Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 17 January 2007 (GimmeBot tagging closed FAC discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:49, 17 January 2007 by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) (GimmeBot tagging closed FAC discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

{First FAC here} Thanks Gzkn and Gimmethrow

  • Comment (response) - I put an author for every source that had an author. Also, I put the website name within each reference. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and tell me if I need to do anything else. Otherwise, I want that oppose to be changed to a support. :) Noahdabomb3 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (response) "Too much blog/webpage/listy content...Misplaced Pages is not a blog". Could you kindly explain that objection in a bit more detail? Nobody is trying to start a blog here. We're trying to write a quality encyclopedia article. Help us improve it. Thanks! Venicemenace 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support—Flicking through the featured article candidates, this is most impressive. It has nice spread layout and a good visuality with the images. The sections seem comprehensive and the references too. -Kez 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. While quite well written, it could do with a copy-edit by fresh eyes; won't take long. Here are little random examples of what I mean.
    • " from 1992-1993"—No, I think if you use "from", you need to insert "to" between the years instead of (what should be) the en dash.
    • "In order to decide"—Spot the two redundant words.
    • "this track was left off the Wu-Tang Clan's debut but eventually surfaced on Method Man's debut, Tical."—"Eventually", I've decided, is not encyclopedic. Why bother using it if you don't tell us when: you're the experts ... And a comma before "but", please.
    • I concur with Sandy on the blogginess of the referencing. Some reviewers, myself included, are becoming increasingly concerned at the use of sources that lack verifiability, authority and stability, and that themselves are not referenced. I think there's an over-reliance on such references here.
    • The fair-use justification of the audio examples is inadequate. Please see the recent warring on the Fair use talk page, in which commercial recordings were deleted without notice by WP's office, breaking the seven-day rule and not, in my view, properly justified by the wording of the fair-use rules. Even written permission of the owner wasn't enough to save the excerpts from destruction. They won't go with the "lower quality" reason, and the "not replaceable" reason appears to count for little. The educational reason, and the claim that the main text is a commentary on these tracks, are flimsy. I see no explicit, direct information on the musical and/or sound production aspects of the tracks. WP seems to be more concerned about keeping its content free than adhering to the common law on fair use; i.e., WP is becoming stricter than the common law, and there appears to be an acknowledgement that its fair-use rules have not kept apace with the tightening of "policy" (a most unsatisfactory gap, IMV). I think you'll have to delete them. Tony 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (response)
    • I requested a copy-edit of this article at the Misplaced Pages League of Copyeditors page, and corrected the examples you gave me.
    • All sources I used are legitimate; most are either from well known publications or interviews. Also, many references are websites that list accolades (rocklist.net), explaining why you might think the article is "bloggy." I assure you that it is not though.
    • In terms of the sound samples, I am going to wait for a second opinion before I take them down. Its not that I don't trust you, but according to you, there is "warring" over fair use samples and I want to wait for the official outcome of the war.Noahdabomb3 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Well written, well-referenced article. (Ibaranoff24 09:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment (response) Tony, thank you for your explanation of the "blogginess" concern. However, I'd like to ask you to take another look at the article's sources. The vast majority of the claims in this article, including the "exceptional claims", are backed by solid sources like Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Robert Christgau, New York Press, All Music Guide, Boston Phoenix, Pitchfork Media, Exclaim Magazine (Canada), and The Source. Other sources are interviews with members of Wu-Tang Clan, which should be considered solid as well. Rocklist.com is prominent, but only as a reference to "best of" album lists published in print media -- these are noncontroversial claims of verifiable facts, not subjective analysis. A few other sources (ProudFlesh Journal, Stylus Magazine) are not on the blue-chip level of the first group, but are hardly blogs; these sources are counted on for minor aspects of the article's analysis, and I believe them to be stable and reliable. If you have concerns about specific sources, please inform us (the editors) and we'll address them. However, I don't think the blanket statements - that this article over-relies on dubious sources, or is symptomatic of a larger sourcing problem on WP - are really accurate here. Your assistance and advice is much appreciated. Venicemenace 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I was the reviewer who first raised the issue of listiness/blogginess; the article has improved, but an example is the List of accolades section. It contains an entire chart of external website links, which could be converted to referenced statements. Most articles I've seen list the title/accolade, and include a column with the reference number - we shouldn't be sending readers outside of Wiki when external jumps can be Wikified or converted to referenced statements. Also, since they are external jumps rather than references with full biblio info, we can't observe the strength of your sources without clicking on each one. You can solve this by adding a ref column, removing the external jumps, and converting them to refs. That table looks like a webpage/blog, sending our readers all over the internet.
    • Also, your references still need better formatting - see the cite templates for examples (although you need not use the cite templates). For example: Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums of All Time at RollingStone.com. Since this is a magazine, it should use the correct format, identifying (when provided) author, publication date, and the publisher (Rolling Stone) shouldn't be included in the blue link, which should be the exact article title. Have a look at AC/DC; its references are coming along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you going to reinstate one, perhaps two, of those fair-use audio excerpts? If so, refer to the music directly in the text. Maybe someone like Gmaxwell, who's an expert in that field, might think it's acceptable. Tony 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I definitely think one or two short, lowered-quality fair-use sound excerpts which described in the text would be both appropriate and useful. Mak (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (response)
    • In terms of the list of accolades, the table gets ruined if I put in references, so I think that I will just remove the hyperlinks and forget about references altogether. If anyone is willing to put in a reference column, than that is accepted, but I am not sure if that is necessary.
    • In terms of the song samples, even putting two samples into the article (according to Gmaxwell and Tony) is a violation of this website's rules regarding to copywrite. I do not know too much of wikipedia's policy on song samples, but you will have to beat maxwell or tony in an argument and add more info about the singles in order to get the samples back in the article. I think it is better the way it is right now.
    • In terms of the references, the way they are is perfectly mine. I do not need to add the magazine information for something I found at Rollingstone.com that does not list that information. For all I know, Rollingstone.com has its own information about the 500 Best Albums that its magazine doesn't have.
      Noahdabomb3 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As for the fair-use of short copyrighted recordings, no one has actually said none may be used. Gmaxwell definitely hasn't said this, and Tony was the one who suggested that one or two be included, I was agreeing with him that that would be entirely fair, reasonable, and good. People don't seem to be understanding that there's a huge difference between copyrighted recordings of Bach being used (which Gmaxwell doesn't think we should do) and copyrighted recordings of still-living-still-recording-still-holding-all-possible copyright artists, which I haven't seen Gmaxwell comment on on-wiki, but am fairly sure he would accept as a necessary part of an article on an album or musical group. Mak (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes; and reference to music/lyrics in the text would lift the educational value of the one or two examples, raising the quality of the article and further justifying limited fair use. Is each, for example, representative of a certain style/period of the group? Do they contain musical textures/instrumental or vocal forces/lyrics that are characteristic of the group? Just a few sentences for each would do. This is what, I think, we expect of musical articles. In the end, the article needs to be freely copiable by anyone on the planet, without feeling that copyright is an issue. Tony 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (repsonse) - Unless someone wants me to add a little more info about the singles, I think everybody should support this featured article request. The article is currently being copy-edited and it is generally agreed that it is well-written. The references are legitimate and presented correctly. Also, the blogginess of the accolade section was addressed. If the article needs any more tweeking, speak up or forever hold your peace. Noahdabomb3 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object This would normally only be a comment but I feel an objection is required for the action to be taken. The image in the lead still has no fair use rationale. I mentioned this earlier on the page. There is no self-explanatroy fair use rationale on Misplaced Pages. Tony also raises legitimate concerns. By the way, demanding support is a bad idea, and there is no "forever hold your peace" on Misplaced Pages. Jay32183 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) isuue dealt with. Jay32183 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I left a message at the original uploader's talk page to provide a source . Other than that the image fair use rationale is pretty much self-explanatory. Also to note I did revert the image to a previous low resolution version (no offense Ibaranoff24) to better suit fair-use. I hope we are on the same page when you refer to "image in the lead" since I assume it's Image:Wu-TangClanEntertheWu-Tangalbumcover.jpg. Thanks. — Tutmosis 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. The source for an album cover is, of course, the album itself. Are you asking if I personally scanned it or downloaded it from elsewhere? Does that make a difference for copyright purposes? (I have no idea where I downloaded it from - I definitely did not scan it myself). Tuf-Kat 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was asking if you scanned or downloaded it. I was under the impression that is proper protocol if you get an image from the web you should link to where you got it from. But it's all good since a fair-use rationale was provided, I guess since this is a album cover the source isn't much of a difference. — Tutmosis 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's no expressive content to scanning it, so I've given more info on the cover on the image page. It now gives the record label and artist. I don't think anyone else could be considered to have a valid interest in it. Tuf-Kat 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (response) - I gave a rationale for fair use for the lead image and I apologize for my cocky comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahdabomb3 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Venicemenace explained that the most of the fact-check references are stable. The samples have rationale. "List of accolades" is taken from one website but I don't see how it is a copyvio since it just a list of article titles from various magazines and such, sort of like a copying and pasting a track list. The citations are detailed, they aren't citeweb format but it's really up to the author, no 1 style is currently enforced. So I am a little confused at the outstanding problems that need to be fixed. — Tutmosis 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very impressive article. Dalf | Talk 07:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.