Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive2

< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 19 December 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:16, 19 December 2014 by Teflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Xx (album)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 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. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus, in part because it was derailed by a now-blocked sock Rationalobserver (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino) who held a grudge against me and opposed the FAC with bogus claims of plagiarism in order to spite me. Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury

~~Object~~ as in the previous nomination. I find it a bit curious that this was opened when little was done during the first nomination to address objections (other than negating them) and nothing of substance has been done to the article since the last nomination closed. It closed with three open objections, 2 of which directly reference plagiarism concerns. I also find it troubling that you notified three editors of this nomination, but failed to notify any of the editors who opposed the last one. I can't help but to feel you are trying to sneak it under the radar. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from blocked editor User:Rationalobserver, sock of User:Jazzerino
* Oppose per Spike Wilbury. Since Ian Rose closed the last nom on October 26, Dan56 has made no effort to clear the article of close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and peacockery. In fact, only 4 edits have been made to the article in that time, and none of them address the bevy of concerns identified during the last FAC. I also share Spike's concerns that Dan56 has notified three editors: , , , in an apparent attempt to skew the consensus here in favor of promotion. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Spike Wilbury, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM--), , )--while the FAC was going on! You don't find that the least bit suspicious? SNUGGUMS was ultimately "neutral", while Tezero gave a "tentative support", and Ian Rose concluded there wasn't enough to determine a consensus. I'm not obligated to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences or objections about musical jargon or close paraphrasing--I didn't leave these objections unanswered, I responded to them and defended by position with an effort equal to the one give by those who objected. If you don't agree, you're free not to, as am I to ask for others' opinions. Why would I invite the reviewers from a review that led to no consensus? I didn't agree with your objection, and am highly suspicious of RationalObserver and his interest from the start. I feel the previous FAC was tainted, and I'm free to open a new one when there was no consensus before. Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Dan56, I've tried to be patient with your paranoia, but now this is getting abusive. If you accuse me one more time without filing an SPI I will file an AN/I report for personal attacks. FTR, Nikkimaria was one of the last editors to take a look at the last FAC, and she concluded the following: "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." I agree that this article is not only littered with close paraphrases, but there are also numerous instances of text-source integrity issues, as Dan56 demonstrates an inability to properly paraphrase without changing the intended meaning. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Response in the previous FAC to aforementioned Nikkimaria's comment: "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) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Dan, that's a WP:SYNTH to take Phares' comments about the album being "remarkable" and "sophisticated" to say that she described it as "remarkably poised and sophisticated". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) That's not what I said, you're just misrepresenting my argument out of obstinance. Phares' comments are " restraint and sophistication ... all the more impressive". Not SYNTH. Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC) From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...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; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Nikkimaria, will you please settle this matter by clarifying why you said, "text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example"? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC) From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...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; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Dan56 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from blocked editor User:Rationalobserver, sock of User:Jazzerino

* Oppose per Spike Wilbury. Since Ian Rose closed the last nom on October 26, Dan56 has made no effort to clear the article of close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and peacockery. In fact, only 4 edits have been made to the article in that time, and none of them address the bevy of concerns identified during the last FAC. I also share Spike's concerns that Dan56 has notified three editors: , , , in an apparent attempt to skew the consensus here in favor of promotion. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Spike Wilbury, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM--), , )--while the FAC was going on! You don't find that the least bit suspicious? SNUGGUMS was ultimately "neutral", while Tezero gave a "tentative support", and Ian Rose concluded there wasn't enough to determine a consensus. I'm not obligated to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences or objections about musical jargon or close paraphrasing--I didn't leave these objections unanswered, I responded to them and defended by position with an effort equal to the one give by those who objected. If you don't agree, you're free not to, as am I to ask for others' opinions. Why would I invite the reviewers from a review that led to no consensus? I didn't agree with your objection, and am highly suspicious of RationalObserver and his interest from the start. I feel the previous FAC was tainted, and I'm free to open a new one when there was no consensus before. Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, I've tried to be patient with your paranoia, but now this is getting abusive. If you accuse me one more time without filing an SPI I will file an AN/I report for personal attacks. FTR, Nikkimaria was one of the last editors to take a look at the last FAC, and she concluded the following:

"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."

I agree that this article is not only littered with close paraphrases, but there are also numerous instances of text-source integrity issues, as Dan56 demonstrates an inability to properly paraphrase without changing the intended meaning. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Response in the previous FAC to aforementioned Nikkimaria's comment:

"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) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan, that's a WP:SYNTH to take Phares' comments about the album being "remarkable" and "sophisticated" to say that she described it as "remarkably poised and sophisticated". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I said, you're just misrepresenting my argument out of obstinance. Phares' comments are " restraint and sophistication ... all the more impressive". Not SYNTH. Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...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; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Nikkimaria, will you please settle this matter by clarifying why you said, "text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example"? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, I've tried my best to stay out of the conflict between you and Rationalobserver. I only mention her opposition because it was outstanding at the time of the last FAC closing. I have reflected on your comments to me regarding your method and motivation for bringing this back here without changing it much. I still don't like it, but at the same time, I don't think my participation here is helping in any way. So, I'm striking my objection and unwatching the page. Good luck going forward. I do hope the endgame is the improvement of this article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mashaunix

Comment I'm no expert on this subject matter and FA standards, but since I've been invited to do so, I'll share what I have to say. I think the article is comprehensive and generally very well written, but needs some more work before being granted FA status. In my opinion it would be good to invite another experienced editor with a close interest in the subject to review the style and content of the article and make some improvements to these areas, addressing some of the concerns raised above. As of now the article seems a bit too subjective as far as I can judge, though I feel that it could be promoted to GA status. I'm willing to offer some specific ideas for improvement myself later this month when I have more time, but I don't think I have the knowledge and experience needed to make all the changes that I'd like to see.

Also, does the article meet MOS:TM?--MASHAUNIX 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Teh Thrasher

Comment Same as MASHAUNIX, I'm not that experienced on editing music articles, but I think it could need some tweaks. It just doesn't seem feature-worthy to my eyes yet.-Teh Thrasher (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)