Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dookie

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 15:54, 26 July 2007.

Dookie

[edit]

Just a few days ago, about four, I saw this article of perhaps my favorite album, in horrible shape. I had many sources, so I decided to make it better. That day, I completely re wrote the article, and sent it in for a GA the next day. It passed, and since then, I have been asking a couple of different users to help me with it. After much editing of grammar, sources, pictures, and many other stuff, I believe it is ready for you guys, here at the FAC. Hope it passes sooner or later! Oh, it's a self nomination, by the way. Xihix 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as this article's GA reviewer (I passed it a few days ago), it has my support. Giggy UCP 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I brought up my concerns on this article with Xihix on IRC... he fixed them almost immediately. I have no other outstanding issues with this article. It is well written, referenced, and quite good.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are some issues that remain with the article. It currently isn't ready for FA status; more work needs to be done:
  • Reference 10 needs to be dated with the issue # and month. Its current state is not acceptable.
  • References 12-19 have no publisher stated. Identify the publisher.
  • Reference 11 states Billboard as a publisher. It is a magazine; therefore the name must be italicized.
  • The "Album Name and Art" has this one big quote placed in the middle. Some of it is alright, but most of it is over excessive nonsense not needed in the article.
  • "The name of the album originated from the band members' habit of eating food on the road while touring that had often turned bad." is awkwardly worded.
  • Much of the "Writing and Composition" talks exclusively about the five singles released for the album, and little else. Some more expansion on at least some of the other 9 tracks would be nice.
  • "During the fight, bassist Dirnt fell off the stage, and while trying to climb back on, the actions of a security guard caused him to injure his arm and break three of his teeth." does "bassist Dirnt" really need to be present? Also, what actions of the security guards? Did they kick him? Please clarify this.
  • "Rob Cavallo was chosen as the main producer of the album, after the band was looking for one after signing with Reprise" Wordy. Could be "Rob Cavallo was chosen as the main producer of the album, as the band was looking for someone to produce their next album after signing with Reprise."
  • A meticulous copy edit is desperately needed.

I was jumping around from place to place to see if any flaws caught my eye. As obvious, many did. I have not taken a complete assessment of the article as of yet. The article is a bit away from FA class. NSR77 TC 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on my Opposition - I am still opposing this FA as the "Critical Reception" section is weak. How about some reviews from Time, EW, NME, Stylus, Mojo, Q, Rolling Stone, Pop Matters, etc.? You, currently, only have one major critic present. NSR77 TC 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, after some searching for some old archived articles, I found two major critical reviews and put them both in the critical reception. Enjoy. Xihix 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most things appear to be OK now for a support. NSR77 TC 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With an album, such as Dookie, being released over ten years ago, any material that might be relevant to the article has gone down the memory hole and cannot be located. The reason why many of the tracks are not listed in the article for the "Writing and Composition" sections is because the author could not find sources on why the songs were written at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doolittle (album) seems to do fine, regardless of being almost 20 years old. NSR77 TC 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because it has freaking books written about it? I'm sure if Billie Joe made an autobiography, I could make all of the Green Day albums GA'd. Not only that, it seems to be considered one of the best albums ever by many different sources, as I see in the article. Same goes for Nirvana or Beatles articles; it's just a popularity contest, and since they are dubbed as the best by a lot of old people, they have more coverage. Xihix 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very comprehensive and well-sourced, and an example of what articles on albums should aspire towards. The fact that this album is 13 years old, as Zscout370 pointed out, predating the rise of the Internet, makes the effort put into researching the album even more commendable. Krimpet 03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicks. Blah blah blah great article blah blah little issues that could be fixed, the usual. Numbered for your pleasure convenience.
    1. Why is the Longview quote blockquoted? Why is that quote there at all? It's kind of empty.
    2. "The song never had an official music video, however, a certain live performance of the song is often associated as a music video, which is found on Green Day's official website." - Needs a reference
    3. There's informal language scattered all over the place. "Most of the singles fared well in various charts too" is one example.
    4. "Release and reception" is pretty scrambled. The first paragraph is about producing and making the album, and seems to belong somewhere above. The second paragraph is about the album selling well, the third paragraph starts out talking about critics but seems to wander off into the subject of fan backlash, then the fourth paragraph starts off talking about new fans and the backlash from old fans then lurches off into the subject of sales numbers again before talking about awards.
      This is the only objection I'd oppose over.
    5. Accolades could probably be rewritten into prose instead of a needless, ugly table, and reincorporated into "Release and reception," as it is critical reception.
    6. The chart tables could probably be moved up into "Release and reception".
    Hopefully this helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    I fixed them all, except the accolades and the chart tables, as I modeled them off of other albums that have FA status, so I think those should be fine. Xihix 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (psst, look down for more crossed out, convo continued to there)[reply]
  • Commment The lead needs expansion (perhaps include some details about the album's musical style and subject matter). Also, a brief overview of the musical style is required (in my opinion). The article is also in need of a copyedit (see here) I would help more, but I'm away from the keyboard a lot at the moment. CloudNine 10:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the need for a copyedit- I made a couple of small edits myself, but more are needed. Also, the refs could do with expansion- some are lacking in publisher information, and all seem to be lacking in little extra bits of information which make them that little bit more professional and useful- dates, authors, that kind of thing. However, the article is mostly excellent, and would make a good featured article. J Milburn 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe all of the refs have been fixed since I first put this up for FAC. May you give me some examples of the incomplete ones so I may fix them? Xihix 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose The article is written in an over-colloquial tone and has various grammatical errors. Some examples:

    1. "More accolades available on the site." This is a sentence fragment.
    2. "Eventually, the band left Lookout! Records on friendly terms, and signed on to Reprise." "signed on to Reprise" is not an independent clause and the last comma should be removed.
    3. The article is filled with amateurish conjunct phrases. ("Following the underground success of 1992's Kerplunk!,"; "Much of the album's content was written by Armstrong"; etc.) This is a nit-pick, but featured articles should be held to a high standard.
    4. The first few sentences of "Release and reception" need a rewrite. "Went" is a poor verb choice in a featured article.--Amalgamation 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done All have been fixed. Xihix 18:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A general copyedit is in progress. CloudNine 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very excellent copy edit CloudNine, I don't see how the article couldn't be FA'd at this point. Xihix 19:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to comment on this guy's oppose. I've since left him a message to come see if it's satisfactory, but when I checked, he's only made six edits to Wikipedia, and hasn't responded to me. I'm just to assume he supports now. Xihix 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Its a fairly small article but its well sourced, well referenced, and also written quite well..I'll give it a thumbs up.. :)..--Cometstyles 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I don't think it's too short at all. --Golbez 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the Green Day article is frequently criticized, is nice to see a GD one in such great shape. igordebraga ≠ 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicks mark two. This is about scattered, overlapping topics. This counts as an oppose for the time being.
    1. "Release" isn't about the release at all, it's about sales numbers. It's also two screenfuls away from "Chart positions" for some reason.
    2. "Accolades" is separated from "Critical reception."
    3. "Critical reception" has more stuff about fans calling the band sell-outs, separate from the similar commentary in "Background."
    4. "Critical reception" is lousy with unclear or informal language. "The band did not enjoy these statements" is a bit incoherent, and "Even the New York Times, regardless of their positive comments before, also had claimed that Green Day was far from punk anymore, and was pop instead" is incredibly awkwardly worded. There's more of this; these are just examples.
    5. The review links in the infobox should be references.
    There's still work left to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start off saying I completely modeled the article after other albums that obtained FA, such as Californication. I suppose if they had these things, Dookie should, too. That said, let me explain myself.
  1. The release I've seen on other FA albums talked about sales in the release section. They, too, had the chart position tables two screenfuls away.
  2. Accolades was seperated in every other FA album.
  3. The reason they were sell outs in "Background" was slighty different, and was at a different time (post album release).
  4. Yes, I will fix this. Thanks for pointing this one out.
  5. Nope, they shouldn't. Again, look at other FA albums for more info.
  6. Also, nope, I believe no more work is needed other than the CR fixing. Xihix 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Another FA is equally poorly organized" is not a response to my objections. This article has serious organizational problems, and this is an actionable objection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Have you ever commented on an album FAC? All of these albums are FA'ed and have a similar structure to Dookie: Adore, Californication, Enta Da Stage, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Freak Out!, Kid A, Supernature, and Surfer Rosa. For your sake, I'll combine the Accolades and Reception, but I don't think I should combine the chartings. And, I'd like to mention, if so many albums that had a charting there became FA, it must surely be alright. Xihix 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you combined the Accolades and Reception (which are combined or proximate in most of your examples). Still, we have two different places in the article talking about sales numbers, and we have two different places in the article talking about fan backlash with lots of topical overlap. That's bad organization. While other FAs may make the same mistake, it's a lot more likely that nobody thought to scrutinize the organization of the articles that carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where I mentioned the sales in two places, other than the release area and the lead (which should be in the lead). As for the fan backlash, the Background area talks about the backlash for joining a Major Label. The second backlash, which is in the Reception area, is because of the new fans they were obtaining, and the new "pop-ier" sound the band had. Other than that, I think I have fixed all the dis-organization. Xihix 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sales numbers, chart numbers are sales numbers.
As for the fan backlash, that division isn't evident at all. Let's dissect the last two paragraphs...
  • "However, many other music critics, and even some other mainstream bands, claimed the band had sold out for signing to a major label, and called them "watered down punk imposters"."
Criticism for joining a major label.
  • " The New York Times, regardless of their previous positive comments, also mentioned that Green Day was far from punk and was pop instead."
Still awkwardly phrased.
  • "The band did not respond initially to these comments, but later claimed that they were "just trying to be themselves" and that "it's our band, we can do whatever we want.""
Not sure what they're talking about, but it seems to be a response to joining a major label, since no mention of a "pop-ier" sound has been made.
  • "Dirnt claimed that the follow up album, Insomniac, one of the band's hardest albums lyrically and musically, was the band releasing their anger at all the criticism from critics and former fans."
Wandering off on a tangent; this really belongs in the Insomniac article.
  • "Dookie helped attract many new fans to Green Day, which furthered the labeling of the band as "sell-outs" by older fans."
[citation needed]
  • "As a result of this, the band did not receive a warm welcome home upon returning to Berkeley, California. The hatred of former fans led to physical violence in some cases, some right on the streets."
So the old fans didn't like them because they had new fans? [citation needed]?
  • "924 Gilman Street, the club where Green Day first debuted , had banned Green Day from ever entering the club, as "No Major Labels" were allowed, and the ban still stands today."
Awkwardly phrased, and, again, it's the fans calling them sell-outs for signing with a major label, exactly like in the section above in "Background."
The Reception section is still poorly organized on its own lights, and still overlaps largely with the Background section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chart numbers are separate from other FA album articles. I won't change that. When it's been accepted to be at a different place so many times before, there must be something about it that makes it being separate fine. Again, have you ever commented a FAC album?
  • The criticism for signing to a major label before was from the former fans. The criticism post release was from critics and other mainstream bands.
  • I'm sorry, but there's no other way to word that. And it isn't that awkward, I brought in several 3rd party people to read it, and they all understood it.
  • Actually, the last part of the New York Times said pop quite clearly.
  • As the Reception section is post album release, talking about the future is allowed. And, the writing for Insomniac was done before they went to record it, some of the songs were wrote during the tour of Dookie.
I fixed everything else. Xihix 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objections stand. Reception is still poorly written and overlaps largely with Background. There's probably a enough content for an entire section on fan response, instead of scattering it all over the place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I swear, I do not see where fans are mentioned anywhere other than the lead, Background, and the VERY LAST word of Reception after I took it out a few edits ago. Other than that VERY last word, the Reception and Background no longer overlap. And before you mention "Major Labels", the major labels in the Background was from the fans, and the major label mention in Reception was from PROFESSIONAL critics and OTHER MAINSTREAM BANDS. Alright? Xihix 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has since been rewritten, and I'm largely happy with the article. I still don't like the sales charts being dumped at the end like that, but apparently this isn't the place to change standard style, so I don't plan on quibbling about it any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say it needs to mature and have be written better. Give me some examples, then. Honestly, you've been a member for a few days and do not have that many edits at all, and you say that you "Glad to see I sit at the conservative end of Wikipedia, then."[1]. I'm not saying you're a bad editor, but you're saying that the people who are very good editors and quite a few admins do not know the FAC criteria? Xihix 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's be civil and leave out the personal attacks. My edit count and talk page have nothing to do with the FA viability of this article. My contributions may be small, but 20% of my edits have occurred on the article in question. I'm on your side. Dookie has an overall amateurish tone and the extra time is for myself and others to massage it out. --Amalgamation 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you don't know what's FA criteria; I'm saying if all these experienced editors believe this article's writing and tone are good, why wouldn't it be? Also, I would really like an example or two of bad writing, so I can fix it. You're the only person standing in the way of an FA (everyone has consensus at this point except you), so I just want to fix it to change your mind. Xihix 03:26, 26 July 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/Dookie&oldid=1136098083"