Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Weekend in the City/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 16:29, 13 September 2009.

A Weekend in the City

 * Nominator(s): Rafablu88  17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For all the talk about nominators having to be polite, welcome to the most imperfect process in the history of mankind. This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all. Also, don't oppose and leave it hanging forever even though your improvements have been made. I'm sick and tired of that happening. Rafablu88 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)



Update Fixed 1 disam. link, all ref links working, alt text good. Rafablu88 19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: You're lucky I'm not put off by your rudeness and disregard for an important process. My issues:
 * I'm definitely not disregarding an important process. The fact that I work tirelessly to get stuff here should tell you all you need to know. Just generally not happy with filibustering and negligence. You obviously are neither especially as you took the time to comment even though you had similar issues as the users above. For that, thanks. Rafablu88  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's just I would consider the "nomination rationale" you left slightly… flame-bait-ish? I would have gone about nominating in a different way than yourself, even if I had the same reservations, tis all.
 * Got your attention and comments didn't it? ;) I'm not complaining. Rafablu88  11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But a pair of boobies would have got my attention, doesn't mean it's a good nomination rationale!
 * I'll bear your preferences in mind for next time. Rafablu88  21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Despite missing their hometown of London" seems slightly inappropriate. Hometown, to me, refers to somewhere that the reader is likely to not have heard of, usually because of its size.
 * I don't fully understand the issue here. It's merely pointing out that London is Bloc Party's hometown and the info is integral to what is explained later about the album. Rafablu88  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue is simply that hometown seems an odd little word for such a well-known and large place as London. I can't think of an alternative, and it's not a big deal anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * "Hometown" is strictly US English, when the article should clearly be in UK English - "native city" is what you need. This is a problem in various places. I suggest you don't strike through comments when you think you have dealt with them. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's always the commentator who strikes his own comments. Secondly, I see your point, but what if there's no BrEng equivalent? I don't believe "native city" is an option as it would inadvertently imply that they were all born there, which is not the case. I've used "home city". RB88 (T) 06:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes" would something more specific such as "Band member" or "Backing singer" be more appropriate? "Multi-instrumentalist" makes it feel as if he's giving outside commentary (until the quote is read).
 * DONE. Rafablu88  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "high-profile producers like Jacknife Lee" low-profile enough to not have a wikilink?
 * "delivery of their staccato indie rock" would assume "indie rock" or a derivative thereof needs to be wikilinked, considering other music types (dance music) are.
 * The above two points: Both are linked in the lead (which I usually treat as the rest of the article) and I don't link things again unless it's songs in the track list, charts, or equipment (all done for user ease). Rafablu88  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I've never understood why wikilinking terms repeated in the lead and main text isn't enforced. Are we all under the illusion that people are going to read the entire article? They're almost certainly not; many people will probably just use the TOC to navigate to a section of their interest/need. Hence why I'd consider wikilinking those terms. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * Linked them but I still think it's unnecessary because I'm sure everyone reads the lead before the rest and so has seen the links regardless of the section they click. Also going under that assumption would mean linking every term the was new in every section regardless if it's been linked before just because A. Billy ADHD can't be bothered to try being fully enlightened. Rafablu88  11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is DONE btw. Rafablu88  21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The title comes as a tangent to the central theme of the album, "the living noise of a metropolis"." is it usual for the title of an album not to be discussed until the Promotion and Release? I thought this would have gone in Origins.
 * The record name was only picked after the final mix at the end of 2006 was done. Even so, I tend to put the cover art and name info immediately after the release date to totally inform it. Rafablu88  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * "First single". This occurs a number of times (one of which I fixed). I honestly can't see why they aren't prefixed with "The". Surely if you have "The next single" then you ought to have "The [number] single"?
 * It's come up before and may be a British English thing but I've changed it nonetheless as it's not a massive deal. Rafablu88  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just considered it proper grammar. How bizarre.


 * More comments:
 * Jacknife Lee needs to be "Garret "Jacknife" Lee".
 * DONE. First mention in Origins. He goes by Jacknife generally though. Rafablu88  11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article refers to Bloc Party as an Indie rock band, whilst the article on the band itself gives them as simply a rock band.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, but anyway that article's infobox clearly gives their genres and I'm sure you can allow a band to change their musical style drastically in a given album.
 * As far as I can tell the place that link took me to had no relevance to my issue. The infobox gives the genres of the album, not of the band. It's not a case of me allowing a band to change musical style, a lot of bands and musicians do that. My point is: we can't change the band's genre to whatever album we're detailing. And you shouldn't change the genre of the band on their article without reaching a consensus either… (I noticed) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was that we cannot use other articles or previous FACs to prove right or wrong here. For all you and me know, that article had been vandalised repeatedly (and it had by an IP, that's why I changed it back). If it said "Bloc Party are a neo-psychedelic band" on that article, would you expect me to write that on this one, too, even though it's totally bogus?? But more to the point here's Allmusic: INDIE ROCK! Rafablu88  20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to lists their genre as Rock/Pop… Can I just say you've shot yourself in the foot? But whatever, I'm not going to raise the roof about the issue if you feel defensive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, when we use allmusic we tend to use the specific genre because most bands/albums on wiki would be "rock/pop" if we followed the major grouping instead and that would sound off and not wholly accurate.  Rafablu88  21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But just so we're here: Search for bloc party rock/pop yields 81, Search for bloc party indie rock yields 899 Rafablu88  22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's just a laughable way of asserting something. For example, "Sarah Palin hot" returns more results than "Sarah Palin politician"… Anyway, enough said on the issue.
 * That's the way we always proceed, especially in articles up for deletion. Also I don't see the similarity between your example and mine. I doubt anyone would want to say "Sarah Palin is a hottie" instead of a "Sarah Palin is a politician". The terms have no relation with each other in the same way as "rock/pop" and "indie rock". Rafablu88  13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, I believe all your points have been tackled. Would you care to strike them so that the FAC overlords can see everything is in order. Rafablu88  20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Studio Sessions" image. Can "(L-R)" be expanded, I haven't ever seen an article where it's been abbreviated. Also "Tong's drum kit is surrounded by a booth and each component has its own miking set-up" resembles the Alt text, and isn't what I'd consider an appropriate caption.
 * I reworded it slightly. I don't know what the problem is if both alt and real are the same especially when real has to explain what is seen in the photo (booth and miking setup which are written in the text too) in the same vein as alt. Rafablu88  11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Okereke's lyrics juxtapose the apparent meaningless monotony with the seemingly epic experiences in a city environment, from waiting for a train, struggles with racial identity, terrorist attacks, and desperation on a dancefloor." it sounds so pretentious. Do there need to be 13 words to describe how someone is showing that there can be great and meaningless experiences in a city? The second section should be "from waiting for a train, struggling with racial identity and terrorist attacks, to desperation on a dancefloor". On that note, what is "desperation on a dancefloor about?". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * God knows. But that's how they explained it to Filter. And yes, they are pretentious, but I did reword it slightly. Rafablu88  11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it further, your revision as far as I could tell just changed the "from" to "to". Hopefully my revision is considered an improvement. I'll explain why I've changed it in the way I have if it's not clear. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've simplified it even more. Rafablu88  21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've formatted your revision to make the quote clearer. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/bloc-party/a-weekend-in-the-city.htm
 * Editorial Enough? They were Pitchfork Media's main competitors till they went bust. Rafablu88  11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://remixmag.com/resources/remix_glossary/
 * Um, it's the magazine website for Remix. I should hope it's reliable as 1/3 of the article is based on its February 2007 issue. Here's some covers:, , . It might have ceased print publication though recently according to that last link. Rafablu88  11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.everyhit.com/about2.html
 * It's a nice, verifiable, complete website about the UK charts but I don't know how to fulfil the signposting criteria on this one. Should I get an expert in or just use acharts.us? Rafablu88  11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing to a different site. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. Used aCharts as per WP:CHARTS. Rafablu88  12:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.list.co.uk/article/2111-biffy-clyro/
 * The website for a 25-year-old Scottish magazine called The List. Here's some covers:, . Rafablu88
 * http://www.accessallareas.net.au/data/EEZFullZlFFfYbwgab.php
 * Scroll to the bottom. Owned by AAA Entertainment Pty Ltd, one of Australia's premier entertainment conglomerates, owning tons of radio stations, a TV station, and organising a large chunk of the ARIA Awards and most other big events nationwide. Rafablu88  11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.rockfeedback.com/404.php deadlinks
 * Website had revamped. Changed.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text is quite good, thanks. I one relatively minor problem by removing the phrases '(from "BLOC PARTY.")', "tarpaulin", and "singing" from the alt text of File:Okereke Barcelona.jpg, as these phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image (see WP:ALT). Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mainly on prose grounds. Comments: A few general points first: **"A low-quality rip of A Weekend in the City leaked in November..." It presumably didn't leak itself, so "was leaked". Who leaked it? **"released in the rest of the world" seems an odd way of describing the general release of a album. "Released worldwide" might be a more orthodox expression. Please contact me when you think you have addressed these points. The list is not comprehensive, and should be used as a basis for identifying other problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Overuse of semicolons rather than sentence breaks or connectors makes some sentences too long, and hard to follow.
 * I'll split a few ASAP. Rafablu88  17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Halved the number, which now is in single figures for a 51.4kb article. Rafablu88  17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is considerable specialist language in the article, and while most of these terms are linked, some are not. What, for example, is "sonic inference"? What are "vox sessions"? Also, a sentence should be broadly comprehensible without the reader having to use links repeatedly. Sentences such as "The miking scheme was crucial to prepare the drum tracks for the looping and processing Lee planned for them using production program Logic; different types of mics were used for each component of the drum kit" need to be reworded in a more reader-friendly manner.
 * It was meant to be "interference" and changed it to "voice". I'm sure the kids are down with that lingo. I'll scout for any more, although I did that during peer review when I added more detail e.g. about distressors which don't have a wiki page. For the sentence point, see the reply to your first query. Rafablu88  17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All tech points are either linked or explained in enough detail short of actually copying from their respective pages. Not much more I can do. The sentence has been fixed and the flow is better. Rafablu88  17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence was an example. Have you checked through for other instances? Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously. Especially in conjunction with your first point which you've struck out. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Q: Has this point been sufficiently tackled? If so, it may need to be struck like the others. RB88 (T) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MOS point: no-break spaces should be used as appropriate.
 * I know what they are but have no clue how to use them. Someone needs to help out here. Rafablu88  17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, had a look at MOS but still have no clue where to or not to put "no wrap". Rafablu88  18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to use no-wrap. Look in this edit window at "12 men" Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a runthrough. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. Rafablu88  00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Specific prose issues: these are examples taken from the first two or three sections. The whole text needs careful checking to identify and fix other problems:-
 * "sextet" is a singular term, therefore "a sextet was hired"
 * British English, a singular entity can use the plural if it contains more than one member, i.e. "the band were", "Everton FC are an English football club" etc. It's come up before over and over and over again. Rafablu88  16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's come up before. That doesn't make it right in all instances. "...a string quartet were hired" sounds ugly and wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it, but I'm sure the Queen would have something to say about you calling her language ugly and wrong. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "by using the theme the themes of life and leisure" [sic]
 * ??? It's not in the article. Rafablu88  16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because you changed it! (your edit, 13.30 2 September)
 * Before you'd commented I might add, so no need to exclaim. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There will sometimes be a timelag between my noting a point and posting it, because I have to multi-task. If in that gap you spot and correct your mistakes, well and good. But don't try and pretend (by ???) that the mistake didn't exist. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. The January one had it already. Must have missed it. Rafablu88  16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, which was confirmed by Okereke." What exactly did Okereke confirm?
 * DONE. The contents. Rafablu88  16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your text reads "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, whose contents were confirmed by Okereke." Contents are not a "who". And it's still not clear, for either of these leaks, who did the leaking. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrased it. And if I'd known who leaked it I would have written it. The source mentions noone as is the case with internet leaks. I don't think "leaked by deranged internet pirates" would be encyclopaedic or verifiable. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that sometimes people leak things themselves, as a form of test-marketing.
 * Nope, because it was released in Japan the week before, hence saying "worldwide" is erroneous. Rafablu88  16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have spot-checked a few citations: "Bloc Party wanted to expand their sonic palette without losing the cathartic delivery of their staccato indie rock.[15]" What part of ref [15] are you saying supports this statement?
 * It's number 16 and it says: "We've retained some of that jerkiness [from Silent Alarm] but we didn't want to do anything that we've already done. There's a lot of gentle stuff, but we don't want to have a gentle record. Moakes says some of the cuts the group have come up with sound not far from the edgy, dream-rock..." Rafablu88  16:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was [15] when I went through - you have added a further reference meantime. However, that's beside the point. The sentence is clearly an imaginative interpretation of the source, and should be rephrased to reflect what was actually said. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. Again the ref edit was made hours before you commented. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * POV warning: "The highly honest approach..." Whose words are "highly honest"? If they are from the source, they should be in quotes and attributed. If they are POV they should be withdrawn.
 * The polar citations used to prove the statement are:
 * Allmusic: "A Weekend in the City, an unashamedly ambitious, emotional album", "On A Weekend in the City, Bloc Party is sadder, wiser, and more heart-on-sleeve than ever -- almost embarrassingly so", "He's become a striking lyricist, conveying ambivalence and yearning in remarkably direct terms"
 * The Guardian: "Unfortunately, grand statements are not earnest frontman Kele Okereke's forte", "There's barely a song that isn't kneecapped by one of Okereke's lyrical clangers. Just one reference to "crosswords and sudoku" kills Waiting for the 7.18 stone dead, while Hunting for Witches, about fear of terrorism, is so gauche that you might find yourself feeling kindly towards John Reid"
 * Rafablu88 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "highly honest approach" is your own. It certainly isn't "proved" by these sources. You should reword. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * God forbid for allowing some poetic license. I've changed it to "direct" which is satisfied by both sources. Rafablu88  00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments:
 * Your "God forbid" response, above, is a little worrying, if it implies that you would place poetic licence above accuracy or encyclopedic style. I trust this is not the case.
 * No. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that you have 15 separate citations to a single page of the Murphy article, and 12 to another page. The 15 citations to page 36 seem to cover a lot of information. Can you confirm that all the information cited to these pages is found there?
 * Yes. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that this is the Murphy article you are using as a source? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but seems to be a bit truncated for the internet, not just image wise. The one I have in the magazine is a longer spread. Rafablu88  13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you fix citations [13] and [18] (Murphy - see reflist) Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you Brian. ;) Rafablu88  10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you look at ref [18b]? The sentence cited reads: "The band members were largely disillusioned with the evolution of contemporary guitar music and aimed to re-create the atmosphere of neo-classical music coupled with the highly stylised production values of R&B and hip-hop records." The actual source statement is "I don't think we set out to make a neo-classical record [laughs], but I do think we relied on that kind of atmosphere."”This is saying something different from your sentence; perhaps you should rephrase?
 * First of all thanks for the edits, but mainly for the detailed comments which I like as they keep me on my toes.
 * Right, the sentence reads:  The band members were largely disillusioned with the evolution of contemporary guitar music and aimed to re-create the highly stylised production values of R&B and hip-hop records,[19] while relying on an atmosphere similar to neo-classical music.[18] The first half is another source. The second half above is based on "I do think we relied on that kind of atmosphere", i.e. neo-classical music. I don't see how I'm saying something different but maybe I've become desensitised to the text. Any advice? RB88 (T) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This revised version of the sentence is OK. 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I said earlier that my main concern was the standard of the prose. I have now read through (fairly quickly) the remainder of the article and have found numerous further problems. If you have got there first, and fixed any of them, I apologise:-
 * "The track ostracises right-wing newspapers..." – "ostracises"? The word means "to exclude or banish from a group or society". I guess you mean crticise or castigate, or something like that.
 * The second part of this same sentence needs rewording, to clarify the subject of "which"
 * Both DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look again at second part of sentence: "and action" or "an action"? Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "An" Rafablu88  13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a crush is unrequited, it's a one-way affair. An unrequited crush cannot be "between" two people
 * DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By merely removing "unrequited" you have changed the meaning. Did the lyric deal with the unrequited crush of one boy for another, as you previously implied, or was the crush mutual, as you now imply?
 * The older one, changed it. Rafablu88  13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normal usage is "East London" not "east London". The sentence is clumsy anyway with two "ands" - needs reworking
 * Normal usage is both but DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the construction of the sentence beginning "Many songs detail..." Apart from being overlong, the grammar is wrong at the beginning.
 * DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The structure is still wrong and the meaning remains ambiguous. Your use of "following" is the main problem. If I am guessing the meaninig correctly, it would be better to place a full stop after metropolis and begin a new sentence: "This resulted from..." etc
 * DONE, differently. Rafablu88  13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "a drunk and promiscuous night out" A night out can be "drunken", but not "drunk" (as in, for example, a "drunken stupor")
 * DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "difference with" → "difference from"
 * DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous: "Layered vocals are often used to resemble choral sections in A Weekend in the City" My guess is that you meant: "In A Weekend in the City, layered vocals are often used to resemble choral sections"
 * DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "It sold 148,000 copies in the U.S. by August 2008" needs to be "It had sold..." etc
 * Someone didn't like "had" on the Silent Alarm FAC and I removed it, but DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a maelstrom of anger and confusion." These graphic words from the source should be in quote marks
 * DONE. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "the publication included it in its 1000 Albums To Hear Before You Die list compiled in November 2007 by praising the band's "ambitious indie soundscapes packing a sizeable political punch". The "by" should be replaced by a comma.
 * No, because that would leave an -ing verb after the comma. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should find another way of reworking the sentence. The inclusion in the list was a separate action from the praise, not the result of the praise.
 * DONE, differently. Rafablu88  13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tours and rerelease section: this is mostly information which is not about the album which is the subject of this article.
 * No, the first paragraph details the tours FOR the album in summary style (i.e further promotion), which also have an effect on sales, charts, etc. The second paragraph explains the promotion before the re-release in the same vein as the actual release was covered in "Promotion and release". The section is a historical facet of the entity in question and is needed for completeness. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These prose concerns reinforce my view that the article needs to be copyedited thoroughly, by someone other than you, to help bring the prose to the standard required for featured articles. I will be happy to look at the article again, when that has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * God bless vague assertions. I'll ask around. Rafablu88  13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, on the question of vague assertions, quote "This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all." Without really trying, I have found a dozen or so prose faults. The article has improved considerably as a result of this review process, but would clearly benefit from another pair of eyes than yours, and that is what I am requesting. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just yanking your chain Brian. You're a good sport. Rafablu88  13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on title: The page title for this article is rendered in italics. I've not seen this style on any featured article relating to a song, album, film or fictional work. I've not checked MOS but this may be an issue, i.e. should the main title be A Weekend in the City, not A Weekend in the City? Brianboulton (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been some debate about this recently. The technical ability is there. But bear with me, I'll have a look and a few discussions and will come back to say what the stance is. RB88 (T) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "No mandate for or against it". IMO, it's truer and more professional. RB88 (T) 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for context, there was an RfC on this and there wasn't really a "consensus" as such but it seemed be erring on the side not using italic names, except maybe for species/genera. I hope this is fair, unbiased assemesment but for full disclosure I !voted against it at the time. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd been looking for that. Ultimately, I think it's not a massive deal. If MOS is changed in the future, then I can just delete it. It'll only take a couple of seconds. Personally, I still think however that if something is in italics in the body, then surely it has to be as such in the title. RB88 (T) 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "No mandate for or against" doesn't represent actual practice, and it might be prudent to follow the style adopted by all similar articles which have reached FA. Even ship names, which are invariably italicized in text, are not italicized when they appear as or in titles. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "All similar articles which have reached FA" seems a bit of a cop-out other-stuff-exists argument to me. If MOS doesn't specify anything either way then why should I adhere to what everyone else is doing? The majority is not always right. I said above that it seems more professional and truer to me to add title italics if something is in italics in the text. You obviously have another opinion. But we're going round in circles now in the same way as the RFC no consensus. And also, making a mountain out of a molehill. It can be very easily deleted in the future if need be after a sturdy MOS decision against it. RB88 (T) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment—I find the table-y and list-y sections at the bottom half of the article rather overwhelming, especially the track listing. Only the original track-listing (and that global one with the extra song, in this particular case) is ever really notable. Considering that these days albums are sold by different retailers with all sorts of bonus tracks and variations, I don't think it is particularly notable or necessary to list down all of these various formats. The track-listing for the additional remixes/live-DVD doesn't belong either. The same goes for the release history section. How is a collection of release dates and catalogue dates of any interest to the general reader? Remember WP:NOTCATALOG, Wikipedia is not a "complete exposition of all possible details." All important record labels and dates have been already covered in the prose anyway. Per WP:CHART: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." indopug (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, summarised DVD stuff. Bonus tracks are needed though as they were created during the same studio sessions (i.e. the "30 sound checks" mentioned in Origins). Two of them even made the preliminary track list. Rafablu88  19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, see Albums. Plus, I'm sure the reader would appreciate all the info compacted to a table for such a staggered album release-wise. Rafablu88  19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Release history" sections are in no way mandatory (most album FAs do not have and do not need them), and you're better off conveying that information in prose, anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I never said it was mandatory. It's up to editors' discretion and I took the decision that it was so staggered release wise in terms of dates, labels, types, catalog no.s that the table was clearly beneficial. Not all the information can be contained in the prose without sounding forced and superficial. Sorry if it's making other FAs look deficient, but maybe they should have one too, especially the older ones who have had a re-release in the 21st century. Rafablu88  14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Cut down to 10 English-speaking/major markets and 1 auxiliary chart. Rafablu88  19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose (but easy to fix) rationale on "The Prayer" sound sample is inspecific. I've tagged the file. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloc_Party_-_Banquet.ogg passed on the Silent Alarm FAC with the same rationale after User:Jappalang reviewed, and was preceded by the advice of the same user on HeartbeatLOTP.ogg on the Fantasy Black Channel FAC. Plus, I have yet to see a non-free file which has FOUR citations proving its use and importance to the article at hand. The deletion template is unwarranted. Rafablu88  14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion template is perfectly warranted. Please see WP:NFCC #10c, and note that it says "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item". I've re-instated the warning template to the file, as the problem has NOT been fixed. In the version you prefer, the rationale could be used to justify its existence in ANY article. That's not good enough to pass #10c. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. Please strike your oppose. Thank you, Rafablu88  14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Further—
 * Within a paragraph, a citation is assumed to reference all the text preceding it (apart from quotes). So you don't need to use the same ref over and over again in adjacent sentences. I just you remove all of these instances of over-referencing to enhance readability. [ Sample edit].
 * Sorted them out. I'm glad it's come up. I've thought about doing it but always scared someone is gonna go "oh, massive oppose, under-referenced". Rafablu88  09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that non-free image of the recording process really necessary? It isn't very clear either, with the drums and the mikes around them tiny in the background. Besides, I don't think there isn't anything particularly unique about this recording setup to warrant a fair-use pic.
 * Well, it's not clear because a) it's a screenshot and b) it has to be small for fair-use. It's not just about the drums miking either, it's the booth as well. I think overall it's unconventional and unique enough to warrant inclusion, especially with what is said in the adjacent text. Rafablu88  09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After a couple of discussions, I have now uploaded a clearer, slightly larger shot and reinforced the free use rationale, too. RB88 (T) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Radiohead are not a post-rock band, and Snow Patrol are not world-renowned. Not as much as U2 anyway (which is what the sentence inadvertently implies).
 * DONE. Rafablu88  09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you don't choose to include the most reputed music magazines' reviews in the infobox and in the Reception section? While notable, why use Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Rockfeedback wand Stylus, when you can have Spin, Mojo, Q and a major newspaper like the Times instead? I doubt it will be difficult to find these reviews online.
 * It's all subjective isn't it? You say tomaytoe, I say tomatoh. I always proceed through Metacritic's picks, the aggregate score (to show a correct rating spread), and Ealdgyth's notability guidelines. Plus now in the 21st century post-print times, people like Spin, Mojo, Q etc are behind in terms of review quality, length, and perception. Most of their writing is just stubs, whereas Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Stylus, and Rockfeedback actually still write essays on albums like the good old times mainly because they can space-wise but also because they focus more on less mainstream music. I'm sure the reader would appreciate quality and depth rather than a two sentence paragraph with an arbitrary editorial rating. I know I do. Rafablu88  09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that the long-standing print publications have greater critical weight. Drowned in Sound and the like should be relied on only if you can't find anything by the likes of Rolling Stone, NME, and SPIN, because they are considered the leading voices in music journalism (and they do have web presences; Rolling Stone in particular has an online version of pretty much everything that has ever been printed by it). Review length has nothing to do with it (I am reminded of a rather cutting four-word Bauhaus review by Melody Maker from the early 80s. A rather tossed-off review that i don't agree with, but it got its point across). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, m'lord. Replaced Stylus with EW since they're now defunct. Replaced Rockfeedback with the A.V. Club. The only other Metacritic established review was Blender but that was written by Dorian Lynskey who wrote The Guardian one and it wouldn't have been appropriate. Everything else was print media which I don't have and even if I did I wouldn't budge on PopMatters (see Albums) and Drowned in Sound, who without a look in nostalgia lane, are currently probably more thorough and eminent than the Spins and Qs of this world, especially in the UK. Rafablu88  12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That list of equipment used is highly unorthodox, in that most of our articles don't have them. I don't see the point too, I doubt a casual reader would grasp the significance of any of the items on the list; it would only interests the musos. As an analogy, would you like to read a list of all the equipment in shooting a film in a film article? indopug (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the analogy. Good point. Rafablu88  09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; File:BPGLodge.jpg is used in violation of WP:NFCC as the scene shown can be adequately described by text. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC actually states "No free equivalent." The fair use rationale reads: "The work is copyrighted, thus no free alternative is available. It was recorded in desolate, rural Ireland with no photographers, press etc. The promo video is absolutely the only piece of work that includes such studio sessions material." The questions are:
 * "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" ANSWER: NO
 * "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" I assume this is what you're referring to. My answer would still be: NO
 * The text does explain booth and miking scheme, yes, but the probabilities of ALL the readers comprehending and visualising exactly what this unorthodox set-up looked like are quite low. A booth could mean anything in terms of its erection, composite materials, and relative position. And while miking scheme is easier to visualise, their position relative to specific drum kit parts may not. I believe it satisfies criterion 1. RB88 (T) 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no free image, but I think free text would do. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed it in the end. RB88 (T) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as this issue has been resolved. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I can't find anything wrong other than the issues brought up here, and they've been resolved. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. My (extensive) concerns, now resolved, are here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Essentially as per above, perhaps minus the extensive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as significant contributor - hoped to find more time to help Rafa out with this but evidently school and, now, work have prevented me. Obviously worth the star and has withstood some heavy criticism here. Excellent work if I do say so myself.  GARDEN  19:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.