Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Momentary Lapse of Reason/archive1


 * 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 promoted by Karanacs 17:47, 11 February 2010.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason

 * Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Its Pink Floyd lite's first outing. Some may view this article has being heavily-biased toward the infighting and politics that were going on at that time. Necessarily so, because all the sources used focus on these events, to the detriment of the technical details some may wish to read. I've also struggled (annoyingly) to find many online reviews for the album. I've done my best, however, and I present Gilmour's growing girth for your mirth. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No dabs, alt texts present.  JN 466  22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the second para of the lead somewhat confusing: "Guitarist David Gilmour had, in 1985, begun to assemble a group of musicians for what, at that point, would have been his third solo album. Later he changed his mind however, and then with the assistance of drummer Nick Mason and keyboardist Richard Wright, he helped craft what would become the group's first album since the departure of lyricist and bass guitarist Roger Waters in December of that year." December is the last month of the year, and the paragraph reads as though all these things happened after Waters left in December. Could this be reworded? -- JN 466  22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. I've clarified matters, have a look at the lead now. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We refer to Profiles as Mason's solo album, but according to our article on the album, it was a collaboration with Rick Fenn (the cover says "Mason + Fenn"). -- JN 466  22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A solo album doesn't necessarily mean that the artist worked alone - it can be inferred that a solo album is a body of work away from the artist's usual home (band). Blake (2005) refers to Profiles as "Mason released his second album, Profiles, a collaboration with former 10cc guitarist Rick Fenn".  Schaffner (1991) says "they decided to try their hand at an album".  While its primarily a collaboration, I'm happy to call it a solo effort when referring to Mason within Pink Floyd.  Zee, which Richard Wright was a partner in, cannot be described in the same fashion, as he had left the band years previously. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess one could see it that way. -- JN 466  01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation of "In the Studio with Redbeard, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Barbarosa Ltd. Productions, 2007" is a little cryptic. Given that it is a radio show, would it not be best to use the template for radio show episodes, inserting the show's official title (wikilinked) for "series", and adding the airdate along with season and number, if available? -- JN  466  22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I only know the year it was broadcast (20th anniversary), not the date. I can't use the cite episode template as I'm using the citation template throughout. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CIT, there is no citation-family alternative to . Perhaps Sandy could advise us here? Is the citation template okay to use for radio shows? At any rate, I feel something in the ref should make it apparent that "In the Studio with Redbeard" refers to the radio show In the Studio (radio show), and that "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" refers to a (September?) 2007 episode of that show. But, you understand, it's not a big thing, and not something I'd oppose over. ;) -- JN  466  02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added format = Radio broadcast to the reference. This should be enough information for anyone interested to track down the source, which unfortunately is no longer on Redbeard's site.  I can't add a month as I don't know which month it was broadcast. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "To drive home the message that Waters had left the band, a group photograph, shot by David Bailey, was—for the first time since 1971's Meddle—included in the gatefold. Wright's name appears only on the credit list." I think we should spell out who was included in the group picture. -- JN 466  18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of adding an NFCC image of the centrefold for just this reason. Its pretty notable - the first group photo they put on a studio album since 1971.  What do you think? Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to have the picture if it's compatible with our NFC criteria (I don't have a very good understanding of those, so I'll keep shtum beyond saying I would like it.) -- JN 466  02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the picture, which includes the list of credits (emphasising Wright's role) Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What we have in the article looks good and well researched, but I do miss information on the music itself -- the style and mood of the songs, the arrangement, the musicianship and the production values. -- JN 466  19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no source material on these matters - and I have most of the best Pink Floyd books. I'd normally fill this in using album reviews, but I haven't tracked many down.  Most people focussed on the Waters-Floyd feud, rather than the music. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, we have a separate article on each of the album's 10 or 11 tracks, but they don't cite more than 3 sources between them. And none of those are about the music. :( -- JN 466  02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped Parrot of Doom a couple of possible sources on their user talk page. I do feel that in an FA on an album we have to say something about the music itself. -- JN 466  11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some details about individual songs. Thanks for this. Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left you some more sources on your talk page (including a Gilmour quote which I would recommend incorporating for balance -- we give Waters a lot of room, given that he didn't play on this). But I think the article is 95% there and therefore support. -- JN 466  19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * External links look good.
 * Needs a link to The Final Cut.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It already has one. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine, but make sure the MacDonald book has a publishing location for conformity. Comments I ce'd the lead+infobox and the lists at the bottom btw. RB88 (T) 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any luck with this location? RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you introduced several factual inaccuracies while doing so, and the list is (as with other Floyd albums) displayed in the same order as appears on the album.
 * Fair dos, but I did not add or take any info away. RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note 5 flirts very dangerously with WP:OR.
 * Its a well known fact that they weren't allowed in, Mason is just more diplomatic about things. In fact Mason glosses over most of the bickering.  I thought it worthwhile adding the note although it isn't necessary.
 * Although reviews are used in the text, why are they not put in the list? Also, I found two more if there are spaces in the 10 limit:
 * Because they're not sourced from the review, they're sourced from the books that summarise the review.
 * http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58764201.html?dids=58764201:58764201&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+28%2C+1987&author=CHRIS+WILLMAN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=POP+MUSIC+REVIEW+It+Looks+Like+Pink+and+Sounds+Pink-but+Is+It%3F&pqatl=google
 * http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/55744650.html?dids=55744650:55744650&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+24%2C+1987&author=John+Milward%3BDavid+Patrick+Stearns&pub=USA+TODAY+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Popular&pqatl=google
 * In the lead it says "multi-platinum" and that's it. My question is: In what market?
 * In the US. Corrected.
 * Why is Richard Wright in "additional musicians" instead of Pink Floyd in personnel?
 * He wasn't a member of the band. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then maybe this should be made more explicit in the lead, which might make some readers think otherwise as the current sentence stands. RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, how about this? Parrot of Doom 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Detail added and I'm happy, although it might bring up prose issues with two bracketed sections in the same sentence. RB88 (T) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support with regard to well-written, engaging prose and comprehensiveness. I never think of this as a Floyd album, and I suspect Gilmour would agree, but this is not a neutral point of view. The nominator does not need to "apologise" for the article's focussing on the legal shenanigans  between Waters and Gilmour, Mason and Wright—these are central to understanding the significance of this album to the Floyd cannon, both artistically and historically. I think the editors and nominator should be congratulated for contributing what is, IMHO, the best article on this album I have read. Graham Colm Talk 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Media review:
 * Alt text looks fine and is present for all images.
 * File:MLoRLP01.jpg - Fair use image, seems reasonable rationale; album cover helps identify the album and is discussed at some length in the Packaging section.
 * File:Pink floyd learning to fly.ogg - Fair use media sample; this is questionable. You use it to illustrate how the album's sound was drastically different from the previous, but I don't see where in the text you provide critical commentary about the stylistic differences. Indeed, the discussion of the musical style of the album is almost completely absent. All we have is Ralbosky's quotation, unless I am missing something.
 * better? There are several points in the article which discuss differences in style.  Firstly, the fact that no other Floyd album previously, used samplers, or drum machines (both of which would use MIDI syncronisation, which is mentioned).  Secondly, Gilmour's quote about "can't go back".  That same track also includes the boating sample described in the article, as well as Mason's takeoff commentary, but its not possible to include both of those as the audio clip would then be too long.  The clip also includes the lyrics mentioned in "Recording". Parrot of Doom 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:AstoriaHouseboat.JPG - cc-by-sa 3.0, looks good.
 * File:Pink floyd momentary lapse gatefold.jpg - Fair use; again, questionable. You mention the gatefold, but it is not the subject of critical commentary. Nothing is represented that's not said in the text, and as such, the image does not aid reader understanding.
 * The gatefold includes the photograph of Gilmour and Mason, which was included only to reinforce to the public the fact that Waters had left. Pink Floyd hadn't included a band shot on an album since 1971.  The image also shows clearly that Wright is not a part of the band, but is a contributory musician, by showing the credits.  Considering the politics and infighting were so central to this album, its inclusion is certainly warranted.  If you doubt the fair use rationale, nominate it for deletion. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pink floyd momentary lapse tour montage.jpg - cc-by-sa 2.0, looks good.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose on criteria 3 for now until the above problems are addressed. I also have a potential concern about the research. You mention in the article that its sound was drastically different from The Final Cut. Why is there no significant coverage of the overall musical style? I've already been berated this week for not understanding the vagaries of WP:ALBUM, so please bear with me if my question is ignorant. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find significant coverage, you'll be more successful than me. I've already mentioned in the nomination why this article focusses more on internal politics than music - because most of what's written about this album is about the former, rather than the latter.  Its a musically weak album, but important in the history of the band.  Actually though, the easiest way to demonstrate the stylistic differences is simply to click through to the Final Cut article, and listen to the audio clip there.  I'd include that clip here, but doubtless it would just create problems. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the responses, thanks. I took a quick look around the library databases and didn't find anything on the style anyway. The only thing said is that it's different, which is what you already have. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I'm honest its been frustrating having to read different sources all saying essentially the same thing about the album - "Waters- "Gilmour is a cunt etc", David "I can write lyrics, honestly!" Gilmour, Mason "I'm keeping out of it, etc etc".  I'd like to find a good solid review of the album but unless I find original magazine reviews (and I wonder, given the general opinion of the album, if they're lengthy), I think I'm stuffed.  So I've tried to explain things chronologically, but have focussed on all the fighting.  There's actually more, but some readers I think would want to read a little bit about the music... Parrot of Doom 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose on 1b and 1c for now: I'm sorry to do this, because I like the article, but I think we're missing some things here. I spent some time digging around the library and came up with some additional sources that you haven't use and which represent information that's not in the article. I'm thinking that with some additional research, we could beef this up with more information about the style. In particular, the area of focus could be how the style of this album was incidentally different from past Pink Floyd albums, and the things Gilmour did deliberately to make it different. So in summary, the 1b objection is to lack of sufficient information on style, and the 1c objection is to the number of sources I found containing new information. These are all from NewsBank/Access World News:
 * MacInnis, Craig (September 1, 1987). "Pink Floyd's new 'melodic' album out next week". The Toronto Star. This one contains an interesting story about their rehearsals for the world tour in an airplane hangar at Pearson International Airport.
 * That is a wholly speculative article about both the album, and the tour rehearsals. I have already summarised the early tour/rehearsal problems using more up-to-date and more reliable sources, but any more information about the tour belongs in A Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour, not here.
 * I see you attribute a quote to the Quill article "Has Pink Floyd changed its color to puce?", but there is a lot more in there you didn't use. It is a whole discussion of the question of what stylistic elements make a "Pink Floyd" album.
 * Yes, and there are some issues with that same article - "Nick Mason's lumbering drum fills" isn't wholly accurate, for one. I'm not keen on using a largely-dismissive album review to summarise the album's style and content.  It would raise issues of neutrality.
 * Morse, Steve (September 17, 1987). "Equal time for Pink Floyd". Boston Globe. There is some background here about the songwriting and style imbalance that contributed to Gilmour's opinion of the shortcomings of The Final Cut, and what strategies he used to address the imbalance on Lapse.
 * Also makes mistakes: "bassist Richard Wright" - Wright wasn't a member of the band, and he certainly wasn't a bassist, with weak research like that I'm not sure I want his comments in the article. I'm not certain why I should include Gilmour's opinion of The Final Cut too much here.  Its all readily available at that album's article, and the two albums don't share any particular connection.  It would make more sense to compare About Face with The Final Cut, since they were made much closer together.  I don't believe that Momentary Lapse was created "in response" to TFC.
 * Quill, Greg (September 18, 1987). "Now Pink Floyd is doing it Gilmour's way". The Toronto Star. More information about stylistic differences between Gilmour and Waters, plus some interesting stuff about the tour production, special effects, etc.
 * Plus many more. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already read almost all of them, several weeks ago, when I spent hours trawling Newsbank's search results. Ultimately, they're almost all rather weak in content, and I'm not particularly keen to "build up the content" with scraps of text from a wide range of newspaper comments.  The audio clip does a better job than any amount of prose could in summarising the differences in style between this, and other Floyd albums.  When listened to with the comments in the reception section, I can only think that a quote from Gilmour regarding the lack of sentiment usually found in Floyd albums, missing from TFC, and his trying to restore that sentiment, would be appropriate. Parrot of Doom 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you're nothing if not persuasive, I have to hand it to you. My overall concern is that two narratives emerge in the sources I've read: One is that Waters had taken almost complete creative control of the band with The Final Cut, upsetting the normal balance between his "heavy" lyrics and Gilmour's "warm" music. How did Lapse restore that balance, or did it? The other is that there was debate over what defines a Pink Floyd album; how did the style of Lapse affect that debate. Do you feel those narratives are represented in the article today? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right in that there's certainly something to be made of Gilmour's comments about "more about the music, than the lyrics". I'll have to have a read through my sources to see what I can find.  I'm a little bit busy with Blackbeard right now so I'll probably do it tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay with this, work etc. Have a look at this and tell me what you think.  Its probably the best I can do for now, there are so few reliable comparisons elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in on sourcing I scouted all the paper articles mentioned above when I did my review and concluded that they did not add anything or were wholly accurate for that matter. Also, most, if not all biographies, summarise nearly all articles together with band interviews. Since all important Floyd biopics are researched and covered, I have to conclude that 1b and 1c are covered. And I have read some of those books; they are more thorough than the Talking Heads and FMac ones I have personally used. RB88 (T) 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Sorry for the delay in revisiting, but I think we are in the right territory now. I reviewed quite a bit more sources, and amazingly there doesn't seem to be much more of substance than what you've already written. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


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