Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live/archive2


 * 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008.

9.0: Live

 * Nominator(s): Gary King ( talk ), Rezter, Blackngold29
 * previous FAC (04:18, 5 September 2008)

I'm giving this another go after a copyedit. Gary King ( talk ) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I have doubts about comprehensiveness, but to heck with it, here are some prose issues:
 * Critical reception was generally positive, with Adrien Begrand of PopMatters calling it a "very worthy live album". Not sure if it applies in the lead, though all quotes are supposed to be cited.
 * Dallas redirects to Dallas, Texas. Not a big deal.
 * When Slipknot produced its second DVD, Disasterpieces, in 2002, the band members were inspired to produce a live album when they noticed how well they performed when they knew they were being recorded. "when they noticed...when they..."
 * Done Gary King ( talk ) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Leaning towards s Support, but with some comments first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohhans (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whose support is this? No sig attached.  If it belongs to Giggy, he has supported twice, if someone else, it needs an .  Please sort.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yohhans talk 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)" per this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As this is a Slipknot album, it is rather jarring to be met by approval from a webzine called "PopMatters". Surely we can find a positive statement from a more relevant magazine. That is, not something with "Pop" in the title. For when I think of "pop music", I think of this—yikes.
 * and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from debut album Slipknot due to copyright issues. - oddly worded. I think there's a missing word here.
 * A staged vocal introduction to 9.0: Live was recorded prior to a show, informing the audience that the band would not be performing in an effort to incite anger in the audience. - This feels like a random thought that was added on to the paragraph. Is there any way it can be worked into the prose to make things flow better?
 * Slipknot German Chart history times out.
 * I really could not find much wrong. It is well written and satisfies all the criteria (despite being short) so far as I can tell. The only thing I would like to see is an explanation that 9.0 refers to the fact that there are nine members in the band, but I think finding a source for this would be difficult. - Yohhans talk 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. PopMatters, good point, but the other reviews talk about specific tracks and I'd say that's the best quote about the album overall that we can find. Gary King ( talk ) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that there is not much else that can be found online, but surely something better exists? Also, to comply with the comprehensive criteria, I think it would be good to include negative criticism regarding the album. An example can be seen in the comment(full article can be found through Lexis Nexis for free) made by Boston Globe journalist, Saul Austerlitz, that, "the experience of listening to both discs of "9.0: Live" roughly comparable to being hit in the head repeatedly with a two-by-four two hours of sludgy, indistinguishable songs, punctuated by profane outbursts about how the idiot media (thanks, guys!) has ignored and abused them." - Yohhans talk 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have LexisNexis access but I've asked someone if they could get the article for me. Gary King ( talk ) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just recently got a hold of LexisNexis myself. I've added a negative reaction paragraph :) Gary King</b> ( talk ) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I did not necessarily want to disparage the band or the album, but I knew that not everyone could have liked it as much as I did. Thank you for taking into account my suggestion. Everything looks good to me! Changed my position to full support. - Yohhans talk 20:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The album begins with a staged vocal introduction to 9.0: Live was recorded prior to a show, informing the audience that the band would not be performing in an effort to incite anger in the audience." - needs rewording... the "was recorded" needs fixing (read it in context), and you should add a comma (at least) after "performing" to make it clear the audience wasn't told they were supposed to get angry... Giggy (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: had another look and I think it's now ready. Giggy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sort of support, but your prose needs polishing: the thing is, it's within reach of being very good, but I'm seeing the same old patterns; shouldn't be hard to fix.
 * In the lead: "Many of the included tracks are rarely played live, and the album's version of the song "Skin Ticket" was its first live performance." (1) Spot the redundant word. (2) These two statements, joined by "and", don't seem to have sufficient logical connection. Have you been encouraged by the commonality of "live" to jam them together?
 * You do mean "Austria" and not "Australia", do you?
 * Percussionist Shawn Crahan said the band made an effort to pay more attention to detail than usual during the tour, saying, "when you've got a microphone hanging onto your every note, you tend to give maybe 115 percent instead of 110 percent."[2]—Hardly a thrilling quote; it could be improved by dropping the last four words ("maybe 115 percent ...", if you can cope with the shift in meaning; is it naughty?). Said ... saying, in the same sentence. Can you audit all of your text for such repetitions?
 * I'd love to nuke the Latinism "prior to"; "before" is native Germanic, and much nicer.
 * "the audience" twice in one line .... hmmm.
 * "also includes"—do we need both? And there an "includes" in the previous sentence. Sorry to be fussy, but just changing a few nuts and bolts in your writing technique will yield superior results.
 * A spare "also" in the "Promotion" section (which is stubby).

Gary, you might consider going back to some of your earliest FLs/FAs and scrunitising your prose in them. That would provide strategic distance, which I usually find instructive in my own writing. Tony  (talk)  05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright I think I got everything. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't like supporting an article about an album that only has 20 references, which feels awkward following 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake. However, I think that article had much less references available but still had more than this one. No offense, but FAC is a critical place, and you should use the criticism to further improve this article. Would it be possible to copyedit the article further? &mdash; Sunday   | Speak  23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but on what grounds are you opposing? Number of refs isn't part of WP:FACR and therefore not a valid reason to object to. If there are specific sections that you think need copyedited or something that hasn't been adressed, than please cite them, but this article has been though an FAC, a copyedit, and now a second FAC; if that's not copyedited, I don't know what is.  Black  ngold29   23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree with Blackngold here; if you are asking us if we think the article can be copyedited further, then no. If you can point out specific issues in the article, though, then we'd be glad to copyedit them. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to support. I can't find anything objectionable, but I still feel awkward supporting.


 * Oppose Article seems far too short, with little explanation of content of the album, and features a section ("Promotion") that is far too small for a Featured Article. I learned almost nothing about what the album was about. Nothing about style, themes, or anything. This article should be at least double the current size before it could be considered comprehensive. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As this album is a live album all songs are explained (musically and lyrically) in the articles concerning the studio albums they were released on. This comment has come up before and I still see no sense in repeating this information.  Black  ngold29   22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please summarize them in a section and include wikilinks to their articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The third sentence of the article states: "9.0 Live features tracks from Slipknot's first three studio albums: Slipknot, Iowa, and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)." I don't know how one would expand on that, let alone write a whole new section.  Black  ngold29   22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with Ottava - the style of the three incorporated albums could be briefly summarised. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I don't see how to do that without repeating information. This was brought up on the past FAC and the consensus was that the info shouldn't be repeated.   Black  ngold29   01:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need to repeat information, please do. This article needs an expansion. I would like to know themes of songs, trends in songs, what was emphasized, what wasn't, etc. I would like to know about important solos. I would like to know about alternative versions. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a traditional "Musical and lyrical themes" section can be created. The only info about what the actual songs contain comes from reviews of their studio albums, which are obviously different versions than the live recordings presented here. It would be inaccurate and misleading to quote a review of Iowa in this article. Now, I would love to include what the differences are from the studio versions along with "important solos and alternative versions", however we are limited to what we can cite, and the ones that we have are what you see in the reception section. Slipknot has never been and doubtfully never will be a "mainstream" band, and with that comes limited sources. If I had this info, it would be in the article within seconds, but the fact is that a live album from a non-mainstream band which makes specific attempts to keep info about themselves private isn't going to attract a whole lot of attention.  Black  ngold29   14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lean oppose, due to length concerns. I don't really like the rash of them we've gotten at FAC, but I can't help but feel this article is a bit too short to provide a non-Slipknot fan like myself enough context. "..and the rare track "Purity" which was removed from the band's debut album, Slipknot, due to copyright issues.[6] It also contains tracks that are rarely played live, such as "Iowa" and "Get This",[7] as well as the first live performance of "Skin Ticket".[8]" What were the copyright issues? Why are the tracks rarely played live? Who decided that they would record these tracks and play them live? What were the songlists at the venues like? Did they choose different cuts of the song played at different venues? Perhaps not all these questions can be answered by reliable sources out there (and I feel it would be unfair to expect you to answer any question someone throws out,) but I'm still left with the feeling after reading that I haven't "learned enough." -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of these issues have been questioned in the past FAC, if you want more you're obviously welcome to read through it, but basically it comes down to a lack of reliable sources. As I stated (right above your statement) Slipknot has never and probably will never be a "mainstream" band and thus recieves less coverage from major news outlets. The copyright issues are addressed in further detail at Slipknot (album), I will link that in the prose, but we can find no sources explaining why it was allowed for release on this album and not that one.  Black  ngold29   00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.