Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doolittle (album)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [1].

Doolittle (album)

[edit]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2021-08-07

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion whose FAC nominator has not edited for five years. It was noticed in 2021 for uncited text and sourcing issues; those issues have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's improved somewhat since I left the notice in 2021, but there's still issues. Uncited text is present, and the sourcing isn't always up to code.
" Bie, Jean-Michel; Gourraud, Christophe. "Pixies Press Quotes". Alec Eiffel. Archived from the original on December 4, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2007." is a probably non-RS site that has pulled a bunch of quotes from places; not adequate sourcing for FA
Have doubts about rocklist.net
The Genius links are duplicating lengthy proprietary lists from Rolling Stone. A WP:ELNEVER situation?
This is probably fixable, but it'll take someone with some time and interest in this sort of music; that's not me on both counts. Hog Farm Talk 00:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog I'm done here for tonight and wont be back for a few days, but as nominator for the FAR (which should carry a burden so as to disprove the perception of drive-by) and to move this along, would you mind tag bombing the page with cn's needed, and list the sources needing to be replaced - that would be very helpful. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for others, there is an extensive copy editing also going on. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: - it looks like you've resolved the uncited text issues and have remove/replaced several of the dodgier sources. Am mainly concerned with now:
"albumvote reviews — Doolittle by Pixies". Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007."
"NME's 100 Best Albums". Rocklist.net. Archived from the original on March 31, 2018. Retrieved March 16, 2007." - not sure that rocklist is RS, and it seems iffy for the website to be reproducing another source's possibly-copyrighted creative contest lists like that
"Bie, Jean-Michel; Gourraud, Christophe. "Pixies Press Quotes". Alec Eiffel. Archived from the original on December 4, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2007." - unsure about this one
Beyond that, I think it's mostly reference formatting stuff, which should be more straightforward for a group effort once we've settled which sources are OK to use. Hog Farm Talk 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Hog this is very useful, much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have addressed most of these, but as largely don't edit mid-week, few days pls, and may need a white knight to standardise ref formats, it that becomes a reason to delisting (I dont think it should be). Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can tackle them as I have time ... but I don't know when that will be ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No didn't mean you!!! Your already overworked, will I'll ask around, and maybe tackel for an hour or two next weekend. Thanks anyway, I think myself and Hog have this :) Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil this is actually the mindless sort of work I can do when I have bits of time here and there or when I'm awake in the middle of the night-- what I'm not able to keep up with right now is work that requires sustained focus or large blocks of time.
But I ran into a stumbling block on converting to sfns. I can't sort Frank, Ganz. Some say 2005, some say 2006, and the ISBN given for both is the same, and neither match the publisher as listed at WorldCat. There are multiple versions of the book, so we could have a page number problem. Do you have the book or do you know which is used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fool the World is 2005. I wouldn't mind at all reading this, nice no brain pre-sleep zone out reading, so might get on Kindel and convert to that source. Obviously that will mean chapters rather than page numbers, but am personally fine with that. although if preferred, could just order the book - would prob be delivered early next week. Either is good for me. Ceoil (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I have time, I will convert all other books to sfn, but leave Frank, Ganz alone for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I suspect ordering the book and waiting will be easier, because my hunch is that the page nos will be the same and we won't have to convert to chapters as per kindle book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Ceoil (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There was a seller in Dublin (they are slow up there), so will have by next weekend. And might also mean can remove some of the less credible sources mentioned by Hog above, fingers crossed. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we nail this down better ? Sisario 2006, blurb. What is meant by "blurb"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil both Sisario and Frank/Ganz are available online at archive.org; I've linked them in the sources, so if we can use the page nos from that version (2006), that enhances verifiability. And so far, I'm not able to verify the three things I've checked, so there may be serious source-to-text integrity issues lurking here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, here's one example of source-to-text integrity issues:

Here is page 151 from Frank/Ganz.
Page 151 verifies the text cited to Frank/Ganz about PJ Harvey, footnote 63, in this version as being from page 120 (in a different version?)
But I can find none of the other information cited to page 120, footnote 63, on page 151 of this version. In fact, a search of the book finds no mention of the Philadelphia Inquirer anywhere in the book.

I'm afraid serious problems may be lurking here. That's along with three other citations I checked that fail verification; I'm afraid it may be a long trudge through Frank/Ganz with a rewrite needed, and now I'm worried that all sources need to be checked. Also, Frank/Ganz is interview format, and the article makes some statements that can't be made in wikivoice based on the opinion of one interviewee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and have also ordered the paperback of Sisario, which is extensively cited, so that an Frank/Ganz should arrive here soon. Lets see what they throw up and take it from there. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also took a 1 month sub to Rock's Backpages, which has a bunch of contemporary reviews and in terviews. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil see my notes above; you don't have to wait for either Sisario or Frank/Ganz, as they are both available to read free at archive.org-- I have linked them in the Sources -- and we have real source-to-text integrity issues. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and will need to go deep to resolve...which is fine knowing the FA nominator, don't think he made anything up, but it is going to need a lot more untangling than had thought. Oh well. At the moment am re-familiarising, and trying to establish a few better sourcesCeoil (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia and Ceoil, as per our discussion on Ceoil's talk page, I've started working through the references and reworking the text to match the citations. I'm only two paragraphs in. My observation so far is that much that is cited to Frank and Granz (2006) is really in Sisario. As Ceoil mentions below, most of F & G, is more "talking head" interviews, but I still use it as a source if it specific enough and doesn't conflict with Sisario, which I'm treating as the main source. I've also corrected a WayBack Machine link to 4AD's 2011 site. The cited page did not support the text, but a search of Wayback showed the previous page did. Unfortunately, Ganz's (2005) review in Spin of Pixies-Doolittle and related text had to go since it has gone into Web limbo. I tried to track it in Wayback, but my search failed. If someone can find it or even has the original url, please let me know. I'll keep going, through progress may be irregular. Life being what it is... Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an update to Hog and Nikki, have both the above book sources now :) — Frank/Ganz is "oral history" / talking heads only but checks out (my pg numbers are different again, but would like to use) although reliance could be trimmed), but Sisario (2006) contains A LOT on the individual tracks, that would like to expand on. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia and Ceoil, I just want to let you know that I've completed my fairly quick edit of the article. Here's a summary of what I did.
  • Verified all the book links in the text. For the books, added convenience links for future verification and help keep text-source citation less slippery during future edits.
  • Verified the web and magazine links in the text. Put them in citation formats and added archival links when appropriate and possible.
  • Moved citations from final paragraph of lead to legacy. Rearranged order of legacy to fit them in. Changed last paragraph of lead to summarize legacy and "sales" section.
  • Deleted or changed text or citations to match things up. Sometimes this resulted in some major reworking of sections or paragraphs. I think I may have added a couple of new sources.
  • I tried to hedge Frank & Ganz citations. I used it in wikivoice when it addressed a timeline issue (e.g., touring with Throwing Muses or time spent in studio), but attributed individuals when it gave opinions.
Please note that I didn't verify any of the links that went with the chart templates. I'm done for now. I think it is ready for any larger-scale reworking that is needed. I will probably check in now and then to do gnomish edits cleaning up c/e errors in my edit, but if you need further, more substantial help let me know! Wtfiv (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, you are a life savor, and thanks so much for ref fixes/comments. Would very much like to save this page, but am travelling atm, so bear with me in a week or so delay in responding, but...tks! Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, please let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. I should have several weeks in a row of less busy. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wtfiv! I am still buried in real life good and bad stuff, but will get to this when less busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm: If you could look over and list comments/complaints in the next few weeks that would be great. Most of the work has been done, although I want to beef up the "music section" yet. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit behind right now; but this is on my list of things to review and I should have time to look at this before the end of the week. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No panic. I'm travelling for the next 3 weeks, and the book i need for the songs is at home. It would be cool if you could look, but don't stress. Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So here we go:

  • Based on the length guidance for fair use music samples at WP:SAMPLE, both of the song samples are too long by about 8 or 9 seconds
Replaced .oggs of both songs with shorter versions (17 or 18 sec., which is about 10% of song.)
  • " to lines in Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí's 1929 film Un Chien Andalou." - does this need rephrased? Our article on the film says it's a silent film, so there wouldn't be line in the normally understood sense
shorten to: refers to Luis Buniel
  • The Panorama list of The 30 Best Albums of the Year 1970–98 doesn't seem to be directly sourced anywhere and if this doesn't seme to be a notable publication is it really due weight anyway?
"Panorama deleted"
  • The note about unordered lists does not seem to be necessary
note deleted
  • " In the US, the album Billboard 200 at number 171. However with the help of college radio play of "Monkey Gone to Heaven",In the first week of its release in Britain,[64] the record reached number eight on the UK Albums Chart.[63] the album rose to number 98 and spent two weeks in the top 100.[65]" - something seems to have gone wrong here.
Reworked this to: In the first week after its release in Britain,[42] Doolittle was number eight on the UK Albums Chart.[63] In the US, the album entered the Billboard 200 at number 171. With the help of college radio-play of "Monkey Gone to Heaven", it eventually rose to number 98,[64] spending two weeks in the Top 100.[65]
  • " "Juice All Time 50 Albums". Rocklist.net. Archived from the original on May 15, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007." - is this RS?
I left this. I don't really know the music magazine field well enough to judge. I'll let Ceoil decide.

I think this article is fairly close to a keep. Pinging Ceoil and Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. I made the easy changes. I didn't do anything with the music samples, as I've not worked with them. And, I left the RS status of "Juice" for Ceoil. Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned that Juice itself is unreliable. My concern here is a little more two-fold: is whatever this "rocklist.net" source is reliable enough that we can trust that it's reproducing the list right and is linking to basically a bootleg copy of a creative (and presumably copyrighted) list a WP:ELNEVER situation? Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we should get rid of the "Juice" reference, then...Done! Wtfiv (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil and Hog Farm. The sound files are now within the fair use guidelines (17-18 sec, about 10% of song length.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv - well, Iruka13 has now removed both samples on a bit of a technicality (the fair use rationale on the article did not provide an explanation for why this would be used on the album article). So I guess someone just needs to craft a fair use rationale for why the samples would be used in the article, which is a fairly standard use of song samples, and then that whole issue will be resolved. Once we get the samples issue figured out and Ceoil is satisfied with the musical content, I think we're good to keep FA status here. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, but had no idea how to address it. Your post helped a lot! I realized I forgot to reduce the quality of the recording so I did that too. Wtfiv (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned the obvious...after addressing the concerns you made clear (again thanks!) I put the samples back. Wtfiv (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're at a keep here. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog & Wtfiv, very very much appreciated:) I'll be back home with the book sources in three weeks and will add to the songs sect then: can we keep open until then as pressure is good. To note the work by all since the nom[2]. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This weekend. 03:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an apology and update NM am sandboxing a section on the music here[3] and expect to close out in a few days when finished. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update have done an expansion, but it needs a copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720
[edit]

In an effort to get this cleared of FAR, here's a review of the article. I will also be copyediting the article as I review.

  • "while the layering of Francis' and Deal's vocal parts are considered a pinnacle of the pop music technique of girl/boy vocal interplay." Needs a citation
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album appeared on several contemporary end-of-year "Best Album" lists. Both Rolling Stone and The Village Voice placed the album tenth, and independent music magazines Sounds and Melody Maker both ranked the album as the second-best of the year." This is still labeled as "citation needed". Has this been resolved?
  • , not shouldnt be too difficult...its probably in an aniversry survey, best sources seeing from a quick search is [4], but wont use that; hang on. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "praised for the quiet/loud dynamic set up between Black's vocals, Joey Santiago's guitar and the rhythm section." I'm not sure what a quiet/loud dynamic means: I don't think this is a musical term and, while mentioned several times in the article, it's never really explained. Considering that it is a major part of this album's success, maybe it needs to be explained in this article.
    Done...quite verse, loud chorus.. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band's manager Ken Goes suggested two producers" Suggested them for what?
    Produce the album. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the reception section and legacy section contains the "X said Y" sentence pattern. Suggest that the sections be restructured per WP:RECEPTION
    Agree...hold on Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a citation for the personnel section?
    Not necessary, it was the classic line up for their first 4 albums. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any images of the Pixies from this time period that can be added to the article?
    Sadly no. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added one from 2004. Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the review, all points helpful :) Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers would you mind now also looking over...still need to address the reception sect but...gripes and demands much appreciated :) Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soon! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FFFeedback
[edit]
@Firefangledfeathers: Decided to tackle these. Double checked the liner notes on Discogs and they are correct, so I just replaced all of the references with the liner notes reference. As for the Charts section, I'm not quite sure what you mean by underinformative. I spruced up the table, and it seems to comply with Charts sections from other FA articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chart looks better, thanks. Any interest in adding a column for number of weeks on the chart. At least a couple of the sources give that info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo added the column. Good stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, By the looks of it, this article seems to be in good shape. Sources are reliable and plentiful throughout, the article has gotten a nice facelift from Ceoil, and I don't see any outstanding issues. Personally I would like to see more info about the side two songs, and considering how influential this album is I would have expected it to be longer, but the article talks about everything it needs to talk about concisely. I would have no problem keeping this article at FA status, but I also should point out I did help update this article during the FAR process (overall minor edits, but I feel like I should mention it). Famous Hobo (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Famous Hobo. Have beefed up the lead somewhat and your right about coverage on the side two tracks being a bit wanting. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done re side 2 Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil
[edit]

Update for coordinators (ie Nikki): Would like to expand the lead and coverage of the songs on side two, wile keeping Tony1's comments at the FAC in mind.[5] Stuff re the loud–quiet dynamic is met with sources for now but would like to explain further with time. I know this is long becoming tiresome, but getting there, slowly :( Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I believe Firefangledfeathers's concerns have been resolved, and have expanded the music/songs section, and while have put in a request at the GOCE's re any remaining instances of journalese, am now at keep. IOW, any further polish is always welcome, but this IMO is back at standard. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Z1720. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Z170

[edit]
  • "he covered his Marshall cabinets with blankets to make that he didn't his live sound to be interfered with." What is trying to be said in this sentence?
The preceding sentence makes clear - "During this period Santiago became unhappy as he felt Norton was adding too much reverb to his guitar parts." In protest he was self-sabotaging by dampening the sound. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this could be clearer said...but logging off shortly...hold on pls. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the original track listing, the reissue contained the following tracks, all of which were previously released unless otherwise indicated." This has a citation needed tag which should be resolved.
Removed as I really dislike reissues and don't care enough to verify. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the IA Bot to archive various sources.
  • Lede says " released in April 1989 on 4AD records" but infobox gives an exact date. Should the exact date be used?
Not a big deal but done. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that other editors read through the article for a copyedit: I found a lot of small grammar or phrasing mistakes and another look from someone else would be beneficial.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes seen it and thanks. Hopefully will have time tonight Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, have read though and copy dited a few times since, and to say again, a request at GOCE was made about a month ago. If Z1720 is going to be vague as to prose issues, except to say that they are out there, not sure how actionable that is. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just did another copy edit and I'm ready to declare a keep. I am still concerned that I was finding really simple mistakes in the prose when I was reading it over. In response to @Ceoil:'s concerns about vague prose issues, some of the simple mistakes that I found in this latest round of copy-editing include: "quite/loud" fixed to "quiet/loud", "beigins" fixed to "begins", "that" fixed to "than" and "They lyrics that the idea of destruction further" fixed to "The lyrics take the idea of destruction further," (this edit), as well as fixing a quotation mark before a song and removing a duplicate "along" in this edit. I am unsure if I have found all of these kinds of obvious mistakes, let along more complicated grammar and phrasing concerns, so I would feel much more confident if other editors could do another copyedit to fix the mistakes that I missed. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To note i am white knighting, which is more than you have ever done; your the MF who nominated. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Doolittle_(album)/archive1&oldid=1229291769"