Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarastro1 (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 25 May 2014 (→Marquee Moon: Closing FAC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 promoted by Graham Colm 10:46, 18 May 2014 .

Marquee Moon

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a 1977 album by American rock band Television. Writers have considered it an important post-punk album and influence on subsequent rock music movements and guitarists. The article is properly sourced and comprehensive of its topic. Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120

(1) Final sentence of lead section: according to WP:GENRECAP "New Wave" should not be capitalised, i.e. "new wave". (2) Last paragraph of 'Recording' section: the line which says "Verlaine said to him 'forget it'" sounds a bit awkward to me – would "Verlaine told him to 'forget it'" sound better? (3) Last paragraph of 'Lyrics' section: the lyric sheet for "See No Evil" might say "Runnin wild with the one I love" but I think "runnin" should have an apostrophe after it to indicate the missing 'g' (sorry if I'm being a grammar pedant here!).

Done, addressed all. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Will write a separate post to your talk page regarding possible additions and citations to the existing text, I don't think this is the place to post it. Richard3120 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Article meets all the FA criteria, giving a thorough history of the album from initial concept and background to influence on latter-day musicians. Richard3120 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Niwi3

• To be honest, I don't like very much how the article is organized. Firstly, I would rename the "Commercial performance" section to simply "Release" and include the album's release date in it; I personally think the term "Commercial performance" is more appropriate to use in more mainstream albums. Secondly, the "Critical reception" section should appear after the "Release" section; it's strange that you first talk about critical reception, then about commercial performance, and then come back again to (retrospective) critical reception. Finally, the "Legacy and influence" section should be rename to simply "Legacy" and should have two subsections: "Retrospective acclaim", which should contain the first two paragraphs and the retrospective reviews template, and "Music influence", which should contain both the "Alternative rock" and "Rock guitar" subsections merged together. Overall, the article should look something like this:

5 Artwork
6 Release
"Marquee Moon was released in February 1977 by Elektra Records. The album was an unexpected success in the United Kingdom, where..."
7 Critical reception
"Upon release, Marquee Moon was acclaimed by..."
8 Legacy
8.1 Retrospective acclaim
8.2 Music influence

I very much agreed with your suggestion to rearrange "Release..." (I've added "...and promotion" since it talks about their touring as well) with "Critical reception", but disagree that there need to be layout changes for "Legacy and influence". How the critics see it in retrospect is essentially what "Legacy" means in the context of this article, so it would be redundant. Elements of "retrospective acclaim" ("still sounds timeless", "one of the all-time classic guitar albums") run throughout the entire "Legacy and influence", which is more about its importance and impact rather than critics saying how good they think it is--its standing among other albums and all-time rankings are also its "legacy". Also, "Music influence" sounds generic and vague, whereas the two paragraphs dealing with its influence on "alternative rock" genres makes sense to be titled "Alternative rock", while the two paragraphs + cquote dealing with its influence on guitar playing (and specific guitarists) in rock makes sense to be titled "Rock guitar" (based on what multiple sources used in that subsection have referred to as its influence on "guitar rock", including Erlewine and Kot) This is more accessible for readers, since all those paragraphs under what could be a "Music influence" subsection would be overwhelming to read. Furthermore, article layouts are decided based on consideration of both the suggested layout at MOS:ALBUM and the material available to write about the article's topic--both dictate how the article's layout for prose sections ends up looking and, in IMHO, I feel it's best the way it currently is. Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope my quibble over the subsections doesn't diminish your support though, Niwi3. Dan56 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, you have a point regarding the legacy and influence section, so I won't consider it an issue. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the Christgau rating in the retrospective reviews template? His review is from 1977, right? I would personally include his A+ rating in the prose of the Critical reception section and remove it from the retrospective reviews template.

The rating is cited from his 1990 Consumer Guide Albums book. Also, IMO, noting another "A+" in the prose would make it a clunkier, more awkward read. Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

His book Rock Albums of the '70s: A Critical Guide does not contain retrospective reviews, but a selection of release reviews he wrote in the 70s. This album is a classic and therefore you cannot mix release and retrospective reviews together. It's confusing and misleading. Besides, if you include the ratings from Peter Gammond and Jon Tiven in the critical reception section you should also include the one from Christgau, who is one of the most important critics in popular music. In my opinion, noting it in the prose won't make it clunkier because the critical reception section has very few ratings. You can start the sentence like this: "Robert Christgau of The Village Voice awarded the album an A+ and asserted that the 'demotic-philosophical' lyrics could..." --Niwi3 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Niwi3. Forgive me, I was working on New York Dolls (album) at the same time and confused the two--Christgau's "A+" for that album wasn't in his original Newsday review but in that Rock Albums of the Seventies book, not the case here. Done :) Dan56 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will review the prose of the article soon because I'm a bit busy right now. After that I think I can support the article. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• "When Johns suggested they record another take of the song, Verlaine told him to 'forget it'" -- I don't like how this is written. Perhaps "Johns suggested to record another take of the song, but Verlaine told him to 'forget it'"?

• "According to Rolling Stone magazine, Marquee Moon is a post-punk album" -- Rolling Stone is a notable magazine, so the word magazine is redundant

• "According to Spin magazine, Marquee Moon is 'about urban mythology' as Verlaine 'brings a sentimental romanticism to the Bowery, making legends out of the mundane'" -- Again, the word magazine is redundant

• "Peter Gammond of Hi-Fi News & Record Review gave it an 'A+' and called it one of the most exciting releases in music, highlighted by Verlaine's steely, Gábor Szabó-like guitar and authentic rock music" -- The second part is blurry to me. Please clarify.

• "Gramophone magazine's Nigel Hunter found both Verlaine's lyrics and guitar playing vague" -- "Writing for Gramophone, Nigel Hunter found both..." flows much better

• "In his review for Rolling Stone, Ken Tucker said that the lyrics generally amount to non sequiturs" -- replace "said" with "stated" to avoid repetition.

• "Since then, it has been cited by rock critics as one of the greatest albums of the American punk rock movement, including Mark Weingarten of Entertainment Weekly, who called it the masterpiece of the 1970s New York punk rock scene" -- I don't like the word including here. Perhaps "...the American punk rock movement, with Mark Weingarten of Entertainment Weekly calling it the masterpiece of the 1970s New York punk rock scene"?

• "According to English writer Clinton Heylin, the album marked the end of the New York scene's peak period" -- replace "the album" with "Marquee Moon". Too much repetition.

• "while Spin magazine called it the CBGB era's 'best and most enduring record' and ranked it as sixth greatest album in its April 1989 issue" -- Again, the word magazine is redundant. The second part should also be written like this: "...ranked it as the sixth greatest album of all time in its April 1989 issue"

• "That same year, Marquee Moon was named the fourth greatest of all time by NME" -- Add the word album: "...was named the fourth greatest album of all time by NME" --Niwi3 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made all the corrections Niwi3 and clarified that Gammond meant "...partly because it is highlighted by..." () Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise it's a good article of a classic. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm happy with the improvements made and am glad to add my support. Keep up the good work. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another fine contribution from Dan. Very informative and well-written article, great work - support --Blastmaster11 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to be a pain in the neck here, but Niwi3's suggestion of "Johns suggested to record..." doesn't sound comfortable to me – could it be changed to simply "Johns suggested recording another take of the song..." Richard3120 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "recording" is a present participle, so I revised it to "Johns suggested the band record..." Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Launchballer

Came here after a request from my talk page. Article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable and has a sufficient lead, appropriate structure and its citations are consistent. Article has adequate media and is concise enough that it does not waffle or omit. Support.--Launchballer 23:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EditorE

One suggestion. I'm not finding info on the album's swedish chart position anywhere in this article. Please put it somewhere and cite the source. Other than that, Support. 和DITOREtails 02:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've added it in a charts section/table (). Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gongshow

Outstanding work, Dan. My only suggestion: in the 'Legacy and influence' section, almost every person has some descriptor like "journalist Tony Fletcher", "English writer Clinton Heylin", "Irish guitarist The Edge", "American guitarist John Frusciante", and so on. Should the same also be done for Marc Riley and Mark Radcliffe? Just a nitpick, though, I'm happy to give my Support.  Gongshow   talk 18:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thx! Gongshow. I did consider adding a descriptor to those two when I first added that line, but their respective Misplaced Pages articles have several for each of them, like "English broadcaster, musician, and writer," "radio personality, and DJ," etc. What would you suggest for either of them? I thought adding multiple for each would inhibit the flow of the prose, so I figured readers could just find out who they are by clicking the links. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan – you are correct that both Radcliffe and Riley have had varying careers (Marc Riley was the bass player in an early version of The Fall, for example) but I think most Brits would agree with me in saying that they are both best known for their work as radio DJs: they had a long-running career during the 1990s and 2000s as a "double act" on BBC Radio 5 and BBC Radio 1 before deciding to go their separate ways, and they currently both present separate music shows on BBC Radio 6 Music. I would say "radio presenter" would probably be the best description for both of them. Richard3120 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan - I agree with your point on maintaining the flow of the prose, and with Richard that both men appear to be best known for their careers in radio, so your edit solves it perfectly. Cheers,  Gongshow   talk 05:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Fantailfan

Having listened to Marquee Moon on my way to Newbury Comics today, it is a much better album than I remember it being. My only relevant remark about the article would be that it is a good thing that negative reviews are represented. It is difficult to find well-written and substantive bad reviews. Such reviews usually depend on snarky dismissal and inapt comparisons (which the Springsteen comparison resembles) rather than real criticism (the others). Support. Fantailfan (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

So far, looking quite good. I only see several things to address:

• Is the album's exact release date known? If so, please do include that.

Nope, unfortunately. Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I will almost certainly be able to find out the UK release date, but that won't necessarily be a worldwide release date (UK release date will very likely be a Friday, and I know US release dates are/were normally on a Tuesday), so it will probably have to stay as just "February 1977", unless somebody comes across the US release date in an old copy of Billboard or similar. Richard3120 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Whichever one you come across, the date used should be its earliest release. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I'd be reluctant to use the UK date even if I found it: it seems likely that it would have been released in their native US first, even if it were just by a few days. Richard3120 (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• In "Background" section ref#3 ("From the Velvets to the Voidoids: The Birth of American Punk Rock") should only be used at the end of the second paragraph per WP:OVERCITE.

WP:OVERCITE also says to have an inline citation for "all direct quotations." Could this possibly mean even when the next sentence is attributed to the same source/footnote? If not, then I'll remove it. Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed overkill to cite a quote (even direct quotations) when the next sentence is supported by the same source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, removed. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• More WP:OVERCITE in the "Recording" section- ref#1 ("Marquee Moon". In Irvin, Jim; McLear, Colin. The Mojo Collection) should just be used at the end of Lloyd's quote.

Footnote (Heylin 2005, p. 264) is in between "...engineer...." and the Lloyd quote. At the end of "...Goats Head Soup..." Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I should've been more specific: only use it once in the second paragraph after Lloyd's quote. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, removed. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• In ref#67 ("1000 albums to hear before you die: Artists beginning with T"), "guardian.co.uk." should read The Guardian.

Unlike the other Guardian/Guardian associated sources used in the article, the "1000 albums..." article was published by the Guardian website rather than by the actual newspaper, so it is a web source. If you click "Article history" at the page, it reads "This article was published on the Guardian website". Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but the Guardian website is essentially its news publications online. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES indicates it is both an online and print publication. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, changed to The Guardian. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• For such a high-profile album, I'm sure it charted in more than just UK and Sweden. Needs more chart listings.

Wasn't a highprofile album (notability is mostly based on its influence and standing with critics in retrospect rather than any commercial impact), best books on the topic characterize it as a commercial failure, no other chartings :( Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It came off as a high profile due to its influence and "legacy" section, my bad. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

After these are addressed, you have my support. Good luck Dan! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, XXSNUGGUMSXX :) Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And with that, I officially support :D! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sabredb

It looks good: well written and laid out with cohesive and concise sections, all following the MOS. I just have a few minor points:

• Lyrics: 19th century Romanticism should be 19th-century Romanticism (adjective use)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Critical reception: "panned" is not really encyclopedic language - "was highly negative" perhaps.

I'd disagree. Several encyclopedic sources from a quick search on GoogleBooks show otherwise ("panned by critics" for instance, or used by the Encyclopedia Brittanica to name a relevant source) Dan56 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rock guitar: is it worth saying specifically that the Edge used a chorus pedal for this (assuming it is in the sources) as it gives and idea of the effect?

No mention of that in the source unfortunately, Sabrebd. Dan56 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If these are addressed, the article and all its hard work has my support.--SabreBD (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Shallowharold

Good work there, Dan! I can't really find anything wrong with the article, to be honest. Shallowharold (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Media review

I have a history going back quite a while with images and usage criteria on Misplaced Pages, so by virtue of perusing the images associated with this Featured Article Candidate, I can safely say all of them satisfy the usage benchmarks. On the subject of the one lone audio file, it is in the correct format as advised by policy and guidelines and it is in the correct bit rate of speed. It should be passed if all other areas are in order with respect to the article.HotHat (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Drive by comments from Shudde

• I'm getting a couple of harv errors.
• Looks like there is still a dup link somewhere in there
• Should the album cover in the infobox have some alt text?
• In fact it looks like there is no alt text at all -- or am I mistaken?

Cheers. -- Shudde 05:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Anon.-1993 ref. was missing the harv ref parameter, which I've added. I don't think alt text is necessary, but I've added it anyway. Dan56 (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Note Alt text is not a FA requirement, I see one problem in the Bibliography:

• Christgau, Robert (2004). "Television: Marquee Moon/Adventure/Live at the Old Waldorf". Tracks (St Leonards, New South Wales) (January). Archived from the original on April 22, 2013. Retrieved November 20, 2012. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFChristgau2004.

Please fix this. Graham Colm (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That reference wasn't in use or cited in the article, so I've moved it to "Further reading". Dan56 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Graham Colm (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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