The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 14:08, 6 July 2011 [1].

Pixies[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Pixies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music/Pixies, User:CloudNine

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues that compromise its quality and I have brought them to talk a week ago with no response there and only some of the changes I suggested below being addressed:

I think this is salvageable as a featured article, but it is not currently FA status in my mind and without a more substantial response on talk, I feel like FAR is appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Comment -sigh- I'm currently trying to wrap up the Nirvana (band) FARC. Otherwise I could fix this up with little effort (I have access to biographical sources). I would ask for a delay in bringing this to FAC, but then again I don't think that's fair for an article that obviously needs cleanup. The main issue is that the primary contributor to the page has more or less retired. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the Pixies FA-level album articles Surfer Rosa and Doolittle (album) are better-sourced and much more stable, meaning some material can be imported from them. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problems are mostly due to depreciation and the main author having more or less retired. I have sources, and scissors - chunks cut, more to go. I think this might be an easy enough to to head off before FARC. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug - I wouldn't completly remove the 'After the breakup' section, but severly trim. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a few "cite needed tags" where appropriate. There's a lot of unnecessary detail about the albums themselves best reserved for the album articles. I feel if we can make the article flow more like R.E.M., it'll be a much stronger read. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some trimming. I think all four songs samples should be removed for NFCC, since they're only being used for color. Any objections? Noisalt (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once we spruce up the Musical style section we can use one there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Holidays and trying to finish up Nirvana (band) take top priority for me, but I aim to do some serious work once the new year commences. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I'll help here, but then forgot about it. Time granted is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to help fix up some of the refs. Has there been discussion before about whether aleceiffel.com is a reliable source? It looks dubious to me, but is used as the source for several pieces of info, for which alternate sources would be needed. Moisejp (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gauging from the last time I saw it years ago, it looked to be a fansite to me. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we have an update on how work is going on this? Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on trying to get the references in order. I have tried to make the formatting style consistent and make sure all refs are sourced to reliable websites, but I still have a handful left to do. There is still however quite a bit of information throughout the article that is unsourced, so sources will need to be found or else other information will need to be substituted into the article. That is what I hope to focus on next. Besides that, I feel that especially the Legacy and Television Appearances sections need work. The Legacy section is presently just a scattering of quotes from bands saying how much they love the Pixies in no particular order. I would like to try to tone down this section (make it less idolatry) and give it better structure. I wonder how useful the Television Appearances/Videos section is and would not be sorry to see it cut. If it is kept we will certainly need better references for it. I also cut the Instrumentation section for reasons given in my edit summary. It seemed to me not of great interest to non-musician readers (i.e. "specialists") and most of the information came from unreliable sources from 1997 or earlier—we have no way of knowing if bandmembers may have changed their instrument preferences since then. Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp I agree that there is a lot to be cut yet, and considering the Pixies hold on contemporary music is comparable to the velves on the 80s/90s, I'd leave out any specifics, and slant towards a more general postumus fame. Listy lists really suck and there is a danger here. Ceoil 06:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, making sure everything is referenced is probably more important than making sure the ref format is consistent. However, your work to remove unreliable sources seems to be going well, and was definitely needed. Perhaps ping some of the editors (Ceoil, etc) who commented above offering to help and see if they're still interested. Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to deemphasize the reliance on the official 4AD profile for the band. Quoting the band's record label website isn't the most objective route we can take. If possible, use alternate sources for the information cited. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, esp considering the fall out between Ivo and Frank towards the end. Ceoil 06:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also worried I may be using Allmusic refs too much, but it's just so handy. If people think there are too many, we can try to reduce them throughout the editing process. Moisejp (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Allmusic bio is fine, but remember that there are at least three books that cover the band in-depth. I have Fool the World checked out and can hopefully add more cites and info from it soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: OK, I've got pretty much every line referenced; what I have yet to do is the last paragraph of the Reunion section, which I also want to update with more recent info, and the Musical Style section. There may be one or two other sentences that I have missed, but I will go through line by line before I'm done to check. Oh, I just noticed now there are a couple of sentences in Music Videos and DVDs that lack refs. So that's the references, how about the balance of information? Are there any areas that get too much or too little text? I would like to add a little more to the first paragraph of Songwriting and Vocals, where Francis' themes are discussed, if I can find reliable refs—or another option would be to mention some critic's interpretations of the songs rather than direct citations from Francis. The lead also needs to be updated to reflect changes in content. If anyone would like to jump in and help out, for example with wording or really anything, please feel free. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe every statement in the article now has a citation. Was the consensus that the "Velouria" image should be cut? What about the sound clips? I am happy to cut them, too. Someone else suggested that they could eventually be incorporated into the Musical Style section. I don't see myself doing that, but if anyone else wants to add info to the Musical Style section that can be shaped around the sound clips, that's cool. Besides that, are there any holes in the article, or areas that otherwise need improvement, that the reviewers wish to point out? If so, I'll see what I can do to address them. Otherwise, I am happy to move onto the FARC commentary stage and to iron out any final wrinkles in that stage. (By the way, I will be out of town for the next 3 days.) Moisejp (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get an update from all of the reviewers/editors on whether they think this article needs to go to FARC or can be kept without a FARC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the Nirvana FARC pretty much wrapped up at this point, I can devote time to helping out here now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the Nirvana FARC closed as a "keep", I can focus attention here now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the work that has happened so far, can some reviewers please comment on whether this can be kept without FARC, or whether it should be moved? This has been languishing in the FAR section for several months as work has been happening, but it should either be closed or moved soon. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary[edit]

Although extensive work has been completed on this article, work seems to have stalled in the past month or so. However, requests for updates and reviewer comments have gone mostly unanswered over this time period, so I am moving the article to the FARC section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, non-Wiki responsibilities have been eating into my time. I'll see what I can do in the next week. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I may have been mistaken about how this process works, but I have been expecting feedback from reviewers. I feel the article is in relatively good shape but may need slight polishing here and there depending on the opinions of the reviewers, and have been waiting for this feedback. I'm willing to take this wherever they want it taken. Or if there is no feedback I'm happy to leave it at this stage, depending also on whatever changes WesleyDodds wants to make. I've been a little bit frustrated at the lack of feedback, but I guess I can't blame anyone since we're all volunteers on here. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it can sometimes be hard to get reviewer feedback here at FAR. I would suggest pinging the people that have commented above (Ceoil, Indopug and Justin (the nominator)) to see if they have further feedback or if they think the article can be kept as is. Just make sure to keep your notification neutral :) Pinging other music editors that you know to come take a look is also a good idea. I was just mainly not sure if you and Wesley had made all of the changes you were planning to make, or if you felt there was still more work to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have neutrally pinged a few people and will try to ping a few more in the next few days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please get an update here? I know extensive work has already been completed on the article, so even pinging the editors who commented above and other music editors to check in and see what else needs to be done would be a help. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it seems to me like the FAR process is broken if the review can even go on this long without being closed. Again, I have not had much input here, but someone else should have stepped in and shut it down awhile ago until the necessary changes were made and then it could presumably be fast-tracked to FA status again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "Velouria" image. That said, I'm sorry but I think I pretty much have to drop out of this FARC process because a bunch of things have come up in my real life and I probably won't be able to get much or any Wikipedia time in for the next few months. Wesley, I hope this process won't drag on too much longer and you'll be able to take care of whatever comes up. My apologies for dropping out. If I do find a bit of time or succumb to the temptation and get on here when I should be doing other stuff, I'll try to have a peek here from time to time, though. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - do other editors feel this article's issues have been adequately addressed? Can this article be kept, or is additional work needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2011 (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