Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Achtung Baby/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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010.

Achtung Baby

 * Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it has gone through a peer review and Good Article nomination process with very little trouble, and I feel it is one of the finest articles in the Music category. It has seen the eyes of many different U2 fans with many different sources, so it has information sourced from a great deal of places. I believe the topic is an important one, as well, as it almost spelled the end of U2, but instead brought new life to them, and the prose tells this story. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Two dab links—replace them with more specific ones.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No dab links. --an odd name 16:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 96's external link is dead. Ref 65 goes to a less specific page.
 * I'll have to look into something for ref 96 - I'm not great with charts. Ref 65 has been fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 96 (now 95) should be fixed now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No dead external links. --an odd name 16:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The album and VHS covers need alt text. For the concert image, is it obvious from seeing the image alone that they are Trabant cars (I've never heard of them)?
 * How do you add alt text to an image in an infobox? As for the concert image, they are most definitely Trabants. They are well-known with "derisive affection as a symbol of the failed former East Germany and of the fall of communism". There is a documentary from a DVD recorded on that tour about the Trabant. Some of the Trabants from the tour hang in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: see here. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the infobox, use |Alt=alt text; see Template:Infobox album. (Other infoboxes use different names than Alt, and some simply take full image tags with their own alts.)  For the Trabants, thank you.  --an odd name 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added alt text, although I can't get it to show up in my browser configuration. Can someone confirm the text is viewable and is appropriate? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The alts look good. Alt text shouldn't show in a visual browser, unless images are turned off or unavailable.  Firefox allows the user to copy alts by highlighting the image area and copying in the usual way (Control-C).  Opera 10.10 can be set to view pages through an "Alt Debugger" (View→Style).  You can also try a text browser or the Altviewer. --an odd name 16:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most dates in refs are ISO style; change the rest of the ref dates to that style for consistency. Double-check that prose dates are all Day Month Year (most are).
 * Should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments I admit to jumping past the prose of the article completely and straight to the Charts and certifications section, but I have a few comments about just that section. Most of these comments are based on stuff from WP:ALBUM, WP:CHARTS, and MOS:DISCOG:
 * In the first table, what does the Peak position column refer to? Peak position of what?
 * The blank cells should have a dash, like the singles table.
 * Speaking of the dash, it should be an en-dash (–) or an em-dash (—), not a hyphen, which is what you're using now.
 * The Sales column is a slippery slope, since you appear to be basing it on the certifications given. Certifications aren't always based on units sold, sometimes they're based on units shipped, depending on the country, certifying body, sometimes even genre of the release.  So, in other words, you should only provide sales figures when you're sure they're correct.  So you'd be sure about this only if a) you have a source explicitly saying "100,000 sold" or you have one of the certifying bodies specifying exactly what a "Platinum" certification means (sold vs shipped).  It looks like in all the sales figures you've given, you've extrapolated that info from the certifications awarded, which isn't reliable.
 * The ordering of the chart columns seem pretty haphazard. The typical way of doing it is homecountry first (Ireland, in this case), followed by the rest of the countries in english-language alphabetical order.  It also seems like there's a huge skew towards the US here (5 of the 8 provided charts are American).  Surely U2 has charted all over the world?
 * I also find it hard to believe that the album went Gold and Platinum in Finland and Germany respectively, but didn't chart at all? Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that based on the Charts sourcing I would be inclined to oppose, but having done some sourcing recently for various U2 albums and singles I can perhaps explain some of the format details you noted above:
 * I agree that the majority of the US singles charts should be removed; I do not think that any more than the Hot 100, being the main US singles charts, need be included. U2 may chart all over the world, but per a recent FAC for No Line on the Horizon, it was my understanding that singles charts be limited to just English-language countries, such as Canada, Ireland, the UK, etc. I'm sure that the numerous US charts can be replaced with data from Australia and New Zealand, giving perhaps more of an international focus rather than a North American one. With the website reorganization by Billboard earlier this year many chart data were also either lost or merged; this would probably help to prevent inaccuracies as well.
 * I'm not sure if it's policy that the home country be listed first but the order can be switched relatively easily.
 * It's been a little while since I did work on the chart sourcing for this article, but two possibilities strike me regarding the Finnish and German charts. The first is that their respective IFPI websites do not list chart positions that far back, and so the data was unavailable to users with limited proficency in either language. The second is that, as my browser tends to shrink for some reason when on foreign-language websites, I was not able to undertake a thorough search. If the former is true then the tables will unfortunately have to be replaced until further charts are added (if ever). If the latter, then I would appreciate if people who are able to view foreign-language websites help in the search for that information. The UK position should probably be removed too; neither Billboard nor AllMusic seem to list it, and the British certification sites I have found only list the #1 albums for whatever reason.
 * I agree on the sales numbers; from a brief recollection, I think that only Canada and Finland have properly sourced sales numbers. Until sources can be found, I believe the rest should be removed (though I'm sure that the data must exist somewhere for the US and UK at least in old news reports).
 * The rest of the details seem to be relatively minor fixes that can be done fairly quickly. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Although I haven't really heard this album, and don't like U2 much, I found the article to be a very good read. I think you've a captured a story very nicely:
 * You overuse the words "band" (replace with "group" and "U2") and "album" (replace with "record" and "Achtung Baby"). If you do a ctrl+F on Firefox and hit 'highlight all', you'll see what I mean.
 * This should be a little better now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Zoo TV tour section should be expanded to two paragraphs. It was a very unique tour, and it gives a good idea about where U2 were at the time. Makes for interesting reading too.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are either the non-free cover or the track-listing in the Video section really needed? I don't see how they add anything to the article. I think that single paragraph about the video, is better off in the Release section.
 * I wouldn't mind trimming this down, but I'd like to get others' thoughts. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the content you mentioned. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the accolades in the table be sorted by Year? Also, centre-align the ranks.
 * I wasn't sure if there were certain guidelines for how to organize material like this. I just as well thought alpha-sorting by the publication/organization was good. But I can change this. I center-aligned the rankings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you remove either the quote box or the review template from the Reception, it isn't recommended to sandwich the text in between like that.
 * Quote removed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first four paragraphs seem to deal with the packaging and title of the album, so they should be in a Packaging section (as is standard for album articles).
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The singles don't need a section for themselves. Merge this info with that last para in the Release section. Also, since they have their own articles, there is no need to mention how acclaimed the singles are.—indopug (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think there is too much information, esp. chart information, which would be redundant to the chart table at the bottom, and singles' articles. I doubt you need more than a paragraph for all the singles.
 * Also, I wonder if you could rewrite the section to make the discussion of the singles more seamless with the release of the album as a whole. For example, "The Fly" was released a month before Achtung Baby, so you probably should mention the single's release before the album's.
 * Minor thing: per MoS, "#1, #10" should be "number one, number 10" throughout.—indopug (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this should be taken care of now. I've left in the charting information in the prose, since it doesn't hurt to list the highlights for each song in a sentence... and if we do eliminated the charting table because of reference concerns, this information in the Release section would be all the more important to keep. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for a number of reasons. In a nutshell:
 * The prose needs work (example: "U2 returned to production team of Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno"). Suggest a full review by an uninvolved editor. I'm up for doing it, but you'll have to give me a few days.
 * Started to work on it a little. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should still get an independent eye to look at this. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Too many block quotes. Ascertain if you really need them at all (The Rolling Stone review strikes me as one that can be done without)
 * Removed the Rolling Stone review one. I think the others are of great value, and too long to stick in prose as just normal text. In my opinion, the quote blocks give more insight into the thinking the band/producers had and they help break up what is a lengthy, text-heavy article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Drewcifer pointed out, the chart and sales situations need to be sorted. I'd advise that you remove the singles chart table, for if your going to create a singles chart table you really should be including charts from non-English-speaking countries, and Achtung Baby had so many singles with such chart success you're best leaving that to U2 discography.
 * As was mentioned above, I'm not very good with charting-type information (MelicansMatkin is much better with that). He also mentioned the point that for English Wikipedia, we should mostly be concerned with English speaking countries (per a FAC on another U2 album). Could this point be clarified? It seems we're getting conflicting information for 2 different FAC reviews. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the "we should mostly be concerned with English speaking countries" argument before. WP:CHARTS should tell you everything you need to know about the section.—indopug (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CHARTS doesn't specify whether charts should be focused on English-language countries or a mixture of international charts. We can only go by our own interpretation and what we have been told to do in previous related FACs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of sources don't look to be reliable sources (ex. Bullz-eye.com, everyhit.com, besteveralbums.com, rocklistmusic.co.uk, Acclaimed Music Forums, spin100.blogspot.com). Some citations are incomplete (saw a few missing webpage retrieval dates).
 * Lots of magazines don't make these special issues available online, and I don't have print copies of any of them. Maybe you can help out there? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can help, but it'll take time, and might require withdrawing the FAC nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unreliable references and based on the information that was available, I made my best attempt to fill in print versions of the citations. I haven't yet removed everyhit.com, since it is how we are citing UK singles peaks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all major sources have been consulted. For starters, there's an Achtung Baby book in the 33 1/3 book series. There's some indepth articles by the likes of Mojo, Q, and so on that haven't been consulted (I have access to them through Rock's Back Pages). Remember, with an album from 1991, not everything will be available online or be currently in print.  This is not helped by the fact that U2 doesn't seem to have the same level of writing or research devoted to their music as, say, the Beatles or R.E.M (Yeah, you have U2 by U2, but this is a primary source, and you should lean towards focusing on secondary sources). You're going to have to really dig for some Achtung Baby-specific sources.
 * Could you share some of the information that may be in these articles? I'd honestly be surprised if there was any new information to turn up, but if they stand out off the top of your head, they must be important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as above. This will take time. You also need to review that 33 1/ book, which from what I understand is primairly focused on religious imagery in the album. As of right now, the album is not comprehensive in regards to major sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it is not necessarily focused on religious imagery so much as it is the author's religious interpretation of the album (and from the reviews I've read, it sounds like religion is a bigger focus than the album, the songs, or the band). But that is a valid point - religious imagery is something that should be touched on. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Critical reception boxes. Firstly, with the advent of the new review template (which is optional, by the way), the idea is to only list reviews with a clear rating metric. This means no longer including reviews that have to be described as "favourable" or "unfavorable". In fact, if you can find a source that summarizes the album's critical reception (essentially, finding a citation to back up the sentence "Upon its release, Achtung Baby received strong reviews from critics"), that should receive priority. Additionally, the "best-of lists" table is cumbersome and distorts the end of the article section. You address much of that in the prose, so it's unnecessary.
 * I understand your concern for the review box, but there doesn't seem to be any guideline that dismisses reviews without a rating. The template's documentation says the following: If no rating is given in the review you should use one of the words (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, don't include it in the template. In regards to the "best-of" list, I thought it would be more cumbersome to try and write prose about the album's appearance on a dozen-so-odd lists ("The album was ranked #62 all-time by Rolling Stone. It was also included on Time's 100 All-Time Albums list. It was also...."). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums for further information about the new review template. Keep in mind we still haven't drawn up proper guidelines for it, but one of the key points is that reviews without any rating metric will not be included in the box, given such terms like "favorable", "unfavorable", "mixed", etc. can only be subjective summaries. As for the accolades, it shouldn't be too hard to cover them in the prose. See Loveless (album) and In Utero for examples. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "best-of" table has been converted to prose in a new section called "Legacy". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trival details for the album's context. The sentence "The album's intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as the band placing themselves as peers of the likes of Bob Dylan" is not essential to understanding Achtung Baby.
 * I don't think this is non-essential. It explains that Rattle and Hum was an exploration of American music and that the perception of the record by many critics was they were trying to enshrine themselves in the rock pantheon, something they were lambasted for. I think both points are important, considering the different direction U2 took leading into Achtung Baby. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it is phrased makes it trivial. You say, "It explains that Rattle and Hum was an exploration of American music and that the perception of the record by many critics was they were trying to enshrine themselves in the rock pantheon, something they were lambasted for", but this is not evident by reading the prose, and the conclusion appears to be original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of sentences need to have their POV attributed.Ffor example, "Compared to the youthful exuberance on much of their 1980s work, Achtung Baby was a more direct and complex examination of pain in personal relationships and covered love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, in addition to betrayal". That's not something you can objectively state, that's an opinion.  So who said it?  Make it clear in the prose.
 * Some reviews can likely be cited here. I'll look for them. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This specific sentence that you highlight can be tweaked using the sources provided for that sentence - I need to get to them later tonight.


 * Personally, I'd rather keep away from attributed opinion unless the opinion itself is notable. Thus, I'm thinking to remove "youthful exuberence" whereas, the phrase examination of pain in personal relationships and covered love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, in addition to betrayal seems to stand up pretty well - if one looks at the lyrics that's what it is about (and far more so than previous U2 albums). Of course, if one wanted to nit pick and argue to the extreme that it's all about personal interpretation, then perhaps we do need to remove it to satisfy those it see it as not about love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, and betrayal, but rather the marshmellow man's experience apple farming on the space shuttle. Personally, I'd prefer the former, and suggest we step out on a fairly sturdy and well-fenced limb, and say the album deals with faith, betrayal, etc.


 * As I said, I can look at it tonight when I have the sources I used in front of me. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to attribute the opinion. Otherwise it comes off as fact, when it isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is an overview of the article's issues. The articles needs some in-depth work to address them. Oh, and Indopug, I'd say this is not only the best U2 album, but an good introductory record for those who don't like U2. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Pshh. Boy and War pooh on this and any other ones they've done apart from The Joshua Tree. RB88 (T) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Wesley, I'd like to see you do that copy edit you suggest. You hit the nail on the head by saying it needs fresh eyes. The article as it stands is essentially a combined effort between krazyjoker and myself, and even I can see some of the clumsiness that he or I can no longer effectively fix - the prose has been jumping back and forth between minor tweaks for a while now with no improvement - parts of it need a completely different approach. I think the structure and content and referencing is excellent, and the basic flow, rather it's a sentence, possibly paragraph, level tweaking that needs doing by someone new. Krazyjoker will probably agree that it's a bit scary offering one's "Baby" (pun not intended, but once noticed, I thought it most apt), up for potential re-write, but it might get us out of the stale-eye prose dead lock. I will also hunt around for other copy editors. --Merbabu (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do a copyedit on the 1st of January. Sorry I can't do it sooner, but my time is limited these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?
 * http://www.bullz-eye.com/music/deep_cuts/2005/U2_part_1.htm
 * http://www.timepieces.nl/Albums-U/U2_Achtung_Baby.htm
 * http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?a=293#rankings
 * http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/eweekly.html; http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/qlistspage2.html#QReaders; http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/qlistspage3.htm#The
 * http://pub37.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3172289350&frmid=0&msgid=610386
 * http://spin100.blogspot.com/


 * Dead link: http://www.store.livenation.com/Product.aspx?cp=13281_16771_16246&pc=MUDD327
 * Ref 21 needs the programme. (I'm sure he didn't just pop up on BBC1 and start talking against a fuzzy screen background. Although I wouldn't put it past him.)
 * Refs 95, 100, 101 are bare.
 * Check that all online-only publishers are NOT in italics.
 * This needs work still. RB88 (T) 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All the atU2 links need to be removed. There's so much copyrighted material illegally published that I nearly had a coronary. Cite the works they all came from instead without a link.
 * All atU2 links removed, as are all of the questionable references listed above. Bare refs fixed. Still looking for the program Bono spoke on. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With what did you replace all the refs your removed? RB88 (T) 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I created print versions of the citations that attributed the original publications. I didn't have a lot of information, such as if there were specific authors or article titles. But I attributed the publications, the names of their lists, and the approximate publication date. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The copyright issue was a good pick up, but indeed hasn't Y2kcrazyjoker4 now addressed this issue? ie, atu2 links to the sources removed. Futher, between the two of us, we have the majority of these references in hard copies anyway (and most cites didn’t use links to atu2 anyway). And, while I agree with the copyright issue of atu2 and no-one mentioned reliability on this page, it has been mentioned elsewhere so I will pre-empt it if I may. There is no evidence of a reliability issue - for the handful of references I’ve checked, they appear to be accurately reproduced, and there is no evident reason to think that the others aren’t. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Two images. Alt text good for both.
 * File:Achtung Baby.png: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.
 * Usage: Good, standard.
 * Rationale: Acceptable.


 * File:Zoo stage.jpg: Photograph of elaborate stage set (fair use), used in main text.
 * Usage: Good. Image is rich in visual information and substantially explicates sourced critical commentary.
 * Rationale: Unacceptable. A few problems here: (1) Sourcing is bad. We're given a link to the U2 home page, which does not show the image. You need to link to exactly where the image came from and provide all available information on publication and authorship. (2) A separate rationale is required for each article in which the image appears. There is currently none at all for this article. (3) The rationale needs to explain not only why the image significantly enhances understanding of the accompanying text, but the importance of the text to the article's subject, which may not be self-evident to editors who might come along in the future to vet the rationale. Do not simply duplicate the existing U2 and Zoo TV Tour rationale—its content is insufficient for a fair use image in a Featured Article (in addition to failing our image policy per #2 above). Take a look at the following summary/rationales, which are acceptable models: File:StoneSmoking.jpg, File:St1-enterprise and whiplash bolt.png.

Two audio samples:
 * File:U2 Zoo Station.ogg: Sample of track from topic album (fair use).
 * Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and the unique effect of its introductory passage, sampled here.
 * Rationale: Very good. Unacceptable. Again, a separate fair use rationale is required for each article in which the item appears. There is currently none at all for this article.


 * File:Fly sample.ogg: Sample of track from topic album (fair use).
 * Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of first of album's five singles, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and how its specific sound prompted its choice as the album's lead single.
 * Rationale. Very good. Unacceptable. And, for a third time, there is currently no specific rationale at all for this article. Do not simply duplicate the existing U2 and The Fly rationale—you need to explain why the sample is specifically important for the reader's understanding of this article, and you also need to note the length of the original song, so the technical aspects of the sample can be properly judged. —DCGeist (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sound samples' fair use rationales should be OK now. The image I'll revisit in the morning - it isn't on U2.com anymore. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may just be me but it seems that the image could have been taken from the ZooTV video (the position of the shot looks identical to many of the camera angles from the release), in which case it should be fairly simple to change the source (if that is indeed the cas). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not taken from the video - it looks like it could have been taken as a promo image, but it doesn't compare to screen caps from the actual video. Just looking at Flickr, it doesn't look like there are lots of options for pictures of the full stage. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.