Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [1].

9.0: Live

Nominator(s):
talk), Rezter, Blackngold29


This is a

talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment

  • "The album was recorded from 2004 to 2005" - is that really the best way to phrase it? Passive voice and very strange wording...
  • "The album... The album... The album... zzzzz..." - in more than one place.
  • "While touring in 2004, the band recorded live shows with the intent of creating a live album and to help keep their performance at a high level for the album." - I've read this five times and I still don't understand what it means.
  • "year-long" - methinks that should be "yearlong".
  • I'm uncertain about the structure of the article. The "Recording and production" has information about the content of the album, which might be better split off into another section.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. As for splitting up the section, if a new one was created, it would be pretty small. The information does somewhat tie in to the creation/production of the album so it does somewhat belong there.
talk) 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - personally, I don't think it would be too short, and still think it should be a separate section, but that's nothing major. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

  • I know the article is short, but I always like to see a two paragraph lead at the minimum.
  • The album also includes tracks which are rarely played live, as well as the first ever live performance of the song "Skin Ticket". 9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty in album sales in Australia and the United States and was certified Gold in the United States. Link Australia and United States.
  • Is it standard to leave the Track listing section unsourced?

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is enough information to really substantiate a two paragraph lead. The lead would appear to overpower the rest of the article more than it should. Australia and United States are common enough terms that readers don't need to be educated on them by linking them. Track listing is typically unsourced.
talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments - sources look good, all links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Aren't short articles like this the reason GA exists? indopug (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe length is part of the criteria for Featured Articles. (Well technically it is, but from the descrption given it sounds more like "Focus on topic" more than length.) Blackngold29 19:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it covers everything that needs covering it should pass, unfortunately I don't know enough about the content matter itself to determine if it is all covered. Good luck though. — Realist2 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: In the US it peaked at #17 and was certified gold. In other countries it did worse. IMHO I would not characterize this as "selling well", I could easily pull up numerous sources where these sales figures would be panned as a flop. I think it needs to be made more clear that these are relatively good sales considering it is a live album, that you might just be able to get away with. The fact that you have only dedicated two lines to the commercial appeal is unfortunate and should be expanded. — Realist2 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited that part.
talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Easy enough, the commercial aspect could be expanded still, am I right in thinking singles were released from this album? — Realist2 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The singles were released from their original studio albums.
talk) 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The Blister Exists and The Nameless seem to indicate they came from the live album. I'm no expert on live albums, am I missing something, are the articles on these singles incorrect? — Realist2 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Both were recorded for Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses), but not released until after 9.0 was. The music videos for both songs use footage from live performances, most likely recorded on the 9.0 tour. For example "The Blister Exists" wasn't released until 2007, three years after Vol. 3. So I don't know technically which album they were for, I would lean toward Vol. 3 (they are listed as singles on its article). Blackngold29 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what constitutes then being classed as being released from the album. Is it being released in support of the album or actually being the recording that is used on the album? Here are the videos from the singles; The Nameless and I can confirm that... that IS the same recording that appears on the 9.0 Live album. The Blister Exists and I can confirm that, that is the recording from Vol. 3. The Nameless is a single from 9.0 Live because it was released as a promotional single around the time 9.0 Live was released and it IS the recording from 9.0 Live, however Blister Exists isn't a single from this album because was released as a promotional single around the same time that
Voliminal: Inside The Nine was released and features the recording from Vol. 3. REZTER TALK ø 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments

Looking pretty good overall. —Giggy 14:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if I missed anything. Blackngold29 15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All looking pretty good! Support. —Giggy 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose The "Reception" section neatly excises any unfavourable comment on the album - for instance, the Rolling Stone quote removes the part about "the songs' samey-ness" whilst there is nothing about the Popmatters criticism that the album suffers from being made up from various shows. Also, there's nothing about the main criticism of the album - its poor mix, alluded to in the popmatters review and detailed more clearly here and here for example. Yes, the album got generally good reviews, but that doesn't mean you can ignore any flaws completely! Black Kite 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I added some more Rolling Stone and PopMatters stuff, as suggested. I'll leave it to the other guys to use the other reviews, if they wish. —Giggy 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just looking quickly at the
    Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, what is with the "musicOMH.com (Positive)"? what is it and does it add anything?
Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You do realize that this is a live album, right? Musical and lyrical themes belong to the articles for the albums where the songs actually come from. This album is a compilation of songs from other albums. The musicOMH is another review from a notable music website; there's no Wikipedia article for it so there's nothing to link to.
talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Notable? How can you prove that? For sure it is not well known enough to just list it without having a note or anything like that. Also, are there any other FA-class live albums from other bands?
Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think there are any other FA-class live albums; there are many studio albums I can point you to, though, but don't think there are any that are live. Yet. musicOMH is a reliable source, which is why its review is used.
talk) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not debating weather it is a reliable source or not (I assumed it was). But to a random reader stumping onto a FA should be able to understand what random hames like this ones mean. Since it is not well known and it does not have an article, I think it deserves at least a note to what is it if this is going to be an FA.
Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that it's format is different from the others so at first glance it might not be obvious what it is. I have removed it as we have three other reviews in its place.
talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I cannot remember what particular article it was, but I remember seeing that every review quoted in the review section should be in the infobox. And if a Starred or Grade is not given, it should be summed up as "Positive", Negative, or Mixed. I think the MusicOMH review should be re-added for this reason. Blackngold29 19:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. This article has 598 words prose, about 1/4 the average size of album articles (2420 words) and less than half the size of the smallest of the 26 album FAs I checked (Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) at 1288 words). [Raw data available if desired]. This article is extremely short which raises concerns about the comprehensive criterion. In my view, a comprehensive article ought to cover what's expected of fully-developed articles on a similar topic. This is a live album so some aspects of a studio album don't apply, but cover art and marketing are common sections and seem applicable. Most album articles have something about themes or style - the comparable question here is: why were these songs chosen over others, and perhaps why was one performance chosen over another (if they did more than one live performances of the same song). On some topics it may only take 600 words to cover everything we know, but then omitting anything would be a problem. Larger articles would probably be allowed more flexibility to cover some aspects of the topic lightly. Gimmetrow 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gimmetrow raises some valid points. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he has some valid points, the problem is we can only add what we have reliable sources for. The band is pretty secretive about some things, they still don't show their faces in many public events, certainly not in concert. I would love to add this stuff, and I'll look, but I wouldn't be surprised not to find much more than we already have. I think the key item of criteria is "comprehensive length" not x words of length. Blackngold29 03:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the FAC says "it neglects no major facts or details". I don't think not having information on the cover art (which we have no information or sources for) and the promotion (which was really just "The Nameless" single [I have added this info]), is neglecting major facts or details. REZTER TALK ø 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a 600 word article, any missing "details" stand out. Gimmetrow 15:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose we do with no additional sources? Blackngold29 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that really short articles should explain somehow that they cover everything we know. I also wonder, if "everything we know" doesn't cover something we ought to know, but it's reasonable it will be known in the future, should that article be considered comprehensive now? Gimmetrow 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the article is "short" is relative and isn't part of the criteria, it is the comprehensiveness that matters. I don't know what info would "be known in the future", as if somebody would write an article about the cover art of the album three years after it was released? I understand that this is the first live album GA and possibly FA and we want to set a high standard for future noms, but we've covered recording, reception, and explained certain aspects (the vocal announcement, rare songs) to the best that our sources allow us. If I wanted to learn something about an album, that would be the info I would want to know, not who drew the picture on the front. Obviously if that info could be found it would be nice to include it, but I don't see it on the FA criteria list.
What I'm trying to say is: As per the FA criteria the article is supposed to be comprensive. I believe that it is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. Obviously if new info comes to light, it will be added. But I don't see how one could say it needs to be more comprehensive, when it is as good as it's gonna get. Believe me I would love to add ten paragraphs of info to it, but there just isn't any info to do that. Blackngold29 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very "short" articles tend to leave the reader unsatisfied, so they get looked at more carefully for things that wouldn't matter so much in a 2000 word article. I didn't put "objection" up there; I'm trying to come to some agreement how to handle such articles. But for something specific: the only thing I knew about this album before reading this article was that the album contained "Purity", the song left off another album for copyright reasons. Perhaps explain how the song was OK on this album? Gimmetrow 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean, I would love to add an explination of the appearance of "Purity", but I don't have one; reliable or otherwise. Perhaps we should make it more evident that info such as "lyrical and musical themes" is included on the articles of the first three albums? Would adding a summary of these themes for a few songs be repeating too much info? Blackngold29 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if we added a section with a {{
talk) 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Why would we have to do that? That would be blatant
WP:OR and it's like trying to work out why they pick certain songs for a live set. You don't have to do that for live performance DVDs so why would you have to do it for a live album? REZTER TALK ø 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If neither the band nor anyone associated with them ever said why they put certain rare tracks on the album, fine, but if they did, it should be there. The overall question is how to handle very short articles, or would it be OK to have an article like Adrastus of Cyzicus as an FA if it comprehensively covered its topic? If we had a rule that articles under (say) 1200 words could be FA but not appear on the main page, it might relieve some of the concern. Gimmetrow 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting at, but I think it would be a mistake to require X amount of words. One of my most recent english teachers oft stressed the point of concise writing, and that better writing often comes from fewer words of better quality. If you were to say 1200 words is minimum, you might have people taking good 1100 word articles and adding words in just to increase the length, while at the same time they're decreasing quality. It doesn't seem fair to me that we have articles with every known published fact on the topic and they fail GA because they're too short, though I can understand failing them for FA. To me, the Adrastus of Cyzicus article doesn't seem to cover a notable enough topic to warrant an article. Blackngold29 03:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA shouldn't have a length requirement - that was the basic idea of GA. The Adrastus page was something of an extreme example, but there certainly are historical and other topics where everything known can be covered in 600-800 words, maybe less. These should have no problem passing GA. I don't even have a major concern with FA status for a short article if there is a good argument against merging, and the case is made that it's everything we know (for Adrastus you can cite historians making statements not only that we know X, but that X is all we know). But appearing on the main page is something more. My general impression is that "short" articles rarely appear on the main page unless they are "traditional" encyclopedia topics. Gimmetrow 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "Marketing and promotion" section should be added. The following articles, here and [2], is such information that could flesh out such a section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done that. REZTER TALK ø 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "during the Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) world tour" I think this is too much for an infobox? It is better if mentioned in the main text.
  • "9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty in album sales in Australia and the United States and was certified Gold in the United States." Too much "in"?
  • "the band recorded concerts" you mean a video footage?
  • ”Crahan said the band was encouraged to pay more attention to detail than usual” Is Crahan part of the band? Sorry but I don’t know of Slipknot. Also, the detail refers to?
  • ”Crahan said the band was encouraged to pay more attention to detail than usual, saying, "when you've got a microphone hanging onto your every note, you tend to give maybe 115 percent instead of 110 percent." I think this part breaks the flow of the paragraph?
  • ”In October 2005, Slipknot promoted Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) during a world tour, which included 233 concerts spanning 28 months in 34 countries.” Is this part of the promotion of 9.0. Live?
  • ”9.0: Live peaked in the top twenty for album sales in the United States and Australia” The table says that the album peaked in Australia at number 26. Maybe its Austria.
  • Anything else worthy of mention?
  • You did not mention the producers in the text?
  • Also the second label, only Roadrunner.
  • There is no mentioned critical reviews in the lead. --Efe (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Nuclear Blast label as there was no citation, if it's true can someone re-add it and clarify where they released it. I don't know what to write about the producers, most don't even have their own articles. From my understanding there was very little mixing, the tracks appear as they were recorded. Everything else has been adressed. Blackngold29 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnny Loftus of Allmusic complimented the band's "relentless touring".
    • I think this should be removed in the lead. Maybe you can summarize what was the reviewers say about the album. Also, the lead can be divided into paras? --Efe (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's prose summarizes all information about the album's commercial performance in one sentence. Even if all the available sources were used in the article, it should at minimum summarize the information in the "Chart positions" table. But it doesn't, and there are sources out there that give further information about the album's chart history, which aren't used in this article. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is reflected in the final sentence of the reception section. If there are additional sources please feel free to add them or leave them here. Blackngold29 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. I think the article is a good start but it needs more polishing to meet the FA criteria. I am completely unfamiliar with this band and this album, and I felt a bit lost in a few places because of that. I've tried to detail those below.

  • This article needs a copyedit by an uninvolved editor. I made a stab at the lead, but the remainder of the article needs a bit of work.
    • For example, many of the sentences in Recording and production don't currently flow well.
    • You should also watch your word choices - "first ever " is not very encyclopedic - why not just "first"?
      • Done
    • There is a lot of passive voice - "the band was encouraged to pay more attention " - encouraged by whom or by what?
      • Altered
    • watch for repetitive wording. All three sentences in Promotion say blah blah "was released" blah blah.
      • Done
  • "and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from debut album Slipknot due to copyright issues" - were the copyright issues resolved? how?
    • This has been mentioned above, no info can be found on it. Blackngold29 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on why they chose to use songs that are rarely played live rather than there more popular material? I believe most live albums contain more popular material, and that might deserve a mention.
  • "The vocal introduction to 9.0: Live informing the audience that the band would not be performing was staged by the band to incite anger in the audience" - huh? This needs a bit more explanation.
    • I altered it slightly, but what do you want to know? An annoucement was made that "Slipknot will not be performing this evening" to make fans angry and get them pumped up for the first song. Blackngold29 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there really no other promotion?
  • "commented that the fans' relationship with Slipknot " - is there any detail on what he means here? I don't get it.
    • The Allmusic or the PopMatters review? Both mentioned the fans. In a few reviews, such as the Allmusic review, I tried to show the band's relationship with their fans, because that's obviously a large part of their shows. Blackngold29 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, there just doesn't seem enough info here to establish a relationship. We are told that one exists, but it would be better to be shown examples of what these reviewers are meaning. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please double-check the Reception section to make sure that there is a citation at the end of each sentence with a quote, even if that means citations are duplicated in consecutive sentences. I see at least one issue there.
    • Done
  • I don't understand why the lead uses the quote about "relentless touring". That is not really as much about the album as some of the other quotations that could have been used.
    • Similar to the reception cmt I left above, this was a live album and I tried to reflect that. Blackngold29 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a poor choice of quote for the lead, as it doesn't really seem to fit. Use one that specifically describes the album instead. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the examples I left of copyediting issues were only examples. The whole article needs to be copyedited. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/9.0:_Live/archive1&oldid=1136099108"