Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blood Sugar Sex Magik

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Blood Sugar Sex Magik

[edit]

A highly influential and successful album of the early nineties. The article was promoted to Good status in late July, and has, since then, been reviewed by outside eyes. Vocalist Anthony Kiedis wrote about this album's era most extensively in his autobiography, therefore more information was available to write about. Self-nom. Have at. NSR77 TC 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I've been over this article pretty extensively myself already and I can't find anything else that needs to be improved, although further suggestions for improvement are of course welcome :) Kamryn · Talk 13:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Pretty good overall. Work on these items:
  • Move the mention of Frusciante's departure later in the lead. It's an result of the album, and thus should be mentioned further down.
  • "Frusciante had, since then, considered becoming apart of Thelonious Monster, a punk rock band formed by Bob Forrest" . . . "It, therefore, ended his short-lived time with the Thelonious Monsters". Awkward sentences. Rephrase.
  • Why was Rick Rubin chosen to produce the album?
  • Move the Rolling Stone review above the Allmusic one, since the Allmusic review was not written when the album was released.
Try to look up a few more thrid party sources (meaning sources that don't rely on the band itself). In particular, try to look for source material at Time.com and nytimes.com, which are mainstream news sources with excellent archives. Also, I seem to remember that rollingtstone.com had a transcription of an article from 1991 about the making of the album.
I might have more points later. Overall it's better than the other Chili Peppers articles were when they went to FAC. WesleyDodds 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this [1] the rollingstone article you're talking about? Thanks for comments, I'm searching for more secondary sources now. Kamryn · Talk 07:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If, however, I have not addressed your concerns sufficiently, and/or new problems arise, don't hesitate to point them out.
  • Oppose I copyedited the article, but there are still a few major things that need to be addressed:
  • There are quite a few sentence fragments prose weaknesses within the article, for example: nearly every sentence within the first paragraph of the "recording and production" is a fragment prose weakness. Try expanding or merging these sentences using commas and whatnot.
  • At the risk of being accused of sabatoge, none of those sentences are fragments (at least not sentence fragments). They all have nouns, verbs, objects, dependent clauses - the whole bit.--Esprit15d 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps fragment isn't the right word. I found that these sections spoke in short, choppy sentences that didn't flow well and weren't structured for grammatical clarity. If you wish to attack me based on my misuse of the word "fragment" in lieu of the word I was looking for, but failed to find, then so be it. I say we address the validity of what I was attempting to say instead. Grim-Gym 06:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chill out, you're not being attacked. Criticism =/= attack. Esprit is well within his rights to point out things that don't make sense. This is a discussion, after all. Anyway, it would help us a lot more here if you gave specific examples of what doesn't read right for you. Kamryn · Talk 07:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attack I received was a subversive one on NSR's talk page and is verbatim as follows: "I don't know if this is orthodox or not to mention it to you here, but much of Grim-Gym's review is bullcrap. I defended some of the more outrageous claims, but really, I have no clue what grammar/copyediting book he/she is taking her cues from.--Esprit15d 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)". I've let it go because his failure to assume good faith and propensity towards personal attacks are not my folly. Grim-Gym 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the "writing and composition" page (excepting the first sentence) deals with the 'writing and composition' of "Under the Bridge" rather than its 'recording and production'. This event is also mentioned in the "writing" section, so you might want to merge these two portions there. You could also, if possible, expand on the Rubin's recording and production guidance, after you remove the aforementioned content from the "recording" section.
  • You mention "The Greeting Song" like it's already been mentioned and we know what it is. Give us a little background here. Also, the sentences mentioning it are fragments have weak prose.
  • What is this about?: "Kiedis had also been thinking about his former band mate Hillel Slovak again, and as with "Knock Me Down", composed a song in his tribute."
  • "Upon initial release, however, "Give it Away" was rejected to be played by Warner's target radio station, telling the band to "come back to us when you have a melody in your song." Which target radio station?
  • There's a paragraph of sentence fragments weak prose at the end of the "promotion and release" section.
  • "Robert Christgau gave the album a two star honorable mention."? If this is relevant, you need to say why.
  • Clarification on the above point This statement will surely go over the head of an average reader. You don't even mention that he's a critic, or if his review is positive. "Is it two out of four stars?", "of five?", "of two?". Implying some of these things will seem fine in certain cliques—perhaps even "go without saying"; but for the majority of readers, this statement is totally useless. Grim-Gym 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the US leg, Kiedis and Frusciante became close to Smashing Pumpkins' lead singer Billy Corgan, and the rest of the Smashing Pumpkins." Not relevant.
  • "Following several more shows the band traveled to Europe, where Frusciante, in need of someone to connect to, brought along his girlfriend." Can we get his girlfriend's name at the end here?—I don't feel like looking it up.
  • The ellipses here make this quotation a mess: "..we were planning to do "Under the Bridge" as our second number...I was entirely dependent on John for the musical cue into the verse...he was playing something in a different key, out of tune, in a different timing, basically reinventing the song for himself and nobody else." You could add a more cohesive statement, or even blockquote the (relevant portions of the) whole paragraph.
  • I'm not sure everything that has more than one citation listed needs multiple citations. This is usually only necessary for contentious material. If one citation is solid and the material is not controversial, just go with the best one. It doesn't matter if the same info is stated elsewhere.

That's it. Good luck. Grim-Gym 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I'm just going to run through the last paragraph in the "promotion and release" section, which I referred to as a "paragraph of 'fragments'"—I recognize my misuse of the word "fragment", by the way.

  • "It was also during this period when Frusciante began to experiment with heroin. The European promotional trek took its toll on Frusciante, and he decided to return home when he and Kiedis reached London." What I noticed was that these two paragraphs do not flow well into each other, and kind of clash. I believe there's a sentence in Scar Tissue or somewhere else, that has Frusciante stating the reason he returned home (to focus on his drug use, painting ect. I cannot remember exactly but I'll find the source of the statement). Something to that effect should be annexed into the first sentence, thus serving as a bridge between the two and increasing the strength of the prose. I suppose what I meant to do with my "fragment" statements was to address the strength of the prose, rather than grammatical accuracy. Perhaps if you look at the "fragment" issues above, as prose issues instead, the validity of these issues can be seen.

Are there any other "bullcrap" claims that I can help clarify? If you could go through one-by-one and at least tell me how I was so off-base, that would at the very least allow me to improve as an editor. Grim-Gym 07:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a real sentence fragment: "How his life had come to it's lowest point under a bridge in downtown LA." Kamryn · Talk 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was supposed to have been apart of the sentence before it, separated by a semicolon. Nonetheless, fixed. :) NSR77 TC 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, such incompetence around here :) Kamryn · Talk 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very impressive article. Comprehensive but not overwhelming.
  • The only remaining issue I have is with the "Critical reception". I find that this section is too overwhelmingly positive. I don't think that the criticism of the album's sexual content is enough to counterbalance the rest of the acclaim. While the album did receive a majority of positive reviews, it would favor evenhandedness (especially considering that there's already an "accolades" section) if you could reference a negative review—if you can find one (hehe). Grim-Gym 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhmm well NPOV doesn't mean that we have to balance every positive claim with a negative one - just that we have to represent views with due weight. And the fact is, the response to BSSM was overwhelmingly positive. Kamryn · Talk 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Every single one of my ("outrageous") claims have been addressed and remedied to the benefit of this article. I consider it to currently be the best Chili Peppers-related article on the English Wikipedia—which is saying a lot considering the two FAs we already have. I say the following with the utmost humility—I love knowing that Esprit15d is going to see how much my comments and effort have improved this article. While I'm sure he won't comment on this FAC ever again, just the fact that he'll see it is enough to satisfy me. And I apologize in advance for the impropriety of that statement. Kudos to everyone who contributed to this article. It has my full endorsement. Grim-Gym 03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, now that's an attack, and completely uncalled for too. Don't be a dickhead. If this is your idea of 'letting go' I'd love to see what happens when you hang onto something! Kamryn · Talk 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot of work has been carried out on that article and it shows, it is both thorough and interesting. NSR77 has fixed all of the main identified flaws which shows outstanding commitment. An overall compelling read that deserves to be featured --Childzy (Talk|Images) 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sir Psycho Sexy himself would be proud of this article. Good job! Just one aside, in the accolades section, do we need to advertise the website "AcclaimedMusic.net". Wouldn't a better introductory sentance read: "Blood Sugar Sex Magik has been named to many lists of top albums." and just leave the source as a footnote? Other than that, this is a fantastic article. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. looking more closely at the list, it looks incomplete as well. Didn't VH1 name it as one of the top 100 albums of all time? Maybe researching a few more accolades (for an album THIS influential, there are BOUND to be more awards given to it) would help with the completeness of the article... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are probably over one hundred "Best of" lists the album has been involved in, but listing them all is impossible, and would be far too tedious. The link to the full accolade list is intended for those such purposes. NSR77 TC 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is a difference between a blog that no one really reads and a major cable TV network like VH1, n'est pas? I just want to see that all 'notable' accolades are included; including major awards (grammys? ama's? etc.) and notable top 100 lists... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Blood_Sugar_Sex_Magik&oldid=1136098622"