Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pearl Jam

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 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Pearl Jam

previous FAC

Article on the American rock band. It has been a collaborative effort between me, -5-, BP322, BGC, WesleyDodds and others. After a thorough peer review, I feel the article is well-written and comprehensive, and is much better than it was at the last FAC. I'm sure any objections will be quickly addressed. CloudNine 10:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some audio samples are missing fair use rationales. Also, I was told by an admin here yesterday that only around three audio samples are acceptable in an article for it to qualify as fair use. Epbr123 10:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd rationaled all of them. In progress. I doubt three audio samples is a hard and fast rule, especially when it comes to a band with a varied musical career, such as Pearl Jam. (I can't imagine The Beatles trimming down to three clips). CloudNine 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Turns out only "Daughter" was missing a suitable fair use rationale. CloudNine 10:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the only file I looked at, so I thought it was statistically safe to assume there may have been others. Epbr123 10:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has come such a long way since the previous FAC. I think all of those mentioned above should be commended for their efforts on this article. Just the other day I was reading old talks from the previous FAC regarding the very small number of references at that time. Well as you can see there is a very large amount now. I'm so appreciative of all of your hardwork. IMHO this article certainly deserves a spot as a featured article. --MattWatt 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job everyone! --Esprit15d 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose: Pearl Jam is one of my favorite bands and you have done great justice (representing the good and bad) here very well. However, meeting WP/grammar criteria is another beast entirely. The article still needs a little work. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:[reply]

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written?

• "Drummers that joined the band following Dave Krusen's departure included" - should be "Drummers that have joined the band following Dave Krusen's departure include"
• "bands of the grunge movement" - Grunge should be capitalized
• "21st century" - Century should be capitalized
• "Gossard and Ament had begun playing" - "Gossard and Ament began playing"
• "had been doing previously in Mother Love Bone" - Mother Love Bone can only be repeated so many time before it starts to grate. Take it out of this sentence since it's obvious
• "out a five song demo tape" - five-song should be hyphenated
• "film Singles, "State of Love" - that comma should be a colon or a double-dash
• "Vs. included the songs "Daughter" (sample (help·info)), "Dissident", "Go", "Rearviewmirror", and "Animal."" - Why list these songs? Are they hits? Do they have some other significance or tying factor? "Daughter" is obvious, but the others need some justification, or the list should be trimmed or eliminated. Readers can go to the album page for a tracklisting.
• "They declined to produce music videos" - say "any more music videos" for two reasons: (1) They had already released one (2) They had already declined one. So this is more of a clarification of their future stance than a general policy or new stance.
• "He was replaced by Jack Irons, a close friend of Vedder and the former and original drummer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers; Irons had originally introduced Vedder to the members of Pearl Jam." - I think this statement should include something like "finally replaced by Jack Irons" or something to acknowledge that he finally agreed to join the band
• "Irons had originally introduced Vedder to the members of Pearl Jam." - remove this redundant statment
• "an homage to" - should be "a homage" (the first syllable in homage is accented)
• " drummer Matt Cameron on a temporary basis;[37] Cameron soon became a permanent replacement for Irons" - kind of wordy. Just say " drummer Matt Cameron on an initially temporary basis,[37] but he soon became a permanent replacement.
• The information in the Etymology section should be integrated into the last paragraph of the Formation: 1984–1990 section. Its current placement is anticlimatic and the section is awfully short.

1b. Comprehensive? Yes

1c. Factually accurate? Yes

1d. Neutral? This is particularly well done.

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with

Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects

?:

2a. Concise

lead section

? Yes

2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes

2c. Table of contents? I didn't really catch this the first time (apologies), but the TOC is crowded with the American Music Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, Grammy Awards, and the Esky Music Awards. Those do not need to be seperate subheadings. You might see John Mayer for table ideas, or even Alison Krauss for prose ideas. You could even just bold the text, instead of having them as headings.

2d. Sufficient inline citations? Yes

3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Images all look good, but the samples at the end of the article - notsomuch. As much as it sucks, laundry list style sample sections are frowned on, and just about forbidden from FAs. Because they don't support discussion in the body, their fair use claim in tenuous. I saw several samples nicely integrated into the text of the artcle; I would keep those and delete that section at the end.

4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vedder is noted for his "poetic lyrics and Jim Morrison-like vocal growl." - This opinion is only according to DeRogatis, so it should be attributed to him. The way it is currently worded suggests this opinion is held by several critics. LuciferMorgan 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded. CloudNine 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band’s latest album, 2006’s Pearl Jam, was cited as a return to the band’s early sound. By whom? Which critics cited this? Please name those who hold this opinion. LuciferMorgan 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rephrased it so that it appears as a critical opinion; naming the two critics (there are more) would sound awkward. CloudNine 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Nirvana had brought grunge to the mainstream in the early 1990s, Pearl Jam quickly outsold them and became not only the most successful alternative rock band, but the most popular American rock band of the decade. Debatable this is, and I'm sure other critics disagree. How do you measure success? Different critics measure success in different ways, so it's hard to determine. It would be best to simply attribute this to Erlewine. LuciferMorgan 09:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed succcessful (agree, this is unclear) to popular (consensus on the talk page indicated that popularity was measured by record sales rather than critical opinion. CloudNine 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin said in 2001, "The group that was once accused of being synthetic grunge now seem as organic and principled a rock band as exists."[32] When quoting a magazine, it is best to name the writer and the publication they're working for. Different staff within the same magazine may have differing opinions, and sometimes this proves to be the case with retrospective views and so on. Essentially, a review is the opinion of the reviewer and not the magazine as a whole. LuciferMorgan 10:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Spin, the article with the quote is by "Eric Weisbard with Jessica Letkemann, Ann Powers, Chris Norris, William Van Meter, and Will Hermes," so perhaps that's sign of consensus in the Spin offices? Perhaps I should just state the primary writer, Weisbard? CloudNine 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come so many people wrote one article? Something doesn't sit right with that. LuciferMorgan 11:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the article. It is strange though. CloudNine 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a collection of various quotes by the band and other people compiled for this piece. And I'm sure all of the authors listed were the people involved with different interviews of different people. Just look at all the various people they have quoted! Everyone from Dave Grohl to Cameron Crowe. The main author "Weisbard" was probably just the guy who picked all of these snippets and organized them into sections. So I'm not entirely sure how you would reference this, but I would just use the lead author. I used to read 5H a lot many years ago, but I never saw this. Probably because this was done in 2001. This is a really interesting read. --MattWatt 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed your point; I've cited Weisbard as the source of the comment. CloudNine 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You wikilink decades, 1990s, but not solo years, 1990. A proper lead, being a summary of the body, won't need several footnotes, only 1-2, if any. See if you can rework it and move footnotes into the body.Sumoeagle179 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see where I've wiki-linked decades in the prose. Could you point out an example? We need three citations at least in the body (for statistics and quotes), and some of the statements are controversial as well (see the talk page for the number of people who have tried to remove "Pearl Jam was the most popular American rock band..."). I would like to remove some citations, but I don't think it's a good idea at the moment. CloudNine 10:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said wikilink decades, you misunderstood. Just search for '0s' and you'll see. Wikilink the first instance of each. The first six cites are in the lead and 3-4 can be moved to the body, especially with a rewrite of the lead.Sumoeagle179 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion (concurrent with the general guideline) that only full dates need to be linked. WesleyDodds 08:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have as little citations as possible in the lead, but I don't think rewriting the lead is the right move here. CloudNine 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes needed
  • ^ Marks, Craig. "Let's Get Lost". Spin Magazine. December 1994.
  • ^ Pearl's Jam. Entertainment Weekly (1993-11-19).
• Doesn't look professional; if you wikify the dates, they'll show consistently per user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I've fixed the citations now. Wikilinking dates now. CloudNine 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all that I've seen. CloudNine 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why "Century" with the cap?

• Per an above comment. My preference is lower-case, which I'll change to.

• Done.

• MOS breach in internal final punctuation for quote.

• Done. CloudNine 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned at the number of fair-use-claimed audio samples (ouch, SEVEN?) that are not the subject of critical, descriptive or analytical commentary in the surrounding text. I don't think they qualify. Tony 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressing this now. CloudNine 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed those that did not have critical commentary. There are now five samples. CloudNine 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As member of Alternative music WikiProject. Great work on this article! Had some issues with the lead though:
  • Is it necessary to mention each of the drummers associated with the band? From what I gather from the article, the likes of Chamberlain hardly did anything. It might be enough to mention just the current line-up in the lead.
    • Done.
  • "Formed in the aftermath of the demise of Ament and Gossard's previous band Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam broke into the mainstream with its debut album Ten in 1992, nearly a full year after its release." - Seems a little choppy to me. The sentence doesn't make any sense unless one reads about it further in the article.
    • Rephrased.
  • The 2nd para of the lead could be split into 2: the first dealing with the various albums and the second about their boycotts of videos and Ticketmaster etc.
    • I'm not sure there's enough content to fill two paragraphs; the current version flows quite well through their career.
  • "Most popular American rock band" is mentioned at least twice throughout the article, but although it is backed by a source, it should probably be added with a "according to All Music Guide" in the sentence itself.
    • Consensus on talk indicated that this statement was fine, as popularity is directly linked to record sales.

Tommy Stardust 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. CloudNine 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has occasional singular/pleural disagreement:

• ...Pearl Jam(singular) was nevertheless criticized early on as being a corporate cash-in on the alternative rock explosion. However, they(pleural) became noted for their(pleural) refusal to adhere to traditional music industry practices as their(pleural) career(singular) progressed.
• Since their(pleural) inception, the band(singular)...
• No disagreement here: Pearl Jam(singular) has outlasted many of its(singular) contemporaries.
  Rosiestephenson 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your review. CloudNine 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good to me. Trebor 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I haven't read the article and might not (this FAC doesn't seem to have a dearth of exposure); but a glance at the infobox shows me that the "Associated Acts" list is quite bloated, to the point of marked abnormality. Just to make sure, is everything on that list absolutely necessary? I'd recommend going through these one-by-one and excising all but the essential. If they're all essential then so be it, but it is quite bloated and is reflects somewhat sloppily. Grim-Gym 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I've always though that; I wonder if I should cut down on some of MacCready's and Cameron's side-projects. They do all have one or more members of Pearl Jam though. CloudNine 07:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Green River, Mother Love Bone, and Temple of the Dog should stay, since they feature multiple Pearl Jam members. The rest are less important. WesleyDodds 07:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the more minor projects of one member. I'm sure their membership can be mentioned in their respective biographies. CloudNine 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Grim 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seems good enough. igordebraga ≠ 22:45, 22 September 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.