Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crowded House/archive1
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 not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.
I, along with other members of the Crowded House WikiProject have thoroughly copyedited the article, as well as implementing much in the way of references, both in the way of further reading and inline reference citations, and we believe the article ready to be a Wikipedia Featured Article. --lincalinca 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful not to overlink. I noticed Neil Finn and New Zealand linked twice in the first two sentences (I fixed those cases). Might want to double check that this isn't the case throughout the whole article. It would be tiresome on readers' eyes. =) Also check that you're consistent when referring to the band as either singular or plural: you start with "Crowded House is" but later use the plural. Pick one and stick with it throughout the article. 69.202.41.119 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention: I really like the layout of the "Band members" section. It looks great! 69.202.41.119 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - this one is definitely doable and should get over the line but some stuff needs to happen first. I'd agree with the stuff in the link to Lara Love's talk page above. More tags would be nice. Overall the prose is not bad but lacks a little something which I am having a hard time defining - it seems to lapse into a tone which may be a little informal or band/music jargonistic. I will get specific examples - tweak these and you'll be alot closer to FA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I didn't initially write the whole article. Little by little, I've worked my way through copyediting and re-copyediting the existing texts that were in the article. You may be lapsing between my text and the original (I sure hope mine is the definition of the better). lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They released their eponymous debut, Crowded House, in June 1986. - add debut album (yeah yeah I know, you and I know it but think for someone who doesn't know 'em)
- I actually removed that just the other day. I have a thing against having too many adjectives (debut is both an adjective and nounal) but if you feel this descriptor needs to be there, I'm happy to replace it. lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although critics were impressed, the album was not as accessible as their debut. - I sort of know what "accessible" means but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia - can you define it (now where's a rock thesaurus when you need one?)
- Haha. Rock thesaurus would probably define it as something even more ambiguous. I think for encyclopedic prose, I'll change it to "was not as well received commercially". lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After a month, Seymour initiated contact and the two agreed to bring Seymour back. - erm, reword so there's only one seymour...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Faced with some time off,.. - comes across as a little informal - rephrase?
- The first para from From three piece to four piece (1991–1994) section is a bit rambling and could be rewritten more crisply.
- Hmmm. I stewed on this and this was the best I could think of. This basically was the second "era" for Crowded House when they officially became a four piece for the first time in their recording career. I was trying to move away from the album-titled sections, and this seemed to describe the Together Alone and Woodface era better than anything else. I'll think of something. Another thought I had was "Two Finns and a Hart" but that seemed cornier than maize. I want the section to articulate that the group was no longer a three piece, but didn't know how to express that. Any ideas? lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The next sentence has 5 clauses. These recording sessions mixed with a few songs from the earlier sessions yielded Woodface, which was released in July 1991 featuring seven songs written jointly by Tim and Neil Finn together, most of which had the two performing harmonied vocals, and featured the sombre "All I Ask" performed solo by Tim, which was later featured on AIDS awareness commercials in Australia. - I think splitting it into a couple of smaller sentences is needed
- Sounds fine to me. Makes perfect sense.lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ..multi-instrumentalist Mark Hart of Supertramp.. -these descriptors need to go where he is first mentioned - 2 lines previously.
- also - it leaves one hanging a bit as to why Tim Finn was asked to leave - is it written somehwere?
- I couldn't find it. I know it's been mentioned in a few articles and a few interviews, but the descriptions seem contradictory, so I didn't want to give information that could be inaccurate because of the differences between the sources. I could go with the "Something So Strong" description, but Neil Finn just in May talked about it on NZ radio and it's a slightly different story. --linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it because Tim was used to being a "Front man" during gigs and he had to take a lesser role during Crowded House? --Mutley 02:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find it. I know it's been mentioned in a few articles and a few interviews, but the descriptions seem contradictory, so I didn't want to give information that could be inaccurate because of the differences between the sources. I could go with the "Something So Strong" description, but Neil Finn just in May talked about it on NZ radio and it's a slightly different story. --linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about prefacing the two differing versions with "Differing stories/versions exist as to why...." - and then mention both. I thought it'd be a key point given Tim Finn's stature etc. its ok to give two versions and I like the idea of an article giving alternate versions and not presenting info as canon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea, and yes Mutley, the version that is in the book is that Tim was used to basically runnign the show, after taking over from Phil Judd in 76, and returning 15 years later as a "member" rather than a "leader" didn't wash well with him. This caused disagreements between him and Neil, and Neil, wanting to protect the friendship they'd restored after the distance they'd developed between themselves, decided it would be better for Tim to leave, to which Tim agreed (this is my paraphrase). The way Neil told it earlier this year (in the Denton or NZ radio interview, from memory) was that Tim decided to leave after not turning up to a gig one night. I also read this about 6 years ago, about when One Nil was about to come out. This resonates with me as a harsh story to tell, and possibly may be considered salacious or libelous, for the wiki page without strong references, and I don't have any. Idon't even want to suggest the story on the main page without said references, however I don't want to use the other story for the simple fact that it sounds a bit "convenient" and a bit warm and fuzzy, which, from following the history f the brothers, is likely to be untrue in favour of the "risky" one. For this reason, I want to keep it as it is until I can get firm info (maybe if my magazine can get me an interview with Finn in October when they're here - which they've told me they will, but who knows; they didn't come through on John Mayer - I'll ask him about it. He might be able to shed some light directly to me). --lincalinca 11:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about prefacing the two differing versions with "Differing stories/versions exist as to why...." - and then mention both. I thought it'd be a key point given Tim Finn's stature etc. its ok to give two versions and I like the idea of an article giving alternate versions and not presenting info as canon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the band's members were on board, including Hester and for the sake of reminiscing, the group also called upon Peter Jones and Tim Finn to make guest appearances - bolded bits are a bit too informal and the latter probably redundant.
- ...various different... -redundant - choose one adjective here.
- had all reconnected with one another - gah! rephrase - too warm and fuzzy...
OK - what is a dealbreaker - the book ref (Something so strong) needs the rest of the details (isbn yada yada) and should be moved to a cited text subsection of refs and the page numbers as the individual inline refs.
- The ISBN is quoted. I added that source there a while ago. Maybe someone removed it. I'll double check. I'll update all these applicable changes and get back to you. lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 books I presume have been use - the individual pages cited should be inline refs too.
- The books used are both well over 250 pages, and the references are comprised from throughout, not necessarily from any particular part, so I'm not sure how to go about this, since we'd end up with about 60 pages being referenced, sometimes several pages cites for each individual reference. If this is essential for FA, I'm happy to do it, but my copy's not easily accessible to me (it's in an archive box along with most of my books, since they're all OCRed onto my computer, so I don't have page numbers listed there). The reason I mention this is that I may not be able to appease this request for a couple of weeks, since my archives aren't in Melbourne, they're in Sydney. lincalinca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sucks - sorry - look it'll probably be here for a couple of weeks and hopefully someone else can help out. Good luck. If you scroll down to the bottom of Amanita phalloides you'll get an idea what I mean. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a compromise, can I put the chapter numbers? It's going to take me a while even still, but it means that the general information provided can be there, meaning I can also still use duplicated references where applicable, though not as often. lincalinca 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chapter numbers is definitely better than the current. So go right ahead. Overall see what consensus is - I can't speak for others.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 23 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.