Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 26 September 2014

Xx (album)

Xx (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive3

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)

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".

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 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)