps simply introduced by a summary sentence) to give the right overall impression from the start.
I've introduced a summary sentence which reads "No Line on the Horizon opened with strong sales numbers, although these declined very quickly", though this probably needs a bit of polishing. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Conflicting tenses: switches from past to present part way through "U2 staged a worldwide stadium tour ... the tour included ... concerts feature ... audience surrounds ... the concert stage is". It's akin to the forthcoming album problem (which has now been addressed above): planned in the past, but ongoing now. The switch surprises the reader with the realization that it's not something in the past being discussed after all. Probably needs recasting one way or the other.
I've switched it all to past tense (I think), since a good chunk of it can be spoken of in that way. The only exceptions are the mentions of which No Line songs are on the Tour DVD; I'm not sure whether to switch to the past tense here too, or if the current present tense is better. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Within the Promotion section, you have a lone subsection, Singles. I share the author of that manual's dislike of these, but believe MoS is silent on the matter, so I will leave it with you to decide whether to do anything about it; if so, the choices appear to be (a) make Singles a bolded heading (which would exclude it from the TOC), (b) add an initial subsection heading to Promotion (if there is a meaningful one), or (c) just drop the Singles heading. I suspect you want it to appear in the TOC. As I say, I'll leave it with you to take any or no action on this point.
There isn't a great deal of information under the singles heading anyways so what I have done is removed the heading and renamed the subsection to "Promotion and singles". I considered "Singles and promotion", but given that there is a great deal more info on the promotional aspect than the singles one, I figured Promotion probably has priority. I hope that this addresses all of your concerns! Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Note: I've left a note on PL290's talk page informing them that I have addressed their comments as it's been a few days since then, but the user has not edited Wikipedia since 25 May, a few minutes after leaving the above feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only niggle is whether the lead is an adequate summary of the article - feel free to make it a little longer, perhaps with a sentence or two more on critical reception / charting / commercial outcome. The article looks comprehensive, though, and well-sourced. Haven't heard this album - thought Moment of Surrender was lame - but can't fault the WP article! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and for the suggestion. I've added the sentence "The record was not a commercial success for U2, and the group expressed disappointment at the low sales" after the critical reception part in the lead. If you disliked "Moment of Surrender", why not give "Breathe" or "Fez - Being Born" a shot? =P Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
