Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:14, 31 October 2014

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC) .

Falcon's Fury

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. I have been constantly expanded this article since its announcement in 2013 and I now believe the article meets FA standards. The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Also, just a quick note about its notability, it is the first attraction in the world to use 90-degree rotating seats on a drop tower.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support on references - NickGibson3900 06:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

Oppose There are some issues with the article's comprehensiveness that should be resolved. My major concern is the excessive dating, which contradicts the prose writing style. Here are other aberrations I noticed:

• Why is Sky Jump with capital letters? Is it the company's name?

  Sky Jump is the model of the attraction.

• The second sentence doesn't flow well. That might be because of the absence of linking words, or maybe because too many information is compressed into one sentence.

  Reworded.

• The delay was due to mechanical and technical issues. Technical is a broad term, it can mean anything from bureaucratic problems to controlling malfunction.

  That is as specific as it got in terms of what the park releases/said to media outlets.

• These "interesting soil conditions" are something like unusual soil characteristics?

  I don't know...no one knows. That's why I'm quoting the article (hence the quotations).

• Another sentence that caught my eye was "with fifty winners from each contest among the first riders"? I guess "being elected" could fit in front of "among"?

  Reworded.

• The writing style seems odd at places. The description of Lance Hart could be separated with commas, not in brackets. Also, the use of hyphen seems strange at places (check the 'Records').

  Hard brackets are used when you are cutting a section of the quote out and "pasting" the 2 remaining parts together together.

• Don't you think that Twitter posts would be better instead of Twitter tweets? After all, jargon shouldn't be featured in encyclopedia.

  Done.

• Usually we state the name of the news reporter without ".com"→Florida Trip Guides

  Done.

• Because of safety reasons, the Falcon's Fury was built at night. This is fine, but it is not necessarily connected with the building's reception. The 'History' section might be a better solution.

  I put that sentence there because of what follows after. Also, this is already mentioned in the history section.

• I can not quite understand the last paragraph. There is a prediction that 2014 would have increased attendance by 3–8%. Then it says "as predicted in June 2014". Was the prediction for 2014 made in June 2014? Secondly, how the profit of other four amusement parks is related to this one?

  Fixed the prediction part. Regarding the four parks....the stats given in the news articles COMBINE all the parks together. Also, it shows that though BGT predicted 3 - 8 percent for its own park, attendance only increased by 0.3 percent for ALL parks combined (aka...Falcon's Fury didn't help at all).

• There are number of words considered part of the everyday vocabulary and not directly related to the topic that are linked: square feet, amusement park, sweepstakes, Easter egg, etc.

  I'm leaving amusement park linked as that is linked in almost every GA and FA article related to amusement parks. And square feet is automatically linked as it is apart of the Convert template.

@Retrohead and NickGibson3900: Thank you both for you feedback. I will be replying to all your comments later today (I can already explain/fix all your concerns....it's just going to take time to type it out!!!)--Dom497 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick response. Please have understanding for my concerns, as I'm novice in reviewing non-music articles. Another note I forgot to leave above was incorporating the statement from the box to the first paragraph in 'Ride experience'. I think it's nothing spectacular and does not need to be highlighted.--Retrohead (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This review has been open more than six weeks and I'm afraid hasn't attracted enough commentary in that time to judge consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) .

Oxford College of Emory University

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see this article become featured status. Thank you all in advance for reviewing and making sure that this article meets the criteria! haha169 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Done
    • Not quite done yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • What about now? I've removed periods from the alt texts and the intramural football team. --haha169 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• File:Oxfordcollegelogo.svg: FUR could be more expansive - in particular the "n.a." [parameters should be filled in, they are at least partially applicable
  • Done
• File:Oxford_city_plan_(1837).jpg: archival images are often not published near the time of their creation - when/where was this first published?
  • Done I don't feel like this was ever published, except for being viewable at the Emory University archives, so I switched the template to PD-old, based on the death of the author plus 100 years. Is this acceptable?
    • Almost: life+100 would be correct, but the tag you've used is life+70. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, whoops, thanks for catching that oversight. I've fixed it. --170.140.153.177 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Apologies, forgot to log in on a public computer. --haha169 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• File:IsaacSHopkins.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, without which we cannot conclude that the author died over 70 years ago
  • Done I don't know, so I just removed the image
• File:Yun_Chi-ho's_1910's.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done

Thank you for your image review. Please let me know if you need anything else! --haha169 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox (for example, the motto) do not appear to be sourced anywhere
  • Done. I also added sources for the enrollment figures and Dean Stephen Bowen. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Emory College continued to struggle with financial hardships after the war" - source?
  • Added' --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Source for Lamar as alumnus?
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Both FN51 and FN60 do not link anywhere
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Dead external links
  • I don't understand how to fix this one. All of the dead links have working archive URLs... --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you're right - I thought a couple had been missed but I was mistaken. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• For page numbers, single pages should use "p." only, multiple pages use "pp."
  • Done. I didn't know that. Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Still a few here that are the wrong way round, please double-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. Think I've got them all now. --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Most web citations include accessdates, but not FN19 - why?
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Some of your web sources (ex. FNs 39 and 40) are missing publishers
  • Done--haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Emory Magazine or The Emory Magazine? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Without the "the". Oops. --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Emory is usually wikilinked in citations, but sometimes isn't - either all, none, or first time only, up to you but be consistent
  • Done--haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN45: the link mentions Sodexo, but they don't appear to be the publisher
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN58: Emory Edge appears to be a publication title and so should be italicized
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Compare formatting of FNs 64 and 65 (the latter is correct)
  • Done--haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN66 and 67: suggest either using full "U.S. House of Representatives" or switching to Congress - help us non-Americans out ;-)
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN70 through 72 suddenly change date formatting - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure, must have something to do with older versions of the article. I've fixed it. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the archived urls showing up in the checklinks tools, everything should be fixed. Thank you again for your very thorough review; I appreciate it! --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

Weak oppose Oppose, on prose grounds. Some specific points from the first couple of sections are below, and then a couple of items from later in the article to indicate that the problems are throughout. There is a lot of good material here but it needs a pass through from a good writer who is unfamiliar with the material and hence will spot places where the writing is disconnected or out of chronological order.

• "In 1833 the Georgia Methodist Conference first considered establishing a church-sponsored manual labor school": I'm not sure what "first" means here. Was this the first time they considered establishing a church-sponsored manual labour school? Or the first time they considered establishing a school at all?
• "The Conference then granted Ignatius Alphonso Few a charter to establish a college": I don't think "then" means anything here; I'd cut it.
• "The new school, Emory College, was first established on tract of land": you don't need "new" and "first"; I'd cut "first".
• "This site was chosen because of its relative distance from the city": cut "relative".
• "Because the college and town were planned together, many of the town's residents were affiliated to the college. Consequently, the two entities shared a common purpose." I don't understand what "affiliated" means here -- do you mean that most of the town's residents were connected to the college in some way, usually by employment? If so, the second sentence isn't really clear either; what does it mean to say that the town shared the same purpose? I imagine the intended meaning is something like "the town was run in a way that was supportive of the college's goals", but it's not clear.
• I think the second half of this paragraph needs some resequencing -- a more chronological sequence would make it easier on the reader. You say the college was established on a tract of land, but in fact both the college and town were established there, and saying that at that point would be helpful.
• As far as I can tell the Georgia Conference Manual Labor School was in Covington, but the articles doesn't actually say that.
• You don't give the date of establishment of Emory College; the town's date of incorporation is given later, but not the college. Are they the same? It doesn't seem so, because "two years after the chartering" is in 1838, but the town isn't incorporated till 1839.
• How can the first act of the new student body by in 1837, when the first class wasn't welcomed till 1838?
• "remains the oldest structure still remaining": rephrase to avoid two "remain"s.
• "Both Phi Gamma and Few Halls were used as infirmaries for wounded soldiers from 1843 to 1864" implies that it was used for that purpose well before the Civil War; can we be more specific? The only context the article gives is the Civil War.

This is where I stopped reading in detail. A couple more points chosen at random from later in the article (this is not a complete list of problems):

• "Prior to the outbreak of war, financial tension had reduced the college's income and student body, and the school briefly closed in the summer of 1861 in anticipation of the American Civil War": redundant mention of the war.
• "By the turn of the 20th century, Emory College still remained rooted in Oxford. Nonetheless, Emory College produced several notable graduates during this era." Why "nonetheless"? And what does "rooted" mean here; just "located"?
• "The campus and the city of Oxford was planned and built in 1837 by Edward Lloyd Thomas ..." We already know the date from the earlier section; it's not unreasonable to separate the campus section in the way you've done here but I don't think this works. At a minimum, avoid duplicating material between the two sections unless it's necessary for flow; and keep the Campus section to current status, with the history in the historical section.
• "was established as Emory University's unofficial mascot and originated in Oxford in 1901": unless you mean "was originated", which would be less than ideal phrasing, this needs to be reworded.
• "As of 2012 there were over 50 registered student organizations which cover a variety of interests": tense mismatch between "were" and "cover".

I'm sure you can fix the points I've raised above, but I think the whole article needs to be copyedited. It's not in terrible shape, but the prose is not yet at FA level, I'm afraid. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Mike! I will get to work on them soon, as well as do a full copyedit of my own. Done --haha169 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha169 asked me to take another look at the article after the recent copyedit. It's definitely improved, but reading through I still see places where the prose is less than optimal. I've changed to "weak oppose" because the problems now look to me to be more marginal. I would still recommend a third party copyedit. I see no problems with content or comprehensiveness but haven't done a thorough review with those criteria in mind; I was paying attention mostly to the prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This has been open almost eight weeks without achieving consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly; it can be renominated after a minimum of two weeks has passed and I suggest following Mike's advice to seek a further copyedit by an uninvolved party during that time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC) .

Ashley Tisdale

Nominator(s): decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale has been my favorite actress/singer for years. I've been working on her main article since 2009 and I've made over 1,300 edits on it since them. I've put a lot of hard work on it after seeing it fail the FA nomination three times - all of them mainly because of the prose. I took some time to rewrite the article and there was major changes since last time it was nominated. I requested for a peer review two months ago (SNUGGUMS, thanks a lot again!) and a lot of improvements were made. After it was achieved, I requested Misplaced Pages's Guild of Copy Editors for a FA-quality copyedit and JudyCS was nice enough to help me out. Now I believe the article is finally ready to receive that gold star and therefore here I am for the fourth (and hopefully last) time. decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

After a detailed review and extensive work/improvements from you, Decodet, I now officially support. Ms. Tisdale would be very proud of your work, kudos for your efforts :D ! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I checked a few sources for close paraphrasing and accuracy and requested a couple of changes as a result. Other than that there were no red flags; the prose is good enough, and it appears comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Struck my support; see comment below after Laser brain's comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

Temporary oppose because of sourcing and formatting. The websites and publishers should be linked in the "citation template" if they have Wiki articles. Also, you should write the author if the article has one. Here are few examples I'm worried about:

• ref 7—What makes JCC of Greater Monmouth County a reliable source? The text is not authorized, the original link is dead, and the content in the archived link doesn't seem like a high-quality report.

Replaced it. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• refs 14, 23, 30, 53, 88—What makes an online music/movie seller such as iTunes Store a reliable source? Also, why is this so frequently used?

Removed ref 14 as it was unneeded. Replaced them, except for ref 88 (now 85): I am sourcing the release of the song to digital retailes: a digital retailer link cannot be used in this case? decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• ref 29—It appears that musicline.de is in German. This content is unauthorized, but I'm wondering what information are you sourcing with this website?

You are right, this source wasn't actually needed. Just got lost in the there. It's been removed. By the way, what do you mean by "unauthorized"? decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The text is not accredited to a journalist.--Retrohead (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• refs 58, 77—What kind of website is The Numbers? If you are sourcing box office success, why don't you use Box Office Mojo?

Done. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• ref 117—the author is not credited (Jill Heller)

Done. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Allmusic has different publishers. Which is it: Rovi or All Media Network?

Done. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Retrohead - I've worked in your issues but I couldn't understand what did you mean with "The websites and publishers should be linked in the "citation template". Can you explain that for me, please? Other than that, is there any other issues I need to work on in order to receive your support? Thanks for your review! decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For example, if you are using The Hollywood Reporter as a source, The Hollywood Reporter should be linked in the 'References' section. I'll post a more detailed review shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

But shouldn't it be linked once in the reference section? Otherwise, wouldn't it be overlinking? decodet. (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you can go that way too. I thought you opted to link the website/publisher in every citation.--Retrohead (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• "she announced her intention to make music again"—Can you shrink this a little bit, losing the intention clause? It seems too wordy.

Done. Is it better? decodet. (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made further modifications. Think it reads better now.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• What do you mean by charitable "causes" in the 'Philanthropy'?

For example, "Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief" is a cause. Make-A-Wish foundation is an organization. That's why we have both in the first sentence. Is that what you meant?

Ok, thanks for the explanation.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• You've got two back-to-back "however" in the first paragraph of 'Philanthropy'.

Done! decodet. (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done, the same wording is still present.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I forgot to save my edit but thanks, it's copyedited now. decodet. (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Retrohead. Anything else I need to work on or everything is good? :) decodet. (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delink some of the common words that are unrelated to the topic: bullied, graduating, etc. Also, a single term is supposed to be linked only once in the article's body. You've got ABC linked several times, for example.

Delinked the words. I thought a term should be linked once in a section, not in the entire article's body. For example: High School Musical is linked in the introduction. Does it mean we can't have it linked again in Career, Acting and Filmography sections? decodet. (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I checked other FAs and apparently it's a standard to have a term linked in the lead and then the first time it appears in the article's body. I've delinked some terms. decodet. (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Can you eliminate the empty spaces in the citation templates? They seem to overload the page with unnecessary bytes.

Done (after a quite hard work, I'd say). decodet. (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me to report the progress. I'm coming to this page once a day, so I'll be monitoring the updates.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Another concern I have is the frequency and accuracy of the quoting. For example, take a look at the opening sentence of 'Acting'→"with every character, just something that can make own". There are too many brackets, which worries me that the original quote might lose its meaning. Why don't you paraphrase this one?

Done! decodet. (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the 'Musical style', I want to ask why the Allmusic reviews are singled out? As far as I know, this section should be an overview of her style, not just reflection on what one website thinks about her. Is there something on Google Books about this topic that might serve as general source?

Done! Is it better? Couldn't find anything on Google Book. decodet. (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to replace the Allmusic comments with another ones. I meant to give an overview of the critic's comments about the albums. Metacritic would be the best source to see if the album was well-received or not. For example, writing that "the Los Angeles Times gave the album a negative review" should be noted in the album's article. This one should present the overall reception and general view.--Retrohead (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Before I do any changes, I just want to discuss something with you, Retrohead: her debut album Headstrong doesn't have a rating on Metacritic, only her second one has one (48%). So you suggest (1) we only discuss her second album based on Metacritic; or (2) do that but also keep the critic's comments about Headstrong? decodet. (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggested Metacritic as a website that gives overall critical reception of certain albums. 48% indicates neutral/mediocre overview. As for the first album, isn't there anything on the net that we can use as a reference to write how the debut album was received, without going in detail?--Retrohead (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit in that piece and tried to make it have an overview of how received her albums were. Is it better? decodet. (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Music style sections aren't supposed to read that way. Take a look at Megadeth or Pearl Jam to get the idea. No need for writers' statements unless they mention something extraordinary. By the way, the word "critics" is used far too often. Give overview of the style, lyrics, reception, etc. Don't go into details how Billboard didn't approve her vocal performance and similar.--Retrohead (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tisdale has released only two studio albums so far which didn't perform that well commercially so there isn't much material to use, unlike Megadeth and Pearl Jam. However, after reading those articles, I tried to make it somehow similar. That part pretty much only have how the albums were received without getting into details and quotes. What do you think? decodet. (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the prose was better the old way.--Retrohead (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I revert that section back to what it was, then? decodet. (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've compared both and think the oldest version is better structured.--Retrohead (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done some adjustments, what do you think? decodet. (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Return to broadcast television? How is this different from television?

Television can be either broadcast or cable. She used to have cameos on broadcast series in her early career, then she moved to cable (Disney Channel). decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, understood.--Retrohead (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• guest appearance in an episode (instead of on)

Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• as well as serve→and serve

Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is it per Wiki's manual style companies to be italicized? Check Blondie Girl Productions. Also a description as "company" is fine because we can see it is a production from its name.

Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The first and second paragraph in 'Established career and marriage' aren't chronological. The first one report event in 2013, while the second talks about mid-2012.

Is it supposed to be chronological? I mean, I personally thought it would be better to use each paragraph for a different theme, e.g. 1st paragaph is about her work as a producer, 2nd is about her word as an actress and 3rd about her music. I thought the information is offered better in that way, otherwise it'd be something like "acting -> producing -> acting -> music -> producing -> acting -> producing"... you see my point? decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rule, just my personal preference. But if you're following a certain writing pattern, nevermind.--Retrohead (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• You need to be consistent with the formatting. If you are using album (year), correct the "Guilty Pleasure in 2009" from the third paragraph.

Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• A little date trimming would be useful in this section. Omitting "April 2013" and "since 2012" from "Tisdale told MTV in April 2013 that she has been recording her third studio album since 2012", for example.

Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note -- It looks to me like Retrohead's review is still in progress, correct me if I'm wrong . Also I can see we've had some extensive source reviewing for formatting/reliability but I would want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing by a reviewer at some stage soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my review is still in progress, but on the positive side, the comments above are all resolved. I'll be unable to do spotchecks, but plan to finish the review by the end of the week.--Retrohead (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm done with the prose review. Regarding the non-free media used here, there are no audio samples, and the images have free use license. I would suggest using smaller image sizes, as the current ones appear too large.--Retrohead (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! decodet. (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Source spot-check from Laser brain

• Ref 23, source does not support article text (b and c)

• Article text: "Love and heartbreak are major themes in Tisdale's songs."
• Source text: I don't know where you're getting this out of Phares's review. She mentions that one song is a "typical angry breakup song" but that doesn't equate with "major themes" on the album.

I've changed the references and copyedited the sentence a little bit. Is it better? decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Article text: "Heather Phares of AllMusic defined Tisdale's voice as "pleasant", but criticized her lack of "character" on her debut album Headstrong."
• Source text: Again, not really. Phares writes that her voice is "pleasant enough" but not "distinctive" so it's more of a slam than a complement. You are presenting it as praise for her voice. Phares also writes that Tisdale "had more character singing in character as Sharpay" which isn't really the same thing as what you wrote. I appreciate your efforts to paraphrase, but I think you are getting away from what the review is really saying.

Did some copyedit in here. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 88, source does not support article text. This source is used 4 times, 3 of which are incorrect.

• Article text: "She is commonly offered young roles and she believes that is because of how young she looks."
• Source text: Just states that she believes she looks young for 23. It doesn't say anything about that being why she is offered young roles.

Again, done some copyedit in there. I've changed the idea a little bit. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Article text: "Her main acting influences are Shia LaBeouf, Kate Hudson..."
• Source text: It's a pretty big stretch to interpret what she says in the interview as "main acting influences". She says she wants to "emulate" Shia LaBeouf's career, but that doesn't really speak to acting methods or style, just commercial success really. She goes on to say she loves watching Kate Hudson act, but I don't see how that means Hudson is an "acting influence".

Is it better how the idea is presented now? decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 111, OK.
• Ref 122, source does not support article text

• Article text: "She collaborated with the Make a Wish Foundation in 2008 by visiting sick children in hospitals and helping to raise funds for the organization."
• Source: The PDF really confirms only that the wish "to meet Ashley Tisdale" was granted. It doesn't say it was in a hospital or that Tisdale helped raise funds in any direct way. I think what you've written is overly generous in that all we can really tell is that she showed up somewhere for a few minutes at the request of the foundation.

I've changed the references. The new one specifically says she visited sick children in the hospital. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Overall I am pessimistic that sources have been interpreted and used correctly throughout the article based on this sample. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

English is not my birth language so sometimes I may misunderstood the idea of a text while editing paraphrasing. I try my best not to, but sometimes it does happen. I swear it's not bad faith. Anyway, I've worked on your issues. I appreciate your source spotcheck and if there are any more issues please let me know and I'll try to fix them. Thanks, Laser brain. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to coordinators: I had supported above. I did do some spotchecks, found some issues and requested some changes, which were made. Seeing Laser brain's lengthy list above, it now seems to me unlikely that the sources have been interpreted and used correctly, as Laser brain says. I've withdrawn my support above. I would support again if a subsequent review found all problems had been corrected.

By the way, another note to decodet: I would recommend not using the collapse template on other people's comments. It's better at FAC if it's easy to read other reviewers' comments; they shouldn't be hidden in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought we could do that, I'm sorry. Thanks for letting me know. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a big deal; and I don't think there's a prohibition. Just my opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This review has been open almost two months and the source spotcheck has proved a stumbling block. I realise it's a letdown when these issues come up late in the piece, and I'm sure there is no suggestion of bad faith, but the concerns should be addressed outside the FAC process. Once that's done it might be worth another Peer Review, or perhaps if they have time Laserbrain or Mike could assist with another (pre-FAC) spotcheck before renominating here. Thanks all for your efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) .

Xx (album)

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and, IMHO, this might be the best article I've written. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Can't say I've listened much to this band, though I've definitely seen this (rather distinctive) cover around; I guess I assumed they were a Strokes/Arctic Monkeys/Spoon-style garage rock outfit. And it's seriously unfortunate that this nomination's most of the way down the newer Nominations category with no feedback, so I'll be giving my review in short order. Tezero (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Change "alternative" to "alternative rock" to disambiguate from alternative R&B.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why is dream pop listed in the infobox but not the lead? (I actually think it sounds more space rock than dream pop, personally, but that isn't stated.)

"Dream pop" is verified by one source mentioned in #Music and lyrics; IMO, it would be undue weight if we include Sarah Boden's classification of the music as dream pop in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Then can "electronic rock" or something go in the infobox, too? It just seems kind of asymmetric, that's all. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How so, "asymmetric"? I don't think that particular genre could be verified anyway. Do you mean for appearance sake? Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean it looks odd for the genres listed in the lead to overlap so little with those in the infobox, that's all. Tezero (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The band's Jamie Smith" - the frontman? What instrument does he play?

He produces beats for the band and plays the sampler, drums, laptop, MPC, etc. He's not a traditional/conventional band member, so I don't think there's a proper term for his role. His role as producer did not become established until they started recording this album. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "and received widespread acclaim from critics" - Can you get a little more into detail about what critics did and didn't like?

IMO, it'd seem obvious to readers--the music and lyrics that are discussed in the lead's second paragraph--partly because "widespread acclaim" is a fairly strong phrase to suggest there were very few things they didn't like, and at least nothing they disliked collectively. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not a requirement by any stretch, but British English tradition is to omit the Oxford comma.
• "The band also covered" - why "also"? You haven't introduced what else they played.

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comparisons and references to R&B are all over the place; I'd think it ideal to list "R&B" or some derivative in the genre field of the infobox.

#Music and lyrics only mentions "R&B" as an influence or element which the music draws on. The closest derivative I could think of is PBR&B, but there aren't any source for that and this album. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The songs on xx are built around a framework of basslines and beats, and incorporate austere guitar riffs for melody, rhythm, and texture" - should be "and they incorporate"

Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Will be back with more. Tezero (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• "bookmakers and critics considered the xx as favorites" - I can tell what this means, but the wording is a little unclear as to whether they just liked the xx or predicted they would be award-winners. Maybe add "possible" before "favorites" or swap "considered" for "predicted"?

This kind of wording has been used in other print sources (), and the context is established by the preceding sentence and the bit that follows, "...and predicted they would win over..." Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also might want to link "bookmaker". I had to look it up.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs of Reception are very unbalanced - is there any way they could be evened out a bit?

Well that's sort of the point, to be neutral in form. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). To be honest, if I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal, but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Is there a way to organize them any way other than positive vs. negative? It's okay if the answer's genuinely no, but I'm just not big on the layout as of now. Tezero (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ook, but I don't think there is honestly. IMO, this is the best way for the content in that section. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• "said was "quit a feat"" - mistake in original? If not, use .
• "English band Florence and the Machine" - "fellow English band", maybe? (I actually thought they were American.)

Corrected "quite" misspelling and added "fellow". Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Tezero (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support; this is a well-written article that, assuming an appropriate source and image review are provided, I have no problems with making it to FA status. Tezero (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in accordance with the exposure of widespread close-paraphrasing issues below (I generally don't check the sources while reviewing FACs; I leave that to the source reviewers), I have to switch my vote to an oppose as well until these things are fixed. Would these critics actually care about their words being used so transparently? I doubt it, but rules are rules. Tezero (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, the few instances of close-paraphrasing involve critics' voices and are always attributed in-text per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism → "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Rationalobserver has inflated a few instances, even though they are appropriate, despite his personal disagreement with the guideline I've cited, which he has in turn revised to give substance to his objection here. Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my vote back to a tentative support, providing the article does not borrow wholesale from the sources any more than has been shown. Rationalobserver's positions, based on a discussion Dan56 has shown me, do not appear to be those of Misplaced Pages at large. I fully admit that I was merely deferring to his position on copyvios, because I'm not well-versed with that stuff (none of my FACs have ever been opposed on those grounds, so I haven't had to be). Looking at it now, these instances mostly seem frivolous to describe as copyright infringement, since they consist mostly of short phrases that are often reworked considerably in structure and word choice. Rationalobserver seems more to be trying to advance an agenda, though perhaps not in bad faith. Tezero (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from MusikAnimal

Seems to reasonably conform to MOS:ALBUM. I have not completely read through the article (yet), but here are some issues I've noticed thus far. — MusikAnimal 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Recording and production, last paragraph, "I wanted it to sound like..." Even though the citation at the end of the paragraph verifies this, I'd still duplicate the inline citation at the end of the quote. You have to be very strict about verifiability when it comes to quotations.

In a past FAC, where I followed each direct quotation with a citation, this was brought up by a reviewer as an example of citation overkill (WP:FAC/Marquee Moon#Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX). Is this something open to interpretation by each reviewer? "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (WP:CITEOVERKILL) Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: It is absolutely open to interpretation. WP:CITEKILL is merely an essay, not even a guideline. WP:MINREF reflects policy. I completely disagree that having a citation next to a direct quotation from a living person could be considered overkill, you're merely staying within the safe zone of WP:BLP and WP:V policy by doing so. As a reader, if I see a direct quotation, perhaps contentious, I shouldn't have to look for the citation. Having two or more citations whose sources support the same quote could of course be considered overkill. I leave it up to you on whether to duplicate the citation, but certainly don't mistake essays something concrete. — MusikAnimal 19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Promotion, last sentence, ""putting our music on everything, just to put it to anything just for the sake of money"." Per MOS:LQ the period should go before closing double-quotes, generally matching the placement in the direct quote. Obviously a very minor detail.

MOS:LQ mentions how with a " fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside." So that quote is not a full sentence. If I'm mistaken though, I'll fix it. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reference #29 "Rodgers 2010" does not appear to link anywhere. There's also visible cite error in the References section, "A list-defined reference with group name "lower-alpha" is not used in the content".

That's my mistake; there shouldn't be a "d" in "Rogers" lol. I'm not seeing anything about the visible cite error though. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed in the main The xx article "the" in artist's name is always capitalized ("The xx" not "the xx"), while Coexist (album) and others seem to be inconsistent. Not a huge issue, and perhaps intentionally used interchangeably, but I thought I'd point it out.

@MusikAnimal:, I think most of the sources I used in this article don't have "the" capitalized, so I followed that. As long as it's consistent in this article, it's fine. Although looking at FAs like The Beatles, "the" shouldn't be capitalized in The xx, so I've corrected it there. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've cited those direct quotes, @MusikAnimal:. Are there any other (possible) issues to resolve? Dan56 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury

Object to promotion to FA status, based on the following concerns:

• Criterion 1a (prose). I think the writing needs to be improved for clarity, jargon, and cohesive grammar. It should be copy-edited.
• In particular, the Music and lyrics section has some phrasing that indicates a possible misunderstanding of musical terminology, which is something I see a lot in song and album articles. For example, "The songs' melodies are spaced out with rests." Well, that's a weird and redundant statement, as "spaces" in music are rests, plus it's not in the cited source. Another example, "its loudest recording"; I'm unclear what this means? Do you know what loudness means in terms of music recording? It's sourced to Rizov 2010 which isn't in your list of sources.

@Spike Wilbury:, "Negative space" is cited (Cole 2009) and is interchangeable with "rest" (Ma_(negative_space)#Word → John H. Haig, The New Nelson Japanese-English Character Dictionary, Tuttle, 1997, p. 1132). Perhaps instead of "spaced out", it would be less redundant if I wrote "...are separated by rests" instead? Rizov is in the list of sources, the last name had just been misspelt (). If you're complaint above was about jargon (something a particular group would understand or use), then I think readers would understand "loudest" in the way most people understand it, not "in terms of music recording". Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I definitely understand what you're trying to say, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense from a musical terminology standpoint. Their use of negative space is great to talk about, but saying melodies are spaced out with rests just sounds like you're misunderstanding the musical aspects of the album. Thanks for correcting the Rizov citation. I make prodigious use of CTRL-F rather than visually scanning. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I really get an awkward feel from reading the entirety of the article. I feel like you're using strange techniques to paraphrase what you're reading in the sources and not taking the time to really absorb and understand what you're reading to convey it to the reader in a cohesive way.

Idk how to respond to that, it sounds like an open-ended objection. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a systemic problem with the writing in the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean beyond the objections regarding the music terminology (mis)use in #Music and lyrics? If so, where specifically? Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it pervades the writing. May I ask what strategy you typically employ when you're paraphrasing sources? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And as I asked, where? I paraphrased the same way as in my previous FAs, so I'd appreciate if you told me what's giving you this impression. If you're going to base your objection on this, then it's only fair to elaborate on it. Otherwise, I don't feel these are "actionable objections" that I can resolve. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? I'm not unfamiliar with composition, technical writing, and scholarly research. Your writing reads as if you have a source open in one window and are writing statements into the article while looking at it, trying to change around words and phrases so you're not plagiarizing. Would this be accurate? The writing being of less-than-ideal quality is most certainly an actionable objection; you can act on it by having someone copy-edit the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I read a source and paraphrased it. Tezero didn't share your opinion of the quality of writing, although he was still kind enough to review and point things out more thoroughly so I could resolve and discuss specific things in the article. I wont ask someone to copy edit an article because it doesn't suit one reviewer's intuition and I don't feel it's fair to oppose simply because the prose isn't to your liking. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is becoming too heated; why not put this up at WP:GOCE/REQ? The article Sleeping Dogs (video game) received a couple of prose-related oppose votes, so the primary nominator did this with a message that the request was urgent as it belonged to a current FAC, and someone picked it up right away and is now hammering away. It's also worth noting that I don't care about everything being worded completely perfectly for FAs as long as it's comphrehensible, unambiguous, and reasonably well-flowing, criteria I feel this article fulfills. Even then, though, it's possible for me to miss things, as with any reviewer on any criterion. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That FAC involved reviewers bringing up numerous issues/examples that could be resolved. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this one doesn't, making it an especially good choice because the objectors have provided no concrete input themselves on what needs to change. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

After seeing they've supported this FAC for an article with noticeably worse prose (as I detailed below), I'm beginning to discount their vague complaint about the prose here. Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Criterion 2 (style). The linking is strange. You have Jamie Smith linked in the lead and again in the body, but the rest of the band members are not linked in the lead or even when they are mentioned in the Background section.

Perhaps because he's the only member with an article? Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Criterion 2a (lead). I feel that you have chosen some strange details to include in the lead that don't seem all that important. Smith using his laptop, or reverb being employed in the guitar parts. Reverb is employed on pretty much every recording ever made, so it's hardly worth mentioning in the lead.--Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on my research of this album specifically, many of the sources take note of the reverb in their music, as McDonald--the audio engineer--mentioned () Due weight is based on the sources, not what I personally felt is important, although I don't see how it's unimportant when Smith--the producer--basically did everything on his laptop, which is also noted in many of the sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you should explain why the use of reverb is notable. It's like saying sound effects were used in a film without explaining what in particular was notable about their use. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "reverb in her lead guitar parts" is more specific than "sound effects used in a film" and not as obvious as you're making it out to be. And since that sentence mentions both Qureshi and Croft as the guitarists, it serves another function--distinguishing her as the lead guitarist along with her sound incorporating reverb. Mentioning it as an aside with the way it's worded should suffice without going off-topic and into any further detail about it, which is mentioned twice in the body where it goes into further detail. Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. "Employed reverb in her lead guitar parts" without any other detail as to why that's notable enough to be mentioned in the lead sounds really banal to anyone who knows anything about musicianship. Again, I feel that you have read sources and paraphrased them to construct this article without really understanding what they're saying as a cohesive set of information. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression your not basing this objection on anything concrete and maybe instead your own criteria based on personal knowledge of "musicianship" or music. So far your objections have only been about musicianship/terminology-specific info in Music and lyrics and the lead. Per MOS:INTRO, "greater detail is saved for the body", and things should be placed in "a context familiar to a normal reader." I don't agree that mentioning it as an aside following a more elaborate description of "Its melancholic songs..." is banal for the common reader. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is that a problem? I would think you would want feedback from someone familiar with the subject matter you're writing about. If you wrote a physics article would you object to a physicist coming in and giving you some opinions about the writing? You're exceptionally standoffish and I'm frankly not sure why you are putting something up for review when you're not actually interested in criticism. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It kind of is. Sentences with technical terms about music like "rests", "reverb", and "loudness" are miniscule bits in a much larger article, which I don't feel you've reviewed thoroughly enough to oppose or support. I'm just getting the impression some of the prose about the album's music didn't mesh with your personal taste, so you used objections like linking style (I don't think Criterion 2 warrants linking items with no articles) and two details in the lead (including the producer using his laptop to produce the album) to give substance to objecting to the article altogether. I'm willing to embrace criticism that's actionable, as in the previous two reviewer's comments, which I addressed accordingly because specific items from top to bottom were discussed. The first reviewer gave the impression that they went through all or most of the prose with what they raised, and the second reviewer at least admitted they hadn't gone through it completely yet and could not decide to support or oppose. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I certainly am stating my opinion just like everyone else who comments, and you are certainly free to disagree with my opinions. However, I don't think the article is written very well, and I won't be removing my objection until that changes. If my objection is seen to be invalid by the decision-makers, I won't take it personally. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

After seeing that you've supported the FAC for ...And Justice for All (album), I don't see how you can criticize the prose in this article. If any article needs to be copy-edited, it's that one--there are present participles throughout the article, including its "Music" section, pronouns from the previous paragraph arent repeated at the start of a new one like it's correct to (including the third paragraph of the "Music" section), awkward phrases like "...has a lyrical material featuring a...", missing commas after full mdy dates per MOS:DATE, and unexceptional/not uniform citation formatting. I really don't feel you've given a thorough review, either of this article or that one, especially of the prose. Either that, or you're applying some dubious double-standard to this article, or I'm beginning to question your understanding of correct prose. Dan56 (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. As indopug alluded to below my review, the you don't seem to actually understand the album or the sources you've read. You've repeated attacked me for what I've chosen to point out, but I've stated a few times now that I stand by my comments and my objection. Comparing your article to others might be a useful exercise to improve your own article, but comparing my review of your article to others in order to marginalize my opinion is not so much of a useful exercise. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how he alluded to that. And I don't see how I could improve my article by comparing it to the flawed prose of the one you supported. I brought up legitimate, specific issues. It's your choice to overlook them as a reviewer there, but seeing how you supported it reaffirms my belief that you did not do your due diligence as a reviewer here. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment This article cannot be considered comprehensive unless this long New Yorker piece is incorporated. It has a lot of important things that the Misplaced Pages article misses—for example, that the lead singers are gay (and the implications this has on understanding the lyrics). While the "Critic from Publication said 'this' about the album' format works ok in the Reception section, it gets tiresome in Music and lyrics. Further, there's a sense of missing the forest for the trees; while the second paragraph of music namedrops 9 genres and 6 bands (including Cocteau Twins, mentioned thrice), it doesn't describe the basic impression one gets of the album, i.e. one of overwhelming quiet and intimacy.—indopug (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've incorporated material from it, including their sexual orientation. Several sources discuss the comparisons the album received from critics, so due weight was given, although I've removed one mention of Cocteau Twins. The quiet, intimate quality is duly noted in the bits mentioning McDonald (lead, background, recording), as that was really the impression he received, and perhaps others, although Jon Caramanica of The New York Times is cited in Release and reception as saying "it rarely feels intimate". Thx a lot for the new yorker article! Also, you might want to see how tiresome the Music and lyrics sections at ...And Justice for All (album) is. Dan56 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Rationalobserver

• Oppose Per Spike Wilbury and Indopug, the prose in this article is of a mediocre/poor quality that does not satisfy the FAC criteria 1a. Some examples include, but are not limited to, the repetitive use of words such as "band", which is used 42 times with no effort to break up the monotony with pronouns or alternatives such as "group". The word "that" (37 uses, 10 in release and reception) is used repeatedly and awkwardly to introduce thoughts, such as "found that", "felt that", "trusted that", "said that", "revealed that", "remarked that", "believed that", "wrote that", "explained that", "reported that", etcetera. The word "and" appears 13 times in the first paragraph of Background, and it's used excessively throughout. The prose is also misleading, such as this: "Critics particularly praised the music, which they found seductive, polished, and precisely performed." Critics is plural, but this statement is sourced to only one writer. There are also several instances of less than encyclopedic word choice used outside direct quotes; e.g., "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "austere" is used four times, thrice in Music and lyrics, "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music". Per WP:PEACOCK, words like "acclaimed" and "remarkable" ought not be used outside quotes. The article's prose is far from "engaging", and it is certainly not "brilliant of a professional standard".

I've removed/replaced numerous "that"s and "band"s. I don't see the problem with the "and"s; they serve their function and reduce the number of short, choppy sentences that would otherwise be in the article. Often times, it's unavoidable, particularly when certain band members need to be mentioned together, especially Croft and Sim. I've removed the characterization originally attributed to the Exclaim! source, which verifies "Press for the band's ... sound has been unanimously glowing." Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's but one element of the poor condition the prose is currently in. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from "austere" (which I've replaced with "unadorned"/"unembellished"/"simple") and "emotional lyrics" (which is attributed several times in #Music and lyrics), the other instances of "less than encyclopedic word choice" are all attributed (in-text) to their source. Please don't mistake the words listed in the quotebox at WP:PEACOCK as banned from use; the policy says that those are the words that happen to be used "often ... without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". The policy doesn't say they cant be used outside quotes. "Widespread acclaim" is established among several sources that profiled/wrote about the album or the group, while "remarkable" is an opinion attributed in the text to AllMusic's Heather Phares. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are using the same creative words as the cited authors, then these words need to be in quotes, or else you are stealing their creativity and voicing it as Misplaced Pages/you. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable", Phares' word, isn't the word used in this article, although WP:PARAPHRASE says "quoting (with or without quotation marks)" is appropriate within reason. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". I think your paraphrasing is troublesome. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is acceptable, per WP:PARAPHRASE, which states "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." This is what I did: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are citing an essay, Dan56; Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing is not a guideline or policy, and close paraphrasing is never a good thing in brilliant writing. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm citing the policy on plagiarism: WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism (near where the green check marks are) → "copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation." and.. "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep reading: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also fails 1d and 1b, as the prose is far from neutral, particularly the Release and reception section, which devotes 879 words to praise and just 70 words to criticism, leaving out the fact that many critics have viewed this album and group with disdain, calling it overrated and boring. This is also an issue with 1c, as many sources are not represented here, presumably because they do not share the over the top enthusiasm of the critics cited. The article fails 2a, as Spike Wilbury pointed out, particularly with the odd mention of "reverb in her lead guitar parts", which is not an appropriate level of detail for the lead. Further, the lead mentions four music genres, none of which are listed in the infobox.

The section is neutral in form; representing the viewpoints "proportionately" per WP:CRIT. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). If I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal based on sources like the aggregate sites and profiles like The New Yorker piece which indoplug offered (as it mentions no critical view of the album), but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality, although I understand how you got the impression that it didn't. The most reliable sources (profiles and the like on the album) mention the reception in terms of unanimous/widespread, glowing reviews, while at Metacritic, there are 24 positive reviews to just the one mixed review (), so that's what I based it on. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The content of the section is far from neutral. I.e., where are the numerous voices that do not praise this album? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There weren't numerous instances of that. Like I mentioned before, there was only one mixed review according to Metacritic. As of now, the proportion in this section is five positive reviews mentioned to two critical ones. How can there be a question of neutrality when the proportion at Metacritic is 24 to 1, and none of the sources that go into any detail on this album's reception mention points of criticism? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, you have almost 900 words detailing praise, but only 70 for criticism. The album is not universally enjoyed, though one would never know that by reading this article, hence the issue with 1d. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I heard you, and responded accordingly. According to reliable sources on this topic (which I presented to you), this album is universally enjoyed by critics, hence my issue with your objection. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Three years after its release, the album “xx” still seems overrated. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I researched the most reliable sources available, not a student newspaper blog from Eastern Michigan University. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The comparisons and elements the critics likened the album to are duly noted in #Music and lyrics, as are the critics who explicitly called it an "indie pop album" or a "dream pop album", so discretion was used. I don't see how the article flat-out fails a criteria because of one detail/sentence fragment that isn't particularly to your liking. That doesn't really sound fair to me is all. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is all a matter of opinion, or else bots would do the FA reviews, not people. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Um that's a rather indirect answer. You've cited criteria 2a from WP:FACR, which says the article should have "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". How does the sentence fragment about reverb make this article's lead a failure in that respect? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not properly summarizing if you include this minor point in the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I understood that to be your opinion, but I was asking how? It doesn't seem a minor enough point when the reverb setting is elaborated on in the body, twice, in "recording" and "music and lyrics", with respect to Croft's guitar sound. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, you summarize the 610 word section on the tour with 13 words, and you've devoted 8 words to the reverb. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're picking nits to give substance to a mealy-mouthed objection. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also fails criteria 4, particularly the excessive section devoted to touring (610 words) that seems better suited at The xx, or a topical article devoted to that tour. There are also some potential issues with paraphrasing, such as: Article: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut", Source: "a remarkable debut". I suggest that this nom be withdrawn pending a copyedit by someone who can smoothen the prose and avoid some of the repetition and peacockery, and introduce some critical balance for the sake of neutrality. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM has a specific section devoted to creating such sections (including how it was received, the band's onstage setup, etc.) on an album's supporting tour when there isn't enough for a stand-alone article (cf. Disintegration (The Cure album)). Furthermore, the tour (like the other things I decided to include in this article) are based on the most reliable sources found on this album, so due weight was given. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Most album articles do not include a lengthy section on the accompanying tour, and IMO they shouldn't. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You disagree that MOS:ALBUM suggests the creation of such sections? Or do you mean of sections as lengthy as this? If so, which parts do you feel go into too much detail? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM says, "information about notable tours and festivals should be incorporated into either the artist's page, or the album article for which the tour is supporting." Are you contenting that I am wrong to suggest that this info is better suited at the artist page? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"...for which the tour is supporting". The tour specifically supporting this album is given a section in this article. What in your past FAC experience gives you the impression that this isn't appropriate, at least to the point of failing an FACR criteria? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article to too long, and I would merge the touring section elsewhere to rectify that. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a new complaint (article length) to justify a suspect objection. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"a remarkable debut" attributed to the critic in-text is not a paraphrasing issue; per WP:PARAPHRASE, "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand paraphrasing all that well, which is a complaint that Spike Wilbury raised above. If "remarkable" is the exact creative expression from the source, then it should be in quotes. Paraphrasing is about avoiding the creative words, not re-phrasing them with your own conjunctions and prepositions. I stand by my assertion that "remarkable" is not a word that should be found outside quote marks in encyclopedic writing, per WP:PEACOCK. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver:, "remarkably poised and sophisticated debut" is not the exact expression from the source. WP:PEACOCK is a guideline meant to prevent use of such words without attribution, not prevent their use altogether. Per WP:PARAPHRASE quotation marks aren't a requirement for limited close paraphrasing. Considering I linked the source for you to compare, what part of "Heather Phares ... hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group" is in violation of WP:PARAPHRASE? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". I think your paraphrasing is, at best, troublesome. Like I said above, proper paraphrasing avoids the key creative words that make the author's statement unique. Consider using a thesaurus. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an example of "proper paraphrasing", but of close paraphrasing with in-text attribution, which is acceptable per WP:PARAPHRASE: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding John Smith wrote ..., together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." This is what I did: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that as an educator, I would take issue with that if one of my students did that as many times as you've done it here. I teach them to identify the uniquely creative words and replace them with equivalents except when directly quoting. I stand by that, and I suggest that you need a stronger justification for playing fast and loose with copyrighted material then a Misplaced Pages essay. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the three or four examples you brought up, the policy on plagiarism: WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism (near where the green check marks are) → "copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation." and.. "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep reading: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• You mention the critical reception before the album's release.

Those are stylistic comparisons that are part of #Music and lyrics, not how critics received it, i.e. positively or negatively. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "widespread acclaim" is fluffery

I disagree. Fluffery involves "unprovable proclamations"; "widespread acclaim" is verified by several sources. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "a protracted supporting tour that helped increase their ... reputation in the press"

This is an odd statement to follow: "xx was released in August 2009 by Young Turks, an imprint of XL, and received widespread acclaim from critics." So it earned widespread acclaim, but the tour later increased acceptance amongst critics?

Yes, what's wrong with that? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Spike Wilbury that "who employed reverb in her lead guitar parts" is not an appropriate detail for the lead.

You have yet to elaborate on why. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD, but this is too much to ask of a reviewer. You are combative and rude. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Background

• "On late nights" is an awkward construction.

Gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "greatly influenced" is unencyclopedic.

Gripe. I'll elaborate. Since you're standard for wording is "encyclopedic", here are several encyclopedic works that use the phrase you're claiming is "unencyclopedic". You're entitled to your personal preferences with writing and the like, but you shouldn't push them onto others or hold this candidate hostage by making it the basis of your objection. Dan56 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The band covered R&B hits such as Aaliyah's "Hot Like Fire" (1997) and Womack & Womack's "Teardrops" (1988) when they performed live and recorded their demos."

This reads as, "The band covered R&B hits ... and recorded their demos.", which is an awkward construction and sloppy prose.

No, it reads "The band covered R&B hits... when they performed live and recorded their demos". Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "McDonald was impressed by the intimate quality and moments of silence on the demos"

Another awkward construction that illustrates my concern with the article's prose.

Another gripe that illustrates my concern with your intentions here. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now questioning my intentions? Again, you are unnecessarily hostile, and I hope I never have to deal with you again. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Recording and production

• "Croft, on the other hand, called it a "pretty confined space" the size of a bathroom."

Another poor quality construction. Does "the size of a bathroom" seem tacked-on?

• "prepared a budget to the label"

Again, this is indicative of the awkward prose throughout.

Again, this is indicative of the mealy mouthed gripes throughout. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"prepared a budget to the label", or "prepared a budget for the label". It's an issue I see with ESL students. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I used "to the label..." to avoid repetition with "...for the studio's..."; I've revised it to "prepared a budget for the label to fund the studio's..." Dan56 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "recording equipment specifically suited for the xx such as a modestly sized"

The article needs a top to bottom check for comma usage, which is poor throughout.

Comma usage before "such as" depends on the modifier that precedes it. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings"

"had them"?

Yes. What? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's terrible prose, "had them write down", really? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Sim, who played a Precision Bass manufactured in the 1970s"

This is far too much detail for a summary style overview article, same with mentioning the Fender Bassman, Gibson SG, Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, Blues Deluxe amplifier, Epiphone Les Paul, Gibson ES-335, delay pedal, and a Roland Micro Cube.

• "amplifier with a reverb setting"

I'll again echo Spike Wilbury's concerns that you do not understand the material you are paraphrasing. There is no such thing as a reverb setting; amplifiers have a reverb tank, that has a control knob that adjusts the level in relation to the dry signal.

Really? well here's an article by Sound on Sound that uses the exact phrase. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just more proof that you do not understand the musical terminology that you are using. The article you cited above is using it correctly, but you are not. I.e., an amplifier does not have a reverb setting, an amplifier has a reverb tank, which you adjust the setting for using a potentiometer. The setting varies as you adjust the pot. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

" the reverb setting on his amplifier", "reverb setting on your amp", "guitar amplifier with chorus and reverb setting". Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If your point is that others make the same mistake, I would say that your point is irrelevant and your approach to research misguided. Otherwise reliable sources make mistakes that often get repeated by other reliable sources. No musician would say they have a guitar amp with a reverb setting. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF concerns "similarities across projects" and articles on WP, not reliable sources, another guideline I feel you've misinterpreted. May I ask what qualifies you as an expert in this regard, considering you've questioned my use of a few music terms like this and I should forgo these sources and trust your personal knowledge? Or with regards to prose for that matter? Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I should trust you over sources that literally use the same wording? Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a musician of 35 years; I play guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, a little saxophone, and sometimes when I'm a little tipsy, the didgeridoo. A guitar amp either has or does not have an onboard reverb unit, which is called a reverb tank. The amount of reverb, or "wet" signal, is controlled with a potentiometer that is wired to the amplifier circuit just before a reverb choke. There is no "reverb setting", but you do adjust your reverb setting from 1–10 using the pot. I.e., reverb is an effect, and it's is accomplished by a reverb unit, called a tank, not a setting. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This effects review site uses "reverb tank" and "reverb setting" interchangeably. While you have your experience and personal knowledge, the sources at least suggest my wording should suffice. Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You might be confusing "setting" with "channel", as some guitar amplifiers have "clean" channels that do not have any effects and "wet" or "dirty" channels that have reverb, chorus, distortion, etcetera. If she was specifically referring to her Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, with one or two 12" speakers, then I have some personal knowledge of this, because I used to own a Hot Rod Deville, with 4 10" speakers, an American one before Fender started making them in Mexico. It's essentially the same amp, and it does have a clean channel and two distorted ones (labeled drive and more drive), but all three have reverb. I.e., a Fender Hot Rod Deluxe does not have a clean channel without reverb. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "After all the instrumental elements had been tracked"

This is verbose. instrumental elements → instruments

Not verbose, gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "They rarely sang backup to one another on any of the songs."

Does this mean there are only harmonies, with no lead singing?

The source is cited for you to check. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "drafts of his beats. Smith created his beats"

More awkward prose.

More gripes. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday"

Verbose

Gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Smith also created click tracks for the rest of the band"

One does not really "create" a click track; it's merely a metronomic tone generated by the recording console, which I think speaks to Spike's concern that you do not understand the musical jargon that you attempt to paraphrase.

There are many high-quality sources that use this phrase "created a click track" (). I think this speaks to my concern that both of you are too obstinate to look beyond your personal criteria for these kind of articles. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "he refined and incorporated his beats into the songs for three to four weeks"

The article is riddled with improper and confusing syntax such as this.

Your review is riddled with gripes such as these. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Most of xx was recorded from Christmastime to late January"

Per WP:REALTIME, this should be December, not Christmastime.

Finally, a legitimate issue. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues are too numerous for me to mention them all here; I don't have enough time. Again, FAC is not a form of peer review, whereby we work together to improve the article until I change my oppose, which stands. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• "The songs' melodies are separated by rests."

I agree with Spike; this is an indication that the paraphraser does not understand the material. I.e., melodies aren't separated by rests, rests occur within the notes of the melodies.

• "before they lead to quietly sung verses. Croft and Sim exchange verses on 'Crystalised'"

I see lots of this type of repetitive sentences. It's poor quality prose that lacks smooth transitions.

• Source: "Croft and Sim craft languid, sparsely arranged love songs that recall atmospheric 80s acts such as the Cocteau Twins and Mazzy Star. Better still, they betray their south London roots: gentle, plaintive melodies are framed by minimal beats that nod to dubstep and R&B."

Article: "According to Sarah Boden of The Observer, the album's unadorned, dream pop love songs are reminiscent of Cocteau Twins and Mazzy Star, because they feature low tempos, moody melodies, and rhythms influenced by R&B and dubstep."

1) What is a "low tempo"? Did you mean slow tempo? This is another example of your apparent misunderstanding of musical terminology. 2) Boden does not mention tempo, so where did you get this?

Languid = slow/relaxed; "tempo" = the speed at which a passage of music is played. Dan56 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing

Article: "dub-inflected post-punk"

Source: "dub influenced post-punk"

That's limited close paraphrasing with in-text attribution; you should know the policy, because I've reiterated it to you four or five times by now. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "On xx, Croft and Sim touched on themes of love, desire, and loss in their songwriting, which she said has "always been based around emotions, right from the start."

The pronoun she is referring to Sim, who unless I am mistaken is a man.

Actually it's referring to Croft, but if you feel readers may be confused, I'll change it. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:STICKTOSOURCE

Article: "Robert Christgau believed they rely on a low-key, vulnerable style"

I'm not seeing where Christgau says anything about low-key or vulnerable.

He does in his NPR review, which I've bundled in that citation along with his MSN MUsic review. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Article: "the yearning expressed on 'Heart Skipped a Beat'"

Where are you getting this?

The NME review says "aching with longing". Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing

Article: "tacit intimacy"

Source: "natural intimacy"

I still don't think you understand that close paraphrasing is acceptable with in-text attribution. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)\

"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group." Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained.Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the review: "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive"; the meaning is the same. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I did read the review, that's why I know that you are wrong. Phares says, "While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut." Which means the poise "sometimes works against them", but it's still a "remarkable debut", not that it is remarkably poised. Are you for real, because you are absolutely terrible at paraphrasing, and you won't accept advice from some of the best colleges and universities. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The album's Roman numeral title refers to each of the band members having turned 20 years old by the time they released xx. Because of their age, many critics interpreted the songs as nocturnal depictions of adolescent lust."

This is out-of-place in Music and lyrics.

It's the most appropriate place to put it in the article, as it ties into the paragraph's topic--the members' age and its relationship to their lyrics. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've refuted your point about close paraphrasing, peacock terms, and regurgitated the same policies at length, but you're incredibly obstinate in your position and vague/indirect about the complaints you make. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you are getting abusive. I'm not sure you are the right type of person to bring articles here if you always resort to personal attacks and insults. You are not the writer that you apparently think you are, as this article is not at all "brilliant". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're being oversensitive. You felt my prose was poor, I felt your objections were petty and your explanations were irritatingly evasive, avoiding the policies and guidelines that clearly justified my position on certain parts of your review. Dan56 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to be less combative and rude if you want people to spend their time reviewing your work. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 and close paraphrasing

In the above discussion, Dan56 has repeatedly admitted that he intentionally includes close paraphrases in his writing. He defends this position and states that close paraphrasing is not plagiarism.

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

However, this is not at all the position of the Wikilegal team regarding copyright, or the academic world regarding what technically constitutes plagiarism:

FTR, Dan56 is arguing that this is an appropriate paraphrase:

Source (Phares): "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive (5th sentence) ... While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut."(11th and last sentence)

Article prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut"

This is plagiarism via close paraphrase, as Dan56 has retained the distinct or creative words: remarkable (though in altered form) and sophisticated, while swapping restraint for poise, a basic synonym exchange that does not satisfy fair paraphrasing. He's also altered the meaning of the source material, which is another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was "remarkably poised and sophisticated", but rather that the album shows "restraint and sophistication" and that it is "a remarkable debut", which are two distinct points. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"This restraint and sophistication ... all the more impressive" = "...remarkable". Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically, Phares could've been using "remarkable" to refer to aspects of the album outside its poise and sophistication. (For the record, I don't mind "sophistication" being used. I can't think of any synonyms except "complicated", which has a slightly negative connotation, or "complex", which I think slightly implies technical complexity.) Tezero (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reread the review. Phares uses "remarkable" in the last sentence, saying that it was overall "a remarkable debut" despite the sometimes excessive "subtlety and consistency". Much earlier in the review, she said it showed signs of "sophistication", not that it was remarkably sophisticated. This is an improper synthesis of three distinct adjectives, and Dan56 is using the last one to modify two earlier ones. She said the album was remarkable, not that it was remarkably sophisticated, and there is a significant difference. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes excessive" or "showed signs of" is not indicated anywhere in the review. Phares found its "restraint and sophistication" worthy of being or likely to be noticed especially as being uncommon or extraordinary: "These tracks are so sleek, they're practically sculptural, and they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; artists twice their age would be proud to call the maturity and confidence that flow seemingly effortlessly through the xx their own." WP:SYNTH applies to using multiple sources, btw, not adjectives. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes excessive" or "showed signs of" is not indicated anywhere in the review.

The fifth sentence of Phares' review: "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive", from that I get "showed signs of sophistication". The last sentence of Phares' review: "While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut that rewards repeated listens and leaves listeners wanting more." From this I get that the "restraint" borders on excessive. FTR, aren't you connecting these two distinct points to say "remarkably sophisticated", and aren't you doing this outside quote marks as though these are your own words, and not a modified quote? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no "signs of"; Phares explicitly says "This restraint and sophistication", there is "restraint and sophistication" on the album, not just "signs of". Furthermore, "subtlety" does not mean the same thing as "restraint", and Phares does not elaborate on how either "threaten to work against them". You're free to assume she believes there's too much of the "subtlety and consistency". I'm not using anything as though they are my own words; you can't put "remarkably" or "sophisticated" in quotation marks when that specific word is not used anywhere in the review, but Phares is attributed in-text anyway because I'm summarizing her opinion. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You're slitting hairs, and I don't have time for this. I wish you the best of luck, and I encourage you to make some attempt to better understand paraphrasing, versus rejecting my advice out of hand as though I do not know what I am talking about and you do, because I think that you have plagiarized several authors in writing this article, and I am concerned that you do not seem to care. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed that "rewards repeated listens" is an exact phrase from Phares' review, and this phrase is included verbatim and outside quotation marks in the article, but cited to Sasha Frere-Jones' review. Can you please show me what material you paraphrased from Frere-Jones to assert that he said it "rewards repeated listens"? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"That’s one reason that this short album, at just under thirty-nine minutes, is so easy to play and replay. Nothing wears out its welcome ... Play the album a few times and all of a sudden other pop music sounds abrasive and overstuffed and shouty." The burden is on you as the reviewer to check it yourself btw. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's slightly concerning that your paraphrase of Frere-Jones contains a verbatim phrase from the critic that you cite immediately following your paraphrase of Frere-Jones? You obviously picked this phrase up from Phares and plagiarized it as your summary of Frere-Jones. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"You obviously..."? (WP:GF) It's a fairly common phrase used in music reviews: "the dreaded rock-critic cliché 'rewards repeated listens'", , ) Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So your defense is that it's not plagiarizing Phares because it's a cliché, and you think that clichés are appropriate for FAs, which are required to represent brilliant writing? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism → "use of common expressions and idioms, including those that are common in sub-cultures such as academia" Dan56 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, because it's a well-worn cliché, it's not plagiarism, but one does not expect to find clichés in brilliant prose, nor written in Misplaced Pages's voice, especially in an FA (see FAC criteria 1a) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Partial source review

In case there is any lingering ambiguity regarding this article and concerns about close paraphrasing, I decided to take another look at the sourcing. Note: All of these examples come from the first three sections only.

Background

• Source: "they were in thrall to the stripped back inventiveness of a strain of American urban r’n’b pioneered by producers like Timbaland and The Neptunes, who would construct hits from percussive beats, handclaps, odd samples and vocal harmonies."

Article: "The xx were greatly influenced by American R&B producers such as The Neptunes and Timbaland, whose minimalist productions incorporated vocal harmonies, handclaps, unconventional samples, and pronounced beats"

This is just the sort of superficial alteration of source material that constitutes plagiarism. The original structure is intact, and the prose is not so much paraphrased as it has been re-arranged with a synonym or two. This is not a fair paraphrase, and it's only the third sentence that I checked today.

• Source: "The xx had originally come to the attention of XL imprint Young Turks after impressing Katie O'Neill, who works for the label, with the demos they'd posted on their MySpace page. Katie subsequently lent the band a guitar for a London gig, they popped a stack of demos round to the XL HQ in Ladbroke Grove and it wasn't long before they were signed up and raring to go."

Article: "After posting the demos on their Myspace page, the xx drew the interest of Young Turks, an imprint label of XL Recordings. They submitted the demos to XL's head office at Ladbroke Grove and were subsequently signed to a recording contract."

Again, this is cosmetic paraphrasing that retrains most of the original sentence structure, with only a minor reordering of two clauses. This is plagiarism.

The rearrangement of reworded material is hardly minor, and almost half of the quote you picked was omitted and not paraphrased altogether. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recording and production

• Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."

Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left"

"At night" and "recorded" is what you're arguing? They're the simplest and most obvious phrases to use here (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "I got each of the band a notebook where they could write down their settings"

Article: "McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings"

You're misrepresenting a sentence fragment from the larger text; Article: "To reproduce the sound he had heard on the band's demos, McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings and test different areas of the studio to determine where he should record each member." Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "echo‑laden guitar sounds"

Article: "echo-filled sound"

Unavoidable, the simplest and most obvious phrases to use here--"sound" (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism); further more, you're misrepresenting another fragment from a sentence that quotes: "McDonald felt would best replicate her 'icy', echo-filled sound on the demos". Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "vocals seem to portray an almost intimate late‑night conversation"

Article: "vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational"

The slight alteration of conversation → conversational does not qualify as a fair paraphrase.

Yes it does, and he's quoted and attributed in-text. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "expensive mics for the record we borrowed"

Article: "among the more expensive items he had borrowed"

"The microphones were among the more expensive items he had borrowed for the studio's preliminary setup so XL would not be overwhelmed with a costly budget." Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source (ibid): "street noises and things that'd just been picked up by accident in the background"

Article: "unintended background noises such as street sounds"

Changing "Street noises" to "street sounds" and "accident" to "unintended" is plagiarism via close paraphrase.

Not only is the sentence structure different, you're nitpicking simple phrases like "sounds" again. Dan56 (talk)

Music and lyrics

• Article: "Russell felt the xx's music evoked the early hip hop records he listened to when he was young, as they were often limited to vocals, samples, and beats."
• Source: "I grew up listening to a lot of hip‑hop ... A lot of my favourite records when I was young had a lot of vocals and drums and samples and not that much else ... but to me, it was the simplicity of early hip‑hop that I heard in it."

This is more plagiarism via close paraphrasing: "early hip hop" and "vocals, samples, and beats" → "early hip‑hop" and "vocals and drums and samples"

Russell ("felt that") is attributed in the sentence, "vocals, samples, and beats" → simple, non-creative lists of information (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "Each song is founded on the spare, kinetic interplay between programmed drumbeats and Oliver Sims's lightly thumbed basslines. From there, Romy Croft and Baria Quershi fill out the songs with minimal guitar work, using simple riffs as much for texture as for rhythm or melody."

Article: "The songs on xx are built around a framework of basslines and beats, and they incorporate simple guitar riffs for melody, rhythm, and texture."

Musical terms too technical to paraphrase ("basslines", "texture", etc.), different sentence structure, the last three items listed are "simple, non-creative lists of information" (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "the song runs for two minutes with only her voice and the bass and guitar"

Article: "Croft sings its first two minutes over only guitar and bass"

Different structure, "guitar" "bass" rearranged, "two minutes" is unique enough, but you'll argue otherwise? Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "moody, minimalist indie pop"

Article: "a minimalist, melancholic indie pop album"

Author is attributed in-text, but you've misrepresented another from a larger piece of text. Also, "Minimalist (music)" and "indie pop" are unique terms referring to specific musical styles/aesthetics. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "producer Martin Hannett’s dub influenced post-punk, the rusty edges he brought to Joy Division"

Article: "the dub-inflected post-punk sound of English producer Martin Hannett and his work with Joy Division"

Author attributed in-text, misrepresentation. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Source: "All these songs seem in the first flush of love ... 'VCR's ...natural intimacy"

Article: "all of the songs deal with the consuming emotions associated with first love, including the tacit intimacy on "VCR"

No, no, it's "Article: 'According to Emily Mackay of NME, all of the songs..." (in-text attribution) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE

• Article: "the xx had been encouraged to self-produce their album by Russell, who felt it would remain faithful to both their distinctive live sound and the DIY ethic practiced at XL since its beginnings as a rave label."

Unless I missed it, Russell is not mentioned by name in the cited source, and there is nothing about remaining "faithful to both their distinctive live sound and the DIY ethic practiced at XL since its beginnings as a rave label", as though this is unsourced original research.

It was attributed to Frost 2009. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Article: "Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday."

There is no mention in the cited source of the MPC being a birthday present, so this is either unsourced or it's OR.

It's sourced, in a bundle; the second citation didnt show because of a typographical error. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have identified no less than 15 instances of plagiarism in the first three sections, and I did not check every sentence or source. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont trust you with regards to paraphrasing here. You're nitpicking unique technical terms, misrepresenting sentence fragments out of larger article text, including sentences with in-text attribution, and you're attempts to rewrite policy at WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:CLOSE PARAPHRASING are dubious because they've occurred after you made objections to this article on those grounds, and have been reverted since you made them without consensus or discussion (, ) You appear to have done this to substantiate your objection to this article (or my writing in general) and undermine this review. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple more:

• Source: "they were favourites before the shortlist was even announced"

Article: "Before the nominations shortlist had been announced"

• Source: "The pressures of touring had increased long-standing tensions between Qureshi and the rest of the band"

Article: "The difficulties of touring early on exacerbated the growing tensions between the band and Qureshi"

• Source: "already basic arrangements"

Article: "already minimalist arrangements"

Dan56, can you please clarify something for us? Your position seems to be that as long as you provide an in-line citation and in-text attribution, you do not need to put distinctive words or phrases in quotation marks. However, a glance through this article reveals that at times you seem to agree with me. E.g.:

• "For her lead guitar parts, Croft used a delay pedal and a Roland Micro Cube amplifier with a reverb setting, which McDonald felt would best replicate her 'icy', echo-filled sound on the demos."
• "He had Croft and Sim sing into Neumann microphones on most of the songs in order to make their vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational as possible."
• "Croft was 'baffled' by the acclaim given to what she viewed as an album they had made 'for themselves'."

Why have you enclosed these isolated words in quotation marks?

• "Croft, on the other hand, called it a 'pretty confined space' the size of a bathroom."
• "They rarely sang backup to one another on any of the songs. McDonald felt it was important for the singers be 'in sync' and share the same mental state or mood when singing full takes of songs, some of which he said benefited from when they were both 'quite tired and emotional'."
• "Like Croft, Sim wrote much of his lyrics at night when his emotions ran 'a bit higher'."
• "Spin magazine's Philip Sherburne wrote that xx brims with a 'young lust' that is at the heart of rock music".
• "Croft and Sim, who are both gay, did not intend for the songs to be heard as romantic duets, as she said they were singing 'past each other' and not to each other."
• "In his review for NPR, Robert Christgau praised their songwriting and wrote that the underlying force behind the album's irresistible music is a 'spiritual dimension' offered by Croft".
• "In the US, the album reached sales of 350,000 copies by June 2012 with consistent weekly sales during its first two years of release, which Time magazine's Melissa Locker said was 'quite a feat' in an era of music piracy, media streaming, and YouTube."
• "At the Mercury Prize ceremony, he said the time since its release has 'felt like a haze', but that the event serves as a 'a moment of clarity'."
• "In June, the xx played the Glastonbury Festival in Somerset and, according to journalist Jude Rogers, displayed a newfound confidence through the rest of their summer and 'post-Mercury autumn' concerts".

Why have you enclosed these short phrases in quotation marks if you think that in-line citation and in-text attribution exempts you from using quotation marks for verbatim words or phrases? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe he does; close paraphrasing, if that's indeed what it is, is not the same as verbatim copying. Tezero (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that was a poor use of verbatim, but if the distinctive word or words appears in both the source material and the "paraphrase", then it's too close. Look at this example:

• Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."

Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left"

The only change here is: We often → they usually and everyone at the office → XL's staff. The sentence structure is unchanged, and swapping in a synonym or two is not paraphrasing, it's plagiarizing. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, consider these examples:

• "He had Croft and Sim sing into Neumann microphones on most of the songs in order to make their vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational as possible."
• "According to Emily Mackay of NME, all of the songs deal with the consuming emotions associated with first love, including the tacit intimacy on 'VCR', the yearning expressed on 'Heart Skipped a Beat', and the premature affection warned of on "Crystalised"."

In the first example, Dan56 deemed it necessary to enclose the word intimate in quotation marks, but in the second example, the word intimacy, which is paired with the word natural in the source material, is not enclosed even though it is the exact word used in the "paraphrased" source. Changing natural intimacy → tacit intimacy is not paraphrasing, because a proper paraphrase will render the thought in the editor's own words. At the very least, this demonstrate that Dan56 sometimes puts distinctive words in quotation marks and other times he does not, even when they are essentially the same word. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Essentially the same word" isn't good enough to necessitate quotation marks; it has to be literal word-for-word copying. That's the point of quotation marks, barring the usage of brackets and ellipses. Tezero (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain that well enough, but "intimacy" is the exact word used in the source material. I meant that Dan56 enclosed intimate but not intimacy, though both are taken directly and unchanged from the source. I meant that intimate is essentially the same word as intimacy. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the two words don't mean the same thing. "Intimacy" strictly refers to a close personal relationship with another person, while "intimate" in the context McDonald used it can refer to sexually suggestive or just that the vocal quality sounded warm or cozy. Also, the sentence that it is in quotes for doesn't attribute McDonald directly in-text, but the preceding sentence did ("...he said ..."), so the quotes reinforce for readers that it's still his voice like in the previous sentence, but without having to be repetitive and write out "McDonald also said" so-and-so "intimate". Regardless, this seems like a major nitpick in response to a reviewer retaining their support rather than just letting the substance of your review speak for itself. Dan56 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

More comments from RationalObserver

As Spike Wilbury pointed out, brilliant writing would never rely on close paraphrasing, so any article that does, such as this one, would fail FAC criteria 1a, but FTR, per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright:

Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Misplaced Pages articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.

Also, per WP:NFCCP:

Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.

So really, our policies and guidelines already strongly discourage close paraphrasing that appropriates from source material without enclosing that material inside quotation marks. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I responded to your examples and in accordance with "WP:PLAG#What plagiarism is not", there are times when it's unavoidable. Your attempt to rewrite policy to substantiate this review by crusading this issue at WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM has been unsuccessful (), and this review is holding this article to an unfair standard set by your personal criteria for paraphrasing, not Misplaced Pages's. Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure; this is known as close paraphrasing (which can also raise problems of plagiarism)." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Earwig's copyvio detector indicates a strong possibility that this article violates copyrights. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It highlights material in this article that is generally quotes from the Sound on Sound source that is quoted in this article or names (civil names, brand names, band name, etc.) You're hoping again that other reviewers will take it at face value instead of actually taking a close look. Dan56 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Oppose sorry Dan, but close paraphrasing is as unacceptable as plagiarism in any articles. Given the above issues listed by Rationalobserver and the fact that this article doesn't at all discuss the album's singles beyond listings in the infobox (therefore preventing this article from being comprehensive), I suggest withdrawal and giving this a thorough copyedit to get rid of all copyright violations. Take to the GOCE if needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, the few instances of close-paraphrasing involve critics' voices and are always attributed in-text per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism → "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." I don't see how you can say "close paraphrasing is as unacceptable as plagiarism in any articles". Furthermore, there is no requirement at MOS:ALBUM to elaborate on singles; there is a promotion section that mentions their releases and lack of airplay. MOS:ALBUM does recommend merging single information here when "there is rarely enough information for songs and singles to all have their own individual articles", but all the singles have their own articles. Dan56 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, close paraphrasing that contains distinctive words or phrases outside quotation marks is plagiarism. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be extensive detail, but they should at least be mentioned in the lead. It would also help to talk about their composition at some point, and perhaps what critics said of the songs themselves (commercial aspects not withstanding). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Snuggums, and I think this is a strange objection on the part of Dan56 when you consider that he has written more than 600 words to describe the accompanying tour, and he mentions the "reverb setting", but he won't mention the singles in the lead at the request of another editor. Is the reverb really more notable than the singles on which reverb was used? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, the information in the lead is based on due weight, and singles weren't an important part of this album's story, based on what the sources available on it have written about it. "Composition" (Music/lyrics) of some of the singles are discussed in #Music and lyrics. The licensing of songs (not as singles) did help this album commercially, and that was noted in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, singles take more space to cover with text and are less representative than reverb is of the album as a whole. Tezero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? Discussing the singles that emerged from an album (how they were selected, how they performed, etc.) seems of particular interest, whereas the current discussion of the use of reverb on the album is firmly inane. As I pointed out several days ago, reverb is used on every recording everywhere, and the way it's written about here is just silly. There might be something notable or interesting about Croft's use of reverb, but we'd never know it from reading this article. I admire Rationalobserver for going a lot further down the rabbit hole than I did, but this whole FAC has devolved into a farce that illustrates why no-one should spend their time criticizing Dan56's writing. He's displayed rude behavior the willingness to strap on his guns and do battle over any little thing, being obstinate and sometimes simply dismissing others' opinions as "gripes" not worthy of his attention. Someone please put this nomination out of its misery. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing aside, I'm not convinced this is comprehensive enough to meet FA criteria, especially given Indopug's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, I addressed Indopug's comments immediately after he made them and resolved his concern that this article was missing information from the New Yorker article, which I subsequently added to the article, including the specific item indopug mentioned--the sexual orientation of the singers. What other concern do you have about how comprehensive this article is? No important information about this topic is missing. Dan56 (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't give much detail on specific songs in terms of how they are composed or if some songs were generally better received than others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the point of summary style (Misplaced Pages:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details). Because this article's topic is the album, that's what's generally discussed, the album. The best sources on this article had no discussion of certain songs' reception. Also, not only did the most reliable sources on this topic not mention how certain songs were received, there were hardly any reviews on the singles themselves, but even if they did that information would be appropriately incorporated in the singles articles per summary style. If anything, though, the first paragraph establishes the similarities in composition or as a whole ("The songs on xx are built around a framework ...". "Songs such as "Crystalised" and "VCR" begin with a melodic ostinato and some understated musical elements, such as a xylophone on the latter, before they lead to quietly sung"). Also, the PopMatters review summarized in the second paragraph of the Reception section reinforces this idea that the compositions of the songs are somewhat uniform ("...consistent structures and tempos of the songs..."). The article doesn't give much detail about those things because that would be too much detail, especially when five of the album's songs (the singles, as well as "Shelter") have articles of their own. Information on the songs should back as an example discussion of the album rather than stray off-topic on forced discussions of individual songs. I used the same approach on Marquee Moon and New York Dolls (album)--general discussion of the album, with certain songs described to support or reinforce those discussions of the album('s music/lyrics). Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm..... while there are separate articles for some tracks, it would help to perhaps elaborate for those which don't. In any case, I just don't think this is FA material right now. After ensuring there are no paraphrasing problems (I know you've insisted they aren't a concern right now, but still is best to recheck in case), probably better to go for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, most of even the lengthier reviews don't elaborate on those songs. Reviews such as Pitchfork's, Slant's, The AV Club's, and NME's stick to either the tracks with articles ("VCR", "Islands", Basic Space") and "Heart Skipped a Beat", which is why I chose that song to elaborate on with a sample and caption about its composition. Otherwise, there's not much encyclopedic language that could be added in the form of some analysis of their composition. Those reviews tend to wax poetic on the album in general. But could you please elaborate on what specifically doesn't make this "FA material right now"? Is it an actionable objection? Rationalobserver's personal standard for paraphrasing has been disputed against WP's standard, including in the examples he cited in this review. Dan56 (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, Rationalobserver's points are concerning, even if he's mistaken in them. In case there are errors, it's probably best to withdraw the nomination, get other editors to thoroughly spotcheck, and then renominate or—even better—go for GAN. As pointed out, the lead also is inadequate- doesn't even mention the singles (I don't find "they didn't perform well" a convincing reason to not even briefly mention them) or what critics said of the album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If he's mistaken in them, how are they a concern? Either you agree with his paraphrasing standard or not. Reviewers are free to check anything without spotcheck tools for themselves--they are all external links, including archived links to prevent linkrot. You pointed out the lead before, and I addressed that. There's no requirement to elaborate on singles just because this is an album article. "Although none of the album's singles were hits" is enough weight to a topic in this article that's given only two or three sentences in the #Promotion section. The lead follows standards of relative emphasis → "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." I did my research, the singles were of little importance here, and I gave it a sentence fragment in the lead in order to summarize the most important part about the singles--that they were not successful, but rather the songs licensed to other media was successful in promoting the album. What's given you the idea that they should still be written about more in the lead when they obviously weren't important to this article's topic? I have, however, added that critics praised the band's sound, since that is a verifiable summary of the reception, per #Release and reception → "Critics particularly praised the group's sound on the album." Dan56 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright:

Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Misplaced Pages articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.(emphasis added)

FTR, Dan56 is trying to convince the reviewers that my position is not supported by policy; however, Flyer22 recently said: "While Dan56 has often contributed positively to Misplaced Pages, I do see that he has engaged in a lot of WP:Close paraphrasing at the article in question. So I understand your concerns on that front." Rationalobserver (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 continued to say: "...But I don't believe that use of a single "distinctive" word, for example, should automatically be called plagiarism simply because the copyrighted source has used that same "distinctive" word. Dan56 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright: "Regardless of plagiarism concerns ... Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.(emphasis added) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, if he's mistaken in them, how are they a concern? Either you agree with his paraphrasing standard or not. Reviewers are free to check anything without spotcheck tools for themselves--they are all external links, including archived links to prevent linkrot. You pointed out the lead before, and I addressed that. There's no requirement to elaborate on singles just because this is an album article. "Although none of the album's singles were hits" is enough weight to a topic in this article that's given only two or three sentences in the #Promotion section. The lead follows standards of relative emphasis → "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." I did my research, the singles were of little importance here, and I gave it a sentence fragment in the lead in order to summarize the most important part about the singles--that they were not successful, but rather the songs licensed to other media was successful in promoting the album. What's given you the idea that they should still be written about more in the lead when they obviously weren't important to this article's topic? I have, however, added that critics praised the band's sound, since that is a verifiable summary of the reception, per #Release and reception → "Critics particularly praised the group's sound on the album." Dan56 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It turns out they weren't a mistake- the close paraphrasing needs to be addressed and FAC isn't the place to do all the cleaning. In its current state, it would automatically fail a GAN for paraphrasing too closely. For this, it's best to withdraw and clean the article out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, what close paraphrasing are you referring to? The ones with in-text attribution? The ones where phrases were too technical to paraphrase? The ones RationalObserver misrepresented with sentence fragments cherry-picked out of larger sentences in the article where there was a source attributed in-text? Is it the inflated size of RationalObserver's comments throughout this review and rhetoric that give you the impression it's more serious than actually is? Dan56 (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver found a nasty load, even if you say it was stretched. I'm sorry, though will say he's not as deceptive here as you seem to suggest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you taking it at face value, SNUGGUMS, or did you bother reading my responses to his "review"? Because that's what the first reviewer did before taking a closer look at what RationalObserver pointed out as close paraphrasing. Dan56 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's some problems I see looking through again.....

*FN's 5 and 8: what makes "Dummy" reliable?

It's listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as an acceptable source. According to their "About" page, it's an online magazine founded by Paul Benney and John Burgess, who previously founded Jockey Slut. Furthermore, the source is an interview with the xx, and that's what the material is attributed to--the band's words to the interviewer. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

*FN12: I'm skeptical about "Prefix"

It's a pub used by both AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic (). Also, this source in particular was written by the magazine's founder/editor Dave Park (). Ironically, this was one of the few reviews of xx to give any meaningful composition details about songs that either weren't singles or weren't "Intro"; this source is only being used to cite composition info for "Heart Skipped a Beat" in the audio sample box. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

*FN55: Subscription error, hard to verify

Here's a reprint published elsewhere of that original Music Week article. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• May as well use a reprint Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to make more sense to use the original source, SNUGGUMS. It wouldn't be faithful to the details in the citation--i.e. Music Week--since it's a different website it'd be linked to. Anyway, it isn't necessary for readers to have access to every source (WP:RSC), if that's the issue you're suggesting. Otherwise, the subscription required template is used as needed alongside the citations, such as in John Hay. Dan56 (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

*FN75: gives a Harvref error

I've fixed it, SNUGGUMS. Dan56 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On a plus note, no dead links. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, what I had to say about close paraphrasing in this review have been reinforced. Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It would probably still help for other editors (such as Flyer22 herself) to come in and leave input for this specific case. There are other concerns listed by others, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What are your remaining concerns, though? I feel as though I've done my best to address them so far. Dan56 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has gotten better, though will end on this note- Retrohead brought up points that would definitely help. I don't exactly feel confident right now supporting with the extensive scrutiny and concerns this has received from others (yes- this includes Rationalobserver, at least work something out even if you disagree with him). I'm also not sure what other editors are gonna say when reviewing this. Overall, I'm neutral. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

• It is standardized to have the album's duration placed at the end of the track listing and to introduce the record label in the 'Release history' section.

The total_length parameter is "not necessary in most cases (as that information will usually be covered by an infobox), but useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)." (Template:Track listing) I was considering the labels column, but the information wasn't uniform among the sources--different sources had different labels for the US release for instance, or none at all, but had the correct date. Some sources did not mention the label, such as the Australia source. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And I don't see how harmful it can be. If I want to check an album I'm interested in, it would be logical to expect to see song's duration and overall length. Not sure if I'm following the second explanation. The record label who distributes the album is merely a fact. What is printed on the vinyl/CD, that what it is.--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not harmful, just extraneous and not useful in the way the template parameter was intended for originally. As for the label, there can be different distributors depending on where the album is released--the Germany source says it was "Young Turks/XL/Beggars Group", while in the US it was released by Rough Trade according to PopMatters. The sources for Ireland and Australia's release dates don't have that label information available. Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:ALBUM#Release history, you ought to provide the label (regardless how many they are), and also incorporate audio format and catalog number. I don't know for what the Template:Track listing was meant, but the second example (Greatest Hits by Queen) features that option.--Retrohead (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That guideline is worded as "This information can be", so the table isn't a necessity at an article to begin with. Not every article has those sources available to it that cover dates + label consistently/correctly; I wasn't able to at either New York Dolls (album) nor Aaliyah (album), where I had to dig for several sources myself and even then I couldn't find the correct label for each country. As for the track listing template, Template:Track listing says that it is "useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)". The example you are citing, Greatest Hits by Queen, has the headline 1981 UK edition, which suggests there are other editions listed at that article's track listing section. At this article's section, there's only one, so the total length being noted only in the infobox should suffice--"not necessary in most cases (as that information will usually be covered by an infobox)". Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• There could be done a fair amount of prose trimming for things that are understandable. For example, "were subsequently signed to a recording contract" would retain its meaning without "to a recording contract".
• I'm little puzzled how McDonald was impressed by the "moments of silence"? I haven't read the source, but I assume he thought that the halts were places wisely.

The quote elaborates on it further, but that's all McDonald says in the source to explain himself more. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the wording in the original source? I'm struggling to understand how an audio engineer can be impressed by silence? I think he meant that the halts were used appropriately, not that they sounded "impressive".--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"I thought they were amazing. I'd already heard a couple of songs and I was already interested in the band anyway ... There was a lot of empty space in the xx's music ... the best stuff was the most sparse." (emphasis added) Would rewording it as "impressed by the intimate quality and use of silence" be better? Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have paraphrased the engineer correctly, leave it as is. Again, I haven't read the interview, but it seemed beyond my common sense at first read.--Retrohead (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• The third and fourth paragraph of the 'Lyrics' would read better if they were flipped. I expect the story behind the album's title to precede the lyrical subject explanation.

The title--explained in just that one sentence--only has relevance in this section because it introduces the idea of the band's age being subject to critics' interpretations of the lyrics. I think third paragraph should remain third since it introduces the basic themes on the album, whereas the title and their age are of secondary importance. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Describing a number of festivals as "well known" is a peacock word to a certain degree. And can you lose some of the commas in the sentence, having something like "They intermittently toured for 18 months"?

Would "high profile" be better? "Major" is what the source uses. Is this better? Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant to lose the "well known" description. And dropping the comma after "18 months" will make the sentence flow better.--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But I think it's correct grammar to leave it if "including..." is being introduced after. Would "for 18 months, which included most of 2010" sound better? Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was the sentence to be: "They intermittently toured for 18 months, including most of 2010".--Retrohead (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

k, done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I assume that the other band members aren't linked because they don't have articles on Misplaced Pages. But if they are noted musicians and fairly present in the media, they should be linked, despite this omission.

I don't know if they fit the threshold of media presence or notability, otherwise they'd have their own articles like Jamie xx. Both Oliver Sim and Romy Madley Croft redirect to the xx, which is already linked several times in the article and the infobox (WP:OVERLINK) Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if they are redirects to the band's page there's no point in linking them.--Retrohead (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll wrap my comments without a vote. Feel I'm not competent enough in this music genre to offer an opinion on the article's promotion. There was also concern with some unnecessary linking and music terminology, but I see that was already discussed. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Nikkimaria

Ian Rose has asked me to do some spotchecking on this article, in an effort to resolve the dispute above. I don't see anything that I would consider a copyright violation, at least in the material I checked. However, while limited close paraphrasing can be done with proper attribution, I would caution you against over-relying on that provision - fair use becomes harder to justify the more it's applied. The intent of "limited" is that such paraphrasing is used sparingly, and it seems that this article goes quite a ways beyond that. There are also a few instances where efforts to avoid close paraphrasing seems to have led to text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example. @Nikkimaria: (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think rationalobserver embellished those instances, particularly those where certain technical phrases or simple words could not be paraphrased but did not "copy" the creative language of the source. As for that example, Phrases in her AllMusic review comments that the "restraint and sophistication ... all the more impressive". I don't see how it's controversial to say that she found it "remarkably poised and sophisticated" when she said that those qualities make it "all the more impressive". The meaning is the same IMO; "impressive" for its "restraint and sophistication" = "remarkably poised and sophisticated". Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd also like to know what you think of this. Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dan are you thinking RationalObserver is a sock of a banned user? If that's the case, their comments should be stricken and hatted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Spike Wilbury, I am not a sock of a banned user, but Dan56 has been going around telling admins this for more than a month in an effort to discredit me. I deserve to be treated as everyone else, and the biggest mistake I ever made here was interacting with Dan56. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Belated thanks Nikki for stopping by per my request. This review has been open almost two months and, even without the back-and-forth arguments about close paraphrasing, we would still not be close to achieving consensus to promote so I'll be archiving the nomination shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2014 .

2003 Sri Lanka cyclone

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - definitely an interesting article, but one that would benefit from a going-over for both grammar/flow and MOS compliance. Just in the lead we've got "although increased wind shear weakening it" and "on May 19 as a re-intensified into a cyclonic storm" and "After a 15 day period". Happy to strike once a copy-edit has been done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. – Juliancolton |  15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As I comb through the article, I note that it seems to already be in fairly good shape. Before I finish my copyediting and offer my support, I'd like to see resolved a few issues that I'm not quite comfortable tackling myself.

• I think the Sri Lanka impact section might require some basic restructuring. You wait until the third paragraph to introduce the disaster with "the rains related to the cyclone caused severe flooding and landslides, mostly in Ratnapura and Nuwara Eliya districts", even though there are details of damage in those areas in the second paragraph.
• Most of the article seems to suggest that Sri Lanka had been saturated with rainfall before the storm, but one district was apparently in a severe drought. I know the climate is extremely variable on the island, but it's a bit of a trip to learn that an area the size of West Virginia experienced the full gamut of hydrology issues at the same time. Any way to make those facts jive a bit better (or at least make them more directly contradictory)?
• Farmers in the region also lost some of their rice paddies to the high waters, although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged, which was not expected to affect the harvest. - the two given sources seem to disagree with each other, to an extent, with the more recent source informing us that damage to rice was minimal. Ref was from while the storm was still active, and is based on what politicians said they saw, so I'm thinking it might not be so reliable.

Thoughts? – Juliancolton |  21:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit, but I've changed my mind about this article. While I might nominate it in the future, this wouldn't affect any ongoing topics, and so I am withdrawing the nomination. Thank you all for the time so far. All comments here will be addressed before a future run. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2014 .

Stroma, Scotland

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for consideration as a featured article. It covers the subject of Stroma, an island off the north coast of Scotland that was abandoned 50 years ago after a population collapse. Stroma is now completely uninhabited; visitors to Orkney will be familiar with the sight from the ferries of the island's ruined houses, which are also visible from the mainland. As well as telling the often colourful story of the island and its former inhabitants, it illustrates the struggle that many small island communities have faced in staying viable. It received a very good response from readers when it ran on DYK some months ago and has recently passed a Good Article review. Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Flag_of_Scotland.svg: source link is dead
• File:Lymphad3.svg: licensing for both source images appears incorrect - the uploaders do not hold copyright to this design. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled about this one. They're self-created images; what licence should be used instead? Prioryman (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• The images are self-created, but they are based on a pre-existing design, which may or may not be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• The pre-existing designs are both most certainly PD (I'm sure you know nobody has copyrighted the saltire and the lymphad is centuries old). But does that mean that any self-created renderings of those designs have to be PD as well? It's not as if either of these images are non-free content or derivatives thereof. Prioryman (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, it simply means you need to identify the designs as PD and give the appropriate source to support this. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Actually , I see the flag image already has a tag saying it's PD. The lymphad is from a 400-year-old coat of arms, so I've added a pd-ineligible tag to both the lymphad image and its source coat of arms. Both images are centuries old, pre-dating the existence of copyright law, so there clearly shouldn't be any question of them being PD. Prioryman (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport on comprehnsiveness and prose. looking good - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to its proximity to the Scottish mainland, Stroma has long been united with Caithness - certainly not united geographically! alternately, "has close ties with..." or something?

No, that doesn't really work - it should be politically united (as the intro says). Orkney has always been a separate domain. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

100 yards (91 m) inland - i think I'd make that "100 yards (90 m) inland" as it is not exactly 100 yards meant....

OK, i"ve made that change. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

can we link or explain "butt" and "ben"?

Good idea, I've added a footnote. It's the first time I've used that particular template; could you please check to confirm I've done it right? Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

yeah looks fine - I've used a different template but this is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

descriptors for Bella Bathurst?

OK, added. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

.. which discontinued any interest in serving the island - I think they'd "discontinue serving the island" or "ceased any interest in serving the island"

How about "abandoned"? Thematically it goes quite nicely with the abandonment of Stroma itself. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CorinneSD

1) In the first sentence in the lead, I suggest changing "of the Scottish mainland" to "of the mainland of Scotland". I think using the name of the country rather than the adjective helps readers mentally locate the island (even though "Scotland" is in the article title).

2) At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lead, I suggest changing "The low-lying island" to "This low-lying island". It is referring to an island just named and discussed. 3) I suggest changing the wording of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead from:

This is the kind of sentence that will make readers wonder why they abandoned it and continue reading. It gives sufficient information but not all the information.

3) Later in that paragraph is the following sentence:

I'm not sure that the phrase "the mainland region of" is necessary. You already mentioned Caithness in the first paragraph and it is implied in that sentence, "between the Orkney Islands and Caithness", that it is on the mainland of Scotland. There is also a link at Caithness. The sentence would be leaner without that phrase. Lean sentences often have more power.

4) In the next sentence, "Although it lies only a few miles off the Scottish coast,...", the pronoun "it" is slightly ambiguous. The reader has to stop for a second and realize that something that lies off a coast must be the island Stroma rather than the region Caithness. You might consider using "Stroma" instead of "it".

5) In this sentence:

Stroma is a low-lying island off the northern coast of the mainland of Scotland."

6) In this sentence:

The prepositional phrase "with..." minimizes the work of maritime pilots. Using an active verb phrase elevates it to an important occupation. You also have a "with" phrase shortly after this.

7) In the first paragraph of the section Stroma, Scotland# Geography, geology, flora and fauna, I see "north-west" and "south-east". I thought "northwest" and "southeast" were each one word.

8) In that same sentence,

Also, I would delete the parentheses around "the Inner Sound to the south, and the Outer Sound to the north" and use a comma: "...and divides the firth into two channels, the Inner Sound to the south and the Outer Sound to the north" (no comma in the middle).

9) In the first sentence of the second paragraph in Stroma, Scotland# Geography, geology, flora and fauna,

The verb is more direct and powerful than the participle.

10) The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of this section reads:

When you read, "created...", you obviously interpreted it as " created...", judging by your choice of past tense "eroded", but it could be interpreted as " created...", in which case present tense "erode" would follow. Of course, it is your choice. In the one, you are describing what led to the formation of present geos and inlets. In the other, you are describing the on-going and continuous process of erosion. Just something to think about.

11) In the following sentence:

I think it should be "and is connected to the sea", not "by the sea".

12) In the following sentence:

I would remove the comma after "within the Gloup".

13) In the following sentence:

"The flora and fauna of Stroma are similar to those of the mainland."

14) Regarding this sentence:

If something is treeless, it has no trees, so "entirely" is unnecessary. Saying that an island or area is treeless -- just that, treeless -- creates a stunning image. I also think using the participle "consisting", minimizes the information that follows it. The verb is more descriptive.

15) In the section Stroma, Scotland#Demographics is the following sentence:

I just don't think subordination is necessary here.

16) In the second paragraph in the subsection under History Stroma, Scotland#Prehistoric settlement and remains, there is a sentence that reads:

• always
• often
• usually
• sometimes

17) The very next sentence is:

"Little appears to be known about the purpose and origins of these structures".

That's all I can do right now. CorinneSD (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

18) In the middle of the third paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#Life on Stroma: 17th and 18th centuries is the following sentence:

(b) I've never seen a name that ends in "y", like "Kennedy", made into plural by changing the "y" to "i" and adding "es", as in study-studies. I think it should be "Kennedys", or "the Kennedy family".

19) In the fourth paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#19th and 20th centuries is the following sentence:

(Use en-dashes; I don't know how to put en-dashes here.) That way, you keep the present perfect tense, indicating that it is a continuing circumstance, but you also are able to give a figure for a specific period. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent suggestions, many thanks. I've implemented them all, with some minor amendments of my own in a couple of places. Here's a diff showing all the changes. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my additional comments at items #5 and 10, above. One additional comment:

20) The first sentence in the second paragraph in the lead reads:

"There was continuous human habitation on the island from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland in 1962."

::or:

The only problem with the first one is that you still have "habitation" and "inhabitants". I prefer the second one. (I wouldn't use "permanent residents" since that has other connotations, at least in the U.S., another phrase for "resident alien", or a resident who is not a citizen. I don't think "permanent" is necessary anyway.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

21) In the second-to-last paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#Geography, geology, flora and fauna is the following sentence:

"The passage is said to have been used for smuggling: the islanders are said to have concealed illegal distilling from HM Customs and Excise..."

CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• All done - thanks for the further comments. Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ben MacDui

I think this is a fine article. I am very pressed for time right now and not 100% up-to-speed on FAC protocols. I am assuming that as a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scottish Islands its not OK for me to offer a formal opinion. If that's not the case, pls alert me.

• Don't worry, it's absolutely fine to offer a formal opinion. Being a member of the WikiProject doesn't disqualify you. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

:Not everyone will agree, but Orkney Islands is a redirect becase the name of the archipelago is 'Orkney' and I would prefer 'islands of Orkney' or similar. Ditto under 19th century.

• It's a fair point - fixed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

'The heavily indented coastline has a circumference of about 7 miles (11 km), indented by numerous geos' uses indented twice.

• Changed the second "indented" to "punctuated". Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

'A partially collapsed sea cave called the Gloup' if it is called 'the Gloup' should the T not be capitalised? Haswell-Smith does so.

• Well spotted, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The flora and fauna section seems a little sparse to me. I imagine there is little or nothing that is specific to the island but a few species of local flora and maybe an estimate of bird/seal numbers woudl not go amiss (if they are available).

• I don't have that info, I'm afraid - I've looked for it. Perhaps the island is too obscure to have been documented in that level of detail? Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

See JNCC and HC for some detail that could be added about the locality, including Stroma. See also this pdf and SNH. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've managed to wring a bit more info out of those sources. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

'The settlements originally belonged to two different estates: the Freswick estate owned Nethertown and the Mey estate owned Uppertown' - this reads slightly clumsily to me and I suspect that finding a way to amalgamate it with the previous sentence might help to avoid using 'estate' three times in one sentence.

• Good point, I've reworded it. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

'Panoramic view of the north of Stroma, with Orkney in the distance. The Mains of Stroma, the houses of Nethertown and the top of the lighthouse can be seen.' In my view the 'The' before 'Mains' is redundant, in Scottish English at least.

• Thanks, changed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

'The population reached a peak of 375 people' - 'people' is redundant.

• It could have meant sheep. ;-) But that's a good point, I've changed it. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

' (also known as "the Robber's Castle") ' - surley either the "Robber's Castle", or "The Robber's Castle"?

• It's verbatim from the source, so I didn't feel I should change it... Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know where the 'the fatal wounding of John Forbes of Watertown' took place.

• See here. I've not found a reliable source for it though. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be worthy of a Note stating that this took place in the vicinity of Ellon Castle in Aberdeenshire. If you need another ref, its Coventry, Martin (2008) Castles of the Clans. Musselburgh. Goblinshead. ISBN 9781899874361, p 304. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for that reference? Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's there, after the ISBN.

D'oh! How embarrassing that I missed that. I've added it now - thanks for looking it up. Prioryman (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you can be forgiven - I know how wearying this process can be. Ben MacDui 19:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

:Rev George Low seems to lack a period after 'Rev'.

'She hed all her wits boot her.' It's an uncommon dilaect but I just wanted to check it should not be 'aboot' which would be a more common usage.

• It's verbatim. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wick and Thurso can be linked.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we link 'Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society shop'?

• To what? I don't think we have an article on it, do we? Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see now that Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society is only a redirect, although the main article does mention it. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

'I see Stroma was sold last week, and it's not sold this week' This is odd - can you check it's a verbatim quote?

• Yes, it's verbatim. He's saying that he heard that Stroma had been sold last week but found this week that it hadn't been. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You might add an explanatory Note as this reads oddly without the context. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about Caithness CC as a red link - hard to see anyone not just adding material to Caithness.

• Fair point, delinked. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think it appropriate, Geology of Orkney could be a 'See also'. You might also consider adding Mingulay and St Kilda as islands with similar histories, although I accept there are numerous other examples.

• I've linked the islands. Thanks for your suggestions! Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Ben MacDui 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to Prioryman for my slow response time. Hoping to provide a full reply tomorrow. Ben MacDui 16:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A few comments added above. I'd be happy to support this subejct to a little more detail on the wildlife front being added. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ben Macdui: Thanks, I've tackled the comments you added. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Ben MacDui 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a full review, a question: the lead suggests that the "last inhabitants left only as recently as 1997." But the body states that it was 1962. This is confusing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is confusing and suggest making the latter part of the lead "From an all-time peak of 375 people in 1901, the population fell to just 12 by 1961 and, save for the lighthouse keepers and their families, the last islanders left at the end of the following year." Ben MacDui 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've reworded this as: "From an all-time peak of 375 people in 1901, the population fell to just 12 by 1961. The last native islanders left at the end of the following year, while the island's final abandonment came in 1997 when the lighthouse keepers and their families departed." Prioryman (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Per this conversation, archiving as there should only be one solo FAC nomination per editor; this one has in any case not seen much activity for a while. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2014 .

Didier Drogba

Nominator(s): Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about an Ivorian professional footballer. He is best known for his career at English Premier League club Chelsea where he won three league titles, four domestic titles and the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12. He is the club's fourth highest scorer of all time, and his country's all-time top goalscorer.

The article's initial FAC nomination was not promoted because there were several issues with how it was written and referencing, and since then it has been through a peer review. As of this revision all the issues that surfaced during the previous FAC and the peer review have been addressed, and I believe the article is now ready to be featured.

Comments from Tezero

It dispirits and frustrates me when FACs are archived for lack of activity, so I'll lay down a review here. Keep in mind, for better or for worse, that I know and care very little about soccer, even less than the average American. (I mainly edit and review video game-related articles here, but I've never played Super Mario Strikers even.) These are a few initial comments that by no means constitute a complete review; they're just things that jump out at me. Feel free to annoy me if I somehow forget about this nom.

• ""will be leaving the club when his contract expires at the end of June"" - why does this need to be in quotes? Especially awkward when the sentence only adds "2012" afterward. Paraphrase or something.
• In this entire subsection, there's a little too much "On such and such a date, so and so happened" wording. I mainly notice this in band/musician articles, and it really gets tiring to the eyes, so try to find more varied sentence structures or otherwise introduce the dates in different ways. (Of course, being from Freedom Land, I'm obligated to shed tears at seeing day before month, but I'll have to let that slide here...)
• The section "2009–10" has some massively uneven paragraph lengths; see if you can reorganize or repartition information to flatten this out a bit.
• In the section "International career", the paragraphs are moreso just quite short on average. I count ten, and I think it could easily be five or six.
• "cease fire" - I think it's one word or hyphenated, either one.
• "In September 2011, Drogba joined the Truth, Reconciliation and Dialogue Commission as a representative to help return peace to his home nation" - What did he do there? This whole paragraph just kind of tells the reader that he made peace over and over again without a whole lot of details, though I do like the anecdote at the paragraph's opening.
• Sources 35 and 130 (The Daily Telegraph and ESPN) are dead links.

Tezero (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Davykamanzi, are you still active in this nom? Tezero (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: I haven't really been following the subsequent revisions of the article since I nominated because I've been very busy of late outside Misplaced Pages but I would say that I'm still active in this nomination. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, please fix these when you get around to it, and then ping me or something. Tezero (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Oppose: Sorry about this, but as a starting point I don't think the sourcing is quite there. I've looked at the lead and the first section and a few things jump out. This oppose is not set in stone, but I require some convincing. There is a lot of good stuff here, but it needs some work to get to FA.

• Why are there citations in the lead? The information should be in the main body and cited there. Although not really one of the FA criteria, it is usually better not to have citations in the lead.
• Is didierdrogba.com a reliable source? I cannot tell from looking at the site who wrote it or where its information comes from. At best it is an autobiography and may not be entirely trustworthy, but I'd like more information about it.
• The early life section uses several sources which have much more information than is presented here. If the above source IS reliable, it contains details about his education, family and other things neglected here. For example, a couple of sources say why his parents moved him to France. But similar detail is available in the newspaper sources cited. This is quite a big issue for me. This is information that should be in the article.
• What makes vitalfootball.co.uk a reliable source? Who writes it? It looks to be fan-written from a quick glance.
• I also have reservations about TheChels.co.uk
• The current ref 148, "Christ-Freddy DROGBA", links to a homepage, not to anything about Drogba.
• Ref 193 does not have any information other than a link (publisher, date, etc) and is a redirect of some kind.
• Glancing quickly through the rest of the article, it looks to be a little too focussed on 2008 onwards. While the early seasons are covered in a summary, these later dates slip into "On XXX, Drogba did XXX" form, which is a little too much like WP:PROSELINE. FAs should avoid this and give a more general summary.
• Finally, I wonder how comprehensive this article can be when it does not refer to any print sources. A quick search of Amazon reveals a 2007 biography of Drogba and a 2008 autobiography. Perhaps there is nothing in either book that is not already in the article, but for this to meet the FA criteria we need to show that it has consulted and represents all the main sources.

These issues come from a very quick look at the article; a closer look might well reveal more. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks and doesn't appear to have any prospect of achieving consensus to promote anytime soon. Davykamanzi, I'd recommend you take the time away from FAC to address all the issues noted and perhaps ping Tezero and Sarastro for further input, if they're willing, prior to a renomination here when you have more time to address any comments as they arise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2014 .

Amphetamine

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The initiation of this FAC marks eight months since the first FAC nomination was created...

Sources: this link contains all the WP:PAYWALLED papers cited in the amphetamine article. The file names reflect the ref name from the source (i.e., these papers were named according to <ref name="File name">).

Ian Rose, following your advice from the last FAC, I'm pinging everyone from previous FAC nominations except Shudde, since I have a strong aversion to interacting with that editor.

@Anypodetos, Aa77zz, Hamiltonstone, The Sceptical Chymist, and John: Do any of you have any comments on the current state of the article? The previous FAC nomination received minimal reviewer input, so the coordinators suggested I seek further input from you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, Anypodetos, Aa77zz, Hamiltonstone, The Sceptical Chymist, John, and Nikkimaria: sorry if this is the second WP:ECHO notification you're receiving; AmericanLemming mentioned the notification didn't go through so I'm trying again. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I received both notifications FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: I imagine you don't receive this request very often, but would it be reasonable to ask that this nomination be archived tomorrow evening? I'd like to finish going through the article with AmericanLemming as he completes his review because he's being very thorough in his review and is, in my opinion, doing a fantastic job at improving language accessibility while retaining the technical content. I'm going to address his comments in this nomination tonight and tomorrow morning and then plan to continue working with him at Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 5#Informal peer review before my final renomination of this article.
Also (@Ian Rose), following up from my pings at the beginning of this FA nomination, of all the nominators in the previous echo notification list, only Anypodetos responded (see his section at the end of my talkpage). He went through and reviewed/edited the article section (Amphetamine#Overdose) that I pointed out - it was the only part of the article which was substantively changed since his review. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

Can action later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming

@AmericanLemming: I've started the 4th FAC, so it may be best to continue the remainder of your review here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'd like to apologize for disappearing for the past four days, but I flew from Wisconsin to Houston on Wednesday, drove eight hours to Oklahoma and moved into my dorm room on Thursday, and I've been catching up on sleep the past two days. By the way, User:Seppi333, I don't think you've actually pinged me or the other editors, because I didn't get a notification. While editor apathy may have had something to do with the total lack of comments the third time around, it may also have something to do with not pinging the past reviewers correctly. To get another editor's attention, you can leave a message on their talk page, or you can use ], I think. For more information on the matter, see Misplaced Pages:Notifications, especially the explanation of why they sometimes don't work. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In other news, my semester starts on Monday, which may interfere with my ability to finish my review, but I'll do my best. You've put dozens of hours of work into this article, and I'd hate to see your efforts go unrecognized. Even if the article doesn't deserve the FA star right now, it's pretty close. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's actually closer to a couple hundred hours, especially if you include the time it took to make the annotated images.

In any event, I suppose the WP:ECHO feature didn't function since I used the feature while creating the page with several signatures. I'll go ahead and try it again... hopefully I'm not echo-spamming everyone though, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to FAC delegates: Before I review this article at FAC, I should mention what I've already looked at during my informal peer review on the article talk page. I have proof-read the lead and the "Uses", "Contraindications", and "Side effects" sections for prose quality, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the non-expert (that is, me). I've made 14 comments, all of which Seppi333 has addressed, and I've made 18 edits to the article itself. I plan to slowly but steadily work my way through the rest of the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Overdose

Apologies for my weeklong absence. Hopefully I'll be able to do a section a week; I might try to do two or three over Labor Day weekend. We'll see; my classes may get in the way of that. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• “An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care.” What is “appropriate care”, exactly?

That was a language an author used to mean medical intervention at a hospital. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• “High or low blood pressure” How can a moderate overdose cause “high or low blood pressure”? I sense a note in the making.

There's several cases where it can cause an elevation or reduction in some measure, e.g., blood pressure, pulse, and blood potassium levels. It depends upon the dose and initial conditions of the user. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• When we talk about “moderate overdoses” and “extremely large overdoses”, could we give the approximate range for each?

Per WP:MEDMOS, I couldn't specify the range (this is indicated in a note in the source code), so I resorted to using those terms to give a relative magnitude for the range. The range is actually somewhat variable depending upon the user's tolerance as well, so it would've been hard to specify it in any case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• I don’t normally cite WP:SEAOFBLUE, but it seems to apply to the “extremely large overdose” sentence. You have no less than 16 blue links in a row. Can we find some way to reduce that number? Maybe only link the most unfamiliar ones? How else am I as the reader supposed to know what to click on? All of them? Maybe split them up into more common and less common symptoms?

The longest chain after my last edit is 6 comma separated blue links in a row. Let me know if you think it needs more revision. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

As I (finally) take another look at the sentence, I'm convinced that the number of things listed in a row is as much of a problem as the fact that so many of them are linked. To make it more reader-friendly, I would suggest grouping the symptoms into related categories and then having a sentence for each category. Perhaps you could do symptoms related to the brain/nervous system, symptoms related to the circulatory/pulmonary system, and then put whatever doesn't fit in those two categories in a third sentence. Breaking the sentence down will greatly increase readability, and grouping them by organ system affected will make it more logical. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, derp. Alright, I'll work on this today and follow up here once I'm done. I agree - the approach you're suggesting would make this read better. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've decided how to partition that section, though I had a quick question for you before going ahead with it. Do you think it would be better to keep the section as prose, or should I convert the OD symptoms list into a wikitable? If I convert it into a table, it would have a format that looks something like this:

I definitely would favor the table. It would help the reader to compare the severity of a moderate overdose and a extremely large overdose, and it would allow us to keep all the blue links without making the list of symptoms unreadable, like it is right now in prose form. The only difficulty I see is sandwiching text between the table and the giant annotated image we already have in this section; you may have to move that down a little. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made the table; I'm seeking feedback at WT:MED before pasting the completed table and updated section into the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also, define metabolic acidosis, respiratory alkalosis, serotonin toxidrome, and sympathomimetic toxidrome in parentheses.

Done for three of these... I'll do the 4th once I can check the ref for more details. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• Alright, one more comment on that sentence. How can the blood’s pH be too high and too low at the same time (respiratory alkalosis and metabolic acidosis, respectively)? Does this call for another note? AmericanLemming (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to drop by my university library to check the book ref before I clarify this.

Ok, so apparently the ref for metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis is this one (corresponds to the ref named "Acute amph toxicity" in the source code). Per this ref, the two can occur together. I'm not sure the relationship between metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis can be easily explained in non-technical terms though; the parenthetical explanation for respiratory alkalosis is also a little more technical than that term (reduced partial pressure of blood carbon dioxide) as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've been a little busier than I expected this past week, so I haven't worked on these issues yet. Sorry about that I'll get to this tomorrow since I've got some free time available now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been rethinking my review of this article; perhaps instead of shooting for a section a week I could try to do a paragraph a day. That might make going through the technical sections of the article a little less overwhelming. We'll see. And since we both seem to run into busy spells here and there, this might take a while. Hopefully I can finish before this gets to the bottom of the FAC list again, though. Ian might give us some extra time if progress continues to be made, but I'd rather not count on that. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, I want to Thank you for all the hard work and effort you've put into this review so far. I really do appreciate it! Secondly, I'd prefer that you not burn out from doing this, so please go at whatever pace you're comfortable with! After all, WP:There is no deadline, and since you're being very thorough and making useful edit suggestions, I actually don't mind renominating it again if you happen to be too busy during the coming month. Take whatever time you need! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• “Tolerance develops rapidly in amphetamine abuse, so periods of extended use require increasing doses of the drug in order to achieve the same effect.” If tolerance develops rapidly, that would imply the recreational user needs to rapidly increase the dose to achieve the same effect. Perhaps “require steeply increasing doses” would fit better here?

Just to keep the language simple/straightfoward, would you be okay with it worded this way? I think it reflects the idea you're suggesting (the "rate of change of dosage increase" increases with respect to time) if I understand it correctly, but I'd be okay with your version if you prefer it that way. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

I like your wording better than mine, actually. I think "increasingly larger" is slightly more objective and doesn't exaggerate the effect like "steeply increasing" does. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note 11 doesn’t make any sense to me. What is “addiction treatment” (isn’t that the drug you’re taking, like imipramine?) and what is “adherence to addiction treatment”? Sticking to your withdrawal dosage schedule?

I actually have no clue about the intended definition of "adherence to addiction treatment". Cochrane used that phrase and didn't define it ANYWHERE in their paper (seriously, wtf?); I was very annoyed when writing this section because of this oversight on their part. I think what that term is supposed to mean is the amount of time which a person remains in a treatment program; so, in the context of that note, I'm assuming it's supposed to mean that imipramine increases the amount of time that a person continues to take imipramine (vs a placebo) as a treatment for amphetamine. I don't see how that makes imipramine useful as a treatment for amphetamine addiction, but that's the most logical meaning I could infer from that phrase and how it was used in the paper. This is a link to the complete Cochrane review on addiction treatment, hosted on my google site/file locker. I'm completely ok with either deleting the reference to imipramine entirely or trying to explain what that term means in the note; let me know which you think would be better. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

I'd suggest explaining the term in a note. I found a nice paper that defines treatment adherence succinctly: The impact of psychiatric diagnosis on treatment adherence and duration.... You could add "(Treatment adherence is sometimes defined as 'numbers of visits per month and treatment duration')" and then cite the above journal article. It agrees with you that treatment adherence isn't a very useful metric: "First, it must be acknowledged that measures of treatment adherence and participation duration are, at best, proxy measures for clinical outcomes and program effectiveness." AmericanLemming (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of amphetamine dependence and abuse." This is a tad clunky. How about saying “there is no treatment for amphetamine dependence and abuse”?

I agree, that does seem a bit verbose. Would you be ok with it if I phrased this way - diff? It's a little longer than your version, but more direct and also less wordy than Cochrane's statement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

Works for me. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• “increased activation of dopamine receptors and co-localized NMDA receptors in the mesolimbic pathway” I think it would be helpful to have a note mentioning that the mesolimbic pathway is one of the brain’s main dopaminergic (dopamine-transporting) pathways. Context is key for the non-expert.

I think I've clarified it with this edit, but please let me know if anything is still unclear or could use additional clarification! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

I've kept what you've changed but added my tidbit about the mesolimbic pathway being one of the brain’s main dopaminergic (dopamine-transporting) pathways; changing "mesolimbic pathway" to "dopamine pathway connecting the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens" only made it more confusing to the non-expert (i.e., me). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• “This review also noted that magnesium ions, which inhibit NMDA receptor calcium channels, and serotonin have inhibitory effects on NMDA receptors.” So serotonin doesn’t inhibit NMDA receptor calcium channels? If it did, we could reword this sentence to make it flow a lot better.

NMDA receptors have rather esoteric pharmacology... there are numerous different binding sites for different compounds. See this commons image and caption for reference of the binding sites - I'm not sure which location serotonin binds at, though I know it doesn't directly block or "plug" the channel like magnesium does. That said, I'm completely ok with simplifying the sentence. I'll see if I can think of a less wordy and more direct way of stating it and then follow up here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

I've gone ahead and reworded it myself. I think it's still correct, but you might want to make sure. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• “It also suggested that, based upon animal testing, pathological amphetamine use significantly reduces the level of intracellular magnesium throughout the brain” In this case, is “pathological” a synonym for “unsafe” or “heavy recreational”? If so, I’d recommend switching to one of those two terms; for a second I thought that excessive amphetamine use was caused by another disease, which didn’t seem right.

Pathological use is essentially a form of use that will result in addiction (or more generally, any form of substance-use disorder associated with amphetamine). Off the top of my head, "addiction-inducing use" or some equivalent variant of that would be a suitable replacement for that term if "pathological use" seems to jargony/technical. Let me know! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

I like the definition in parentheses, but I've removed the Wiktionary link because it's the specific definition of "pathological" that's confusing here, not the general definition. The average reader will know that "pathological" means of or related to a disease/disease-causing, but the way it's used in this specific case that's potentially misleading. We laypeople usually think of pathogens (bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc.) when we hear the word "pathological", not illicit drugs. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• “supplemental magnesium” if this is a possibly effective treatment, why don’t we mention it with fluoxetine and imipramine above?

The main reason is that it was from a different review. WP:MED has a thing for Cochrane reviews in particular (the one that mentioned fluoxetine/imipramine) because they're extremely rigorous evidence-based systematic reviews (their reviews are arguably the highest quality medical sources). Since the magnesium review wasn't systematic (i.e., the evidence quality wasn't quite as high), I figured I should separate them. That said, the magnesium review also mentioned fluoxetine, which is why I noted that it agreed/corroborated with the Cochrane review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• “as been shown to reduce self-administration in both humans and lab animals” meaning that they give themselves smaller doses of amphetamine/give themselves amphetamine less often? I’m not sure exactly what “self-administration” means. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-administration in a lab animal is essentially the of a drug by an animal that has free access to large quantities of the drug. So in this context, it means the amount of freely accessible drug that an animal in the treatment group uses is reduced compared to an animal in the control group. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

Life keeps getting in the way of Misplaced Pages; I'm going to be really busy until Friday morning this week, but after that I should be able to power through a section or two. Between two essays and my Friday biochemistry test, I don't have much time to spare until the weekend. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've finished going through the prose of the Overdose section, though I do plan to go through it again, as it's hard to catch everything the first time around. One general note: I have some issues with the organization of the section, particularly with the beginning and ending and with the subheadings. See the suggestions below. I would like to log in every day and keep an eye on developments here, but in reality we're probably looking at middle to end of next week or possible next weekend; I'm kind of busy through Wednesday. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1. This section is technical enough that I think a introduction paragraph is warranted. Give the general reader the bottom line about the most effective treatments, give a simplified description of the bimolecular mechanism of addiction, ditto with psychosis, toxicity, and withdrawal. Don't make them go digging for what they're looking for, especially when some of the content is highly technical.

2. Also, I don't think the "Psychosis" and "Toxicity" sections are long enough to warrant their own level 3 headings when "Dependence and addiction" is a level 3 heading with five paragraphs and those two are half-paragraphs. I suggest either significant expansion, consolidation of the two into one level 3 heading subsection, or addition to the top of the section with the rest of the overdose symptoms.

3. Put the Overdose symptoms into a chart as we talked about above and then move the giant annotated image further down so we're not sandwiching text between images.

4. I have some more ideas for rearranging and adding/moving subsection headers, but I'll wait on those until we've decided what to do with the above three proposals. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And now for the prose comments for the rest of the section:

• “Cognitive behavioral therapy” Could we give a brief definition in-text?
• “Cognitive behavioral therapy is currently the most effective clinical treatment for psychostimulant addiction” So even though it’s the most effective clinical treatment, isn’t that based on extremely limited evidence? Or does the Cochrane Collaboration review from the “Pharmacological treatments” subsection only refer to drugs?
• The last sentence in the “Behavioral treatments” paragraph is pretty much unintelligible to the general reader. While I think the whole sentence is in need of some improvement, the very last part is the worst offender: I’ll start from the beginning of the sentence and take it by parts:

  1. “aerobic exercise decreases psychostimulant self-administration” I added a definition of self-administration in the above paragraph, so this is good.

  2. “attenuates sensitization to the rewarding effects of psychostimulants” So basically you don’t feel as good when you take the drug?

  3. “reduces the reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior” So you’re less likely to relapse?

  4. induces opposite effects on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling to those induced by pathological stimulant use.” What are the “opposite effects” on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling caused be aerobic exercise, and what are the effects caused by pathological stimulant use?

• “Current models of addiction from chronic drug use involve alterations in gene expression in certain parts of the brain.” Based on what I read later, I take it that “certain parts of the brain” really means the nucleus accumbens. How about “in certain parts of the brain, especially the nucleus accumbens”?
• “The most important transcription factors” I would suggest adding a note explaining the role of transcription factors in gene expression.
• “since its overexpression in the nucleus accumbens is necessary and sufficient for many of the neural adaptations seen in drug addiction” I assume you’re referencing necessary and sufficient cause here, but the fact that you neither mention the word “cause” nor link to Necessary and sufficient causes is cause for confusion. Also, why is ΔFosB considered a “necessary and sufficient cause” of these neural changes? And what are these neural adaptations, anyway? If the neural adaptations are talked about in the caption to the giant annotated image, you should add “(see caption below image to the right)” so people can read up on that if they want to.
• “Since natural rewards induce ΔFosB just like drugs of abuse do” What does it mean that they “induce” ΔFosB? They cause the body to make more of it?
• “and amphetamine-induced sex addictions.” Do these amphetamine-induced sex addictions occur frequently at therapeutic and/or recreational doses? How does amphetamine cause sex addictions? Does an amphetamine-induced sex addiction mean that you’re addicted to both amphetamine and sex? I’m not harping on this just because it mentions sex; I feel that the sentence as is introduces a condition/disease without really explaining it.
• “Psychosis” subsection: I feel that the current length of this section doesn’t do the topic justice. We don’t need four full paragraphs about it, but how about 8-10 sentences instead of the current four?
• “Toxicity” subsection: Same concern as with the Psychosis subsection. Again, I’d feel much more comfortable with the article’s comprehensiveness with 8-10 sentences here instead of three.
• Actually, as I come to think about it, how about we expand the above two subsections slightly, delete the subsection headings, and then move them to the topic of the section where the other overdose side-effects are found?
• “Manufacturer prescribing information does not indicate the presence” Which manufacturer? Or are we talking about US FDA prescribing regulations? I’m confused. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been stupidly busy the past two weeks, but I'll have some spare time this week to work on this. Sorry for the delay! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Considering how long it's been taking us to go through the article, it will probably be archived before we finish, but we can just continue the review on the talk page and renominate when we're good and ready. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've finally managed to create the OD symptom table (I'm seeking feedback on it before adding it to the article - a tentative version is in my sandbox at the moment), though I probably won't get to these recent points you've added until tomorrow. I'm a bit behind on my editing, but I'll address these issues soon enough. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments for Nikkimaria

@Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed your three bulleted concerns from the previous review, though I'm not entirely certain what you were referring to when you mentioned the italics; was this present in the refs, the article, or both? I made a few cuts in the article where the added stress wasn't completely necessary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: I followed the ref formatting for the medication guide work/publisher fields as used on Bupropion, since it's the only current pharmaceutical FA and it recently went through a FAR. Most of the citations from accessdata.fda.gov used on amphetamine are drafted/published by a pharmaceutical company and hosted on that site. Consequently, I ended up placing the pharmaceutical company that copyrighted the medication guide in the publisher field to maintain concordance with bupropion's formatting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Axl

• From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors worldwide, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine; however, in some parts of Europe, amphetamine is more prevalent than methamphetamine." It is unclear to me why the lead section specifically draws a comparison with the prevalence of methamphetamine. This comparison is only helpful if the reader already has an idea of the usage of methamphetamine. (I certainly don't know that.) Why not mention cannabis, MDMA, or cocaine? Axl ¤ 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Axl:The lead statement was a summary of Amphetamine#History, society, and culture, specifically the statements "Amphetamine is still illegally synthesized today in clandestine labs and sold on the black market, primarily in European countries. Outside Europe, the illicit market for amphetamine is much smaller than the market for methamphetamine." The comparison to meth in that section was included for two reasons: the first is the amalgamation of amphetamine and methamphetamine's society and culture sections into the history and culture of substituted amphetamines article (they have a fair amount of overlapping historical/sociocultural aspects, hence the merge). The second reason is that amphetamine, MDMA, and methamphetamine were grouped together in a very large section with detailed analysis/comparison in the World Drug Report ref, e.g., see pages 123-135(they share very similar synthesis methods and precursor compounds). Cocaine/cannabis were covered in different sections with no comparisons to amphetamine-type stimulants. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: MDMA was also included in the lead comparison a while ago, but Exercisephys removed it. The illicit production of MDMA is much less prevalent than amphetamine/methamphetamine production though (it's harder to make and the precursors are more difficult to acquire than amph/meth). I can re-add it to the lead and body if you think it's worth including. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it is helpful to the reader to include a comparison with methamphetamine and/or MDMA in the lead section. It would be far more useful to indicate how many people use amphetamine illegally. This source might be helpful. Perhaps you could provide some sort of ranking among the illicit drugs (in terms of prevalence of use)? Also, there should be an indication somewhere in the article of the amount of money (street value?) of amphetamine sold per year.

All of this information doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead section, but it certainly should be in the article. Axl ¤ 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've added the usage statistics of "amphetamines" (amph/meth) over the past year in the EU member states. Since price for amph varies locally in the EU (6-38 euros/g), I used the total confiscated mass instead of total average street value. Diff Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you rounded 0.9% up to "roughly 1%". Otherwise, the information that you have added is helpful. However that source has more information available. It includes an estimate of price (either €6–38 or €9–23 per gram) and variation in purity. Ideally, I would like to see an estimate of total usage rather than seizure. Also, I would like to see a ranking of prevalence among the other illicit drugs.

I note that you did not remove the comparison with methamphetamine from the lead section. Axl ¤ 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Diff - Better? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Although I am a little surprised that the source separates opiates from opioids. My understanding is that opiates are directly derived from opium, while opioids also include the synthetic/semi-synthetic drugs. Axl ¤ 20:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Presently, it is typically prescribed as Adderall." "Presently" is often used to mean "Soon". Perhaps "Currently" would be better? Also, "it" could be inferred to mean "Benzedrine" on the basis of the preceding sentence. It may be better to spell out "pharmaceutical amphetamine". Axl ¤ 17:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage, but, in individuals with ADHD, stimulants appear to improve brain development and nerve growth." The term "stimulants" is rather vague. Perhaps change this to "amphetamine" or "stimulants such as amphetamine"? Axl ¤ 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Diff - this is more or less how it was written a week or two ago. Lots of edits to this section recently. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't help. What are "ADHD stimulants"? These could be inferred to mean environmental factors that provoke ADHD. Actually, on second thoughts, my second suggestion would be better as "stimulant drugs such as amphetamine". Axl ¤ 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Diff - this better? Little more succinct. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine ... improves function of the right caudate nucleus and other parts of the brain involved in dopamine transmission." I am not sure that "involved in dopamine transmission" is the best phrase. This seems to imply that dopamine transmission is an aim in itself. How about "that utilize dopamine transmission". Axl ¤ 10:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I figured it might be simpler to just word it like this: Diff. How's that look? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• In "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 3 includes note 6, which describes the anatomical locations of dopamine & norepinephrine neurotransmission. Could this information be worked into the body of the text rather than as a note? Axl ¤ 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the only reason that note was made was because Shudde complained that it was unnecessarily technical, but he's not reviewing the article anymore. The article text is basically just a simplified version of the text in the note; the note was originally the text in the article. I can just replace the article text with the note text if you'd like. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. I have invited Shudde to comment here. Axl ¤ 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any comment from Shudde, that is fine. Axl ¤ 18:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 4: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine in such people should be avoided." I think that we may have discussed this point during a previous FAC. Does the statement imply that it is acceptable to give high doses to ADHD children without tics? Why should high doses be avoided? I am only able to view the abstract of the reference. It does not seem to examine children without tics at all. From the reference's abstract, it seems that high doses might exacerbate tic disorder, but the evidence is not that strong. Axl ¤ 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Paywalled journal source link. Link to that Cochrane review. The statements in the Cochrane review are only relevant for children with ADHD and comorbid tic disorders, so that statement isn't relevant to child ADHD without comorbidity. High dose dextroamphetamine use in that study increased the risk of exacerbated tic symptoms without additional treatment benefit compared to low doses (see page 11), hence their conclusion to avoid high doses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I guessed that that was the intended meaning. However the current text could be inferred to mean that high doses of dextroamphetamine could be useful in people without tics. Axl ¤ 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• From "Medical", subsection "Enhancing performance", paragraph 1: "Amphetamine and other ADHD stimulants also improve task saliency (motivation to perform a task) and increase arousal." Could you clarify the meaning of "arousal" in this context please? (Perhaps "wakefulness"?) Axl ¤ 21:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Arousal has a perfect description. Wakefulness is a suitable simplified substitute for the term. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you incorporate this into the article please? Axl ¤ 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ 12:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• From "Contraindications": "People who have experienced allergic reactions to other stimulants in the past or are taking monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are advised not to take amphetamine." The FDA reference indicates that hypersensitivity to sympathomimetic amines or use of MAOIs are contraindications. Axl ¤ 19:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sympathomimetic amines are actually a chemical subclass of stimulants (sympathomimetics are drugs which increase activity of the sympathetic nervous system; sympathomimetic amines are those which also possess an amine group, e.g., catecholamines), so I just simplified the language and used the broader term "stimulants" instead. I did this mainly to keep the section accessible for the layperson. I imagine anyone prescribing an amphetamine pharmaceutical isn't using wikipedia as their primary reference for contraindictions, so I wasn't worried about making this section very precise/technical when I wrote it. I can specify this with "stimulants (specifically, sympathomimetics)" if you prefer though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Support; haven't read through it in detail but everything looks to be in order. I suppose if I had one complaint, it'd be that the page is unclear at points as to what specifically amphetamine is, but that can be explained by the ambiguity of the term in common use as mentioned in the intro, so I don't have a problem with it. Tezero (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Anypodetos

Seppi told me the Overdose section has changed considerably since my last review, so I'm focusing on this.

• "hyperthermia" → "elevated body temperature" or "elevated body temperature" or "hyperthermia (elevated body temperature)"?

Pasted "hyperthermia (elevated body temperature)" per your suggestion. :) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• Does addiction/withdrawal belong here? MOS:MED says withdrawal belongs into the side effects section.

Amphetamine withdrawal (technically a misnomer) only occurs in response to excessive binges, so it makes more sense to place this under overdose; the phenomenon is essentially a rebound effect from a drug binge as opposed to an actual episode of withdrawal associated with physical dependence though. Withdrawal is actually a concept related to addiction (clinically: substance dependence), so it would normally be appropriate to place it as a subsection of addiction or dependence, but as I mentioned before, amphetamine withdrawal is less a case of true withdrawal than a rebound effect.
I actually plan to bring this section ordering issue up on the MOS:MED talkpage soon since the current MOS ordering is unusual. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• Behavioral treatments:

• "adjunct treatment (supplemental treatment)" → simply "supplemental treatment"? Does the word "adjunct" add anything here?

I'm ok with removing adjunct if you'd prefer. An adjunct treatment is basically one which is used together with a primary treatment and never by itself. It's a little more exact than "supplemental", though its meaning is probably only apparent to clinicians. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• "and induces opposite effects on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling to those induced by pathological stimulant use" → "and induces effects on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling opposite to those induced by pathological stimulant use" would save the reader the question "opposite to what?"

I'm planning to reword this by the end of the day; that paragraph is essentially a summary of the "psychostimulants" and "exercise" columns in the table at ΔFosB#Summary of addiction-related plasticity. I'll reply here when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• Image: (cool one)

Thanks! It took a lot of time to make. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• Wikilink the words in "Color legend 1"? (ion channel etc.)

Done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• NMDA receptor co-agonist: This is amphetamine (or a similar drug) to judge from the text? Could you clarify this in the image?

The co-agonist would be one of the body's endogenous ligands (e.g., D-serine or glycine); there's a few, so I didn't specify one. I'm not sure which molecule is the primary agonist is in this region, assuming there is one. I noted glutamate as the co-agonist at the first binding site (which also binds aspartate) since amphetamine promotes glutamate release in the nucleus accumbens. I could note these two agonists (D-serine & glycine) in the legend instead of "NMDA receptor co-agonist" if you think it's a better substitute. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

• "Following presynaptic dopamine and glutamate co-release by a drug" → "Following presynaptic dopamine and glutamate co-release by such psychostimulants / by one of these psychostimulants"?

Fixed - I've used the first statement you've suggested in the caption. Dopamine and glutamate function as cotransmitters in the nucleus accumbens (essentially, neurotransmitters which co-release), so any drug which promotes mesolimbic dopamine neurotransmission will indirectly increase/promote glutamate neurotransmission in that pathway. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)

Sorry for any duplicates; I admit I haven't read all of the above comments.

No problem, and thank you again for doing this! :) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, and given that the rest of the article hasn't changed significantly since my last review, I support promotion to FA status. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.