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 00:05, 28 March 2008.

Silverchair[edit]

After extensive peer reviewing, I think this is ready, but am happy to act on any suggestions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment":

• That personnel section is unnecessary; the images and information should be incorporated into the prose. Artists who contributed only on an album or two needn't be mentioned at all, they're more suitable for the album articles.
• Include music samples throughout the History depicting their musical evolution and also one in the musical style, to describe their sound in detail.

• I only have stuff from Diorama and Young Modern - I'll upload some of that at some stage. I don't have access to any of their earlier work :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC):*Don't think those box sets are necessary in the Discography section.[reply]

• "both rated it in excess of four stars" - like four and a half? five? why the ambiguity?
• U.S. should be US, I hear. Make sure that after the first mention of "United States", they are all "US" only. indopug (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Most of the stuff has been done; the rest is replied to. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add those individual band member pics through the article; the first two paras look especially picture-scarce. Is it "Silverchair is" or "Silverchair are"? Because the lead sentence disagrees with "Silverchair have been highly successful...". Add that pic of Johns with Fanning (found in the Dream Days article) instead of the current Across the great divide pic. I'll give a detailed prose review/copy-edit in a couple of days. Cheers, indopug (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On my browser/monitor there's a Grand Canyon of a gap of whitespace between "at some stage in the future" and "Joannou believed that".Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an image there, which has since been removed; that might have been the problem. Try taking another look? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's gone, but now there's a smaller one below "when working with a record label..." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd be the image/audio sample. Not really sure what I can do about that, but feel free to play around with it if you can. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another very good article. Some minor points before I can support

• "At the culmination of this touring, the band announced that they would be taking a 12 month break". This sounds a little ornate and culmination means "Attainment or arrival at the highest pitch of glory, power, etc". Is this what you mean? Can it be simplified to "Following the end of this tour program, the band announced that they would take a 12 month break"?

• Since when do I know the meaning of the words I use!? Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Cquote)) should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so.

• But I really like it! :) OK, I've made it an inline quote. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Silverchair is highly successful in the Australian recording industry, being a recipient of the industry's flagship awards, the ARIA Music Awards, a record 20 times" This sentence reads a little awkwardly to me. Inspiration fails me at the moment but let me think on it.

• "Silverchair have been highly successful in the Australian recording industry; receiving the industry's flagship awards, the ARIA Music Awards, a record 20 times". dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this is great work. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. All done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concerns addressed. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The prose needs some serious work. I'll try to make a pass at it soon. There's some inconsistency in the references; the Rolling Stone review of Frogstomp is listed in two different footnotes in two different formats. In terms of hard information, most of the article is fine. However, the "Musical style" section is particularly weak to me; most of it relies of reviewer comments on specific albums, and then the section ends with some very short paragraphs. Try and work in some material about influences or approaches to performance and composition. Include more about influences. This Rolling Stone article should be helpful because not only does it mention the oft-made comparison to grunge groups early in the band's career, but Johns mentions the influence of Black Sabbath on his band. try and scrouge up contemporary references from the 1990s. I'm reasonably sure they've done a couple of guitar magazine interviews, which would be very useful. I've already looked at Rock's Back Pages and nytimes.com and didn't turn up anything, but you might want to try findarticles.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. A look over the prose would be great, if you can. I fixed the RS ref double-up. I don't have access to many magazines, but I found some on findarticles which I'll get to adding in - I've also put the Rolling Stone Q&A in. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am very angry: this article is short, and it has many sub-articles. These sub-articles can be a part of the article, they aren't so long and they are in big part tables. In my opinion, this isn't a good kind for the growth of Wikipedia, but a creation of un-sensed articles that can stay "1000 times" in the principal article, so they aren't encyclopedic and needs a link for return to the previous article. Here I don't vote, it's not fair this thing (and this motivation isn't a violation of FA criteria). MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your insights. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments

All other links checked out with the link tool. A number of these questions are probably because I am clueless on US music websites, much less Australian ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • And http://www.thescene.com.au/? (If I'm out of touch with the US music scene ... imagine how out of touch I would be on Australian music...)
    • As I said, I'm not completely sure, but I have heard of it before and I think it's OK. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... this site http://zengrooves.com/newreleases.html? Is it considered a reliable source in the music fandom world? (My spouse swears I was the model for 1985 (song) so bear with my questions)
    • I'm not best versed on the ins-and-outs of RS policy, but would having a staff page be indicative of anything? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm. I'd guess it'd depend on the staff themselves. After all it's not that hard to code up an html page and call it "Staff". I've been judging on who is behind them, how often they are mentioned as reliable by other sources, and some other things. Let's leave it for the real guru of sources, Sandy (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor Support although other source could be used in the "name origin", since the two there don't help (this one mentioned in the talk could do). igordebraga ≠ 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That interview is being used. Thanks for the comment and support. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dislike the organization of the WP:LEAD. The reason why there are notable should be in the very first sentence. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? I haven't really seen this in many band FAs...generally, the next few paragraphs talk about that, while the first just says when it was formed and who's in it. At least, as far as I know... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other band FAs are poorly organized does not mean this article needs to be. Readers show know at a glance the answer to the question, "So what?" Ling.Nut (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources need a specific explanation for how they meet reliable sources, that is what makes the authors published experts in their fields, what is the reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc. (no, having a staff page doesn't meet that):

• looks like a personal website
  • I'm not quite sure either way, but I've replaced it with an RS; Bigpond Music. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• blog
  • For future reference, does it being an interview mean anything in that regard?
• fan contributor site
  • Note to self; stop trusting yourself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• what makes these people published experts in their fields?
  • Yeah, as I said to Ealdgyth, I wasn't sure about that one. Gone. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ??
  • Gone, there was another source for that one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "a range of other musicians were drawn in ..." What's a range of musicians? And should the verb agree in number with "range" instead of "musicians"? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded; "several other musicians..." - is that OK? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of my concerns were promptly fixed in PR, but I do have a couple:
  • The first ref in the sentence "During the tour, Johns took regular medication for his reactive arthritis, which had forced the band to cancel several shows." doesn't mention anything about medication, just that he has arthritis. The sentence could be reworded and that ref stuck in after just that fact, if you don't mind the pesky mid-sentence ref. [Edit: actually, neither ref mentions medication. The second ref doesn't mention cancelling shows, either.]
    • Comes with re-writing and not fact-checking well enough. I've reworded inline with the sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also with that sentence, what is "regular medication"? Does this mean he took medication regularly? Why is the article mentioning the meds? Couldn't you just say that the arthritis forced him to cancel shows?
    • Medication is no longer mentioned. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Awards and accolades section is so short, maybe you should incorporate those two sentences into the lead or somewhere else. As an added benefit, you could put the List of Silverchair awards link into the see also section, which currently only has one lonely link.
    • OK, I removed that section, moved the info to the lead, and added the link to the see also section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about this sentence: "Gillies notes that Silverchair will often "run the risk of losing fans" in their work; reminiscent in the changes in musical direction in Diorama and Young Modern." What does the part after the semicolon mean? Also, it needs a ref because of the quote, and you can only use a semicolon with an independent clause.
    • Reworded, reffed, removed semicolon. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not sure that a lot of the material about reviews belongs in the Musical style section. This stuff is just reviewers' opinions about the band, not necessarily their style. What about a separate "reviews" or "reception" section?
    • I'll try and split that up/make it a bit more distinct, as you've suggested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice tends to make the writing awkward, as with this sentence: "Young Modern was produced independently by the band, to ease the pressures faced previously when working with a record label."
    • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence is too long and awkward: "Freak Show saw the band show more of their own musical style, rather than copying others,[47] and received more praise for its songwriting than its predecessor; Yahoo! Music's Sandy Masuo described the lyrics as moving and emotional."
    • Split into 2 sentences. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what this means: "Meanwhile, Diorama was seen in a discovery of the band's originality..." Also, meanwhile is used twice in two sentences.
    • Not sure what it meant either, but I've guessed and reworded. :) Fixed the meanwhile overuse too. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately I'll be on wikibreak, so I won't be around to change to support once this stuff is addressed. But I have no problem supporting once these things have been addressed, which others can decide whether they think they have been. delldot talk 10:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, I think everything is done! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All problems look to be addressed and it was a good ready.  Sunderland06  18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are some parts of the article which don't tally with my recollections, however, it is about a decade since I was into the band, all my music magazines from that era have long since been thrown away and my memory is fallible. In terms of actionable points though:
  • The explanation for how the band got their name contradicts this interview reproduced on their official site.
  • One thing I'm suprised to see omitted is that of a murder case where the defense counsel blamed the actions of the defendants on them listening to Israel's Son prior to the murder (the defense was rejected). It received extensive press coverage at the time, an earlier equivalent to the furore when Marilyn Manson was blamed by some parties for the Columbine shootings. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the band name info in. I wasn't aware of that "Israel's Son" stuff (very...wow...), and I've done some searching, but have only found fansites discussing it. Not saying I don't trust you, but can you point me to an RS about it? Shame that most of the info could be offline now... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I used to have a whole bunch of issues of Melody Maker and Kerrang! from the mid-to -late 1990s which would have the relevant information, but threw them away long ago. Since becoming a Wikipedian I now hoard such things :) Google News Archive Search turns up a few things, albeit mostly subscription-based, e.g. 1, 2. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I added in some info about that; using one of your links as a reference, and this for most of the actual information (since the two have similar stories). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I likey, but there is one minor thing I'd likey. Can "Innocent Criminals" be bolded in the lead instead of those marks? Burningclean _[speak] 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can, and done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Why are the dates in the references wikilinked? --GrahamColm^Talk 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would they not be? Dates should be either consistently linked throughout the article, or unlinked throughout the article–as long as they're consistent for user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK now I know.--GrahamColm^Talk 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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