Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Star (band)/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 18:57, 18 August 2009.

Big Star (band)

 * Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I found this article languishing a couple of months ago and it struck me as a good candidate to develop more fully. I have been working on it since that time, taking it through a GA pass and polishing it further since. In my judgement it now meets the FA criteria and I offer it for review. All comments are welcome and will be acted on promptly. PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox to your right, there are several disambiguation links to be fixed. Also, I see you've put in alt text, but it is incorrectly done. What you've done is simply duplicate the image caption, which is not the purpose of alt text. See Alternative text for images for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done: dablinks fixed and new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from I own Jovanovic's book, and I am a big fan of Big Star and am familiar with their history. In fact, I planned in the back of my head to work on this article forever, but I've been inactive on Wikipedia for a while and in the meantime it seems you've picked it up (great work, btw). I've cleaned up a few minor typos and changed a few UK spellings to US ones. Here are some things I noticed along the way reading it (I'll keep adding to this list as I read each section):


 * "The band's musical style, influenced by British Invasion groups including The Beatles and The Kinks, as well as The Byrds, The Beach Boys and other U.S. acts, incorporated darker, nihilistic themes, foreshadowing the alternative rock of the 1980s and 1990s." Darker than what? This sentence is awkwardly constructed and should be split into two sentences.
 * Done: reworded. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Chilton had enjoyed commercial success as lead singer with The Box Tops, delivering, at sixteen, the lead vocal for the #1 hit "The Letter"." Is this sentences necessary to the lead? Only one sentence is dedicated to the Box Tops in the article's main body, and the placement at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place. I'd say either remove it or at least make it the first sentence of the lead's second paragraph.
 * Done: I've removed it. I added it because it's notable but was never happy with the way it detracts in the Lead; having thought on, I now see that it's notable to Chilton rather than Big Star. The later mention is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Although Big Star disbanded in 1974, only reforming in 1993[...]" the "only reforming in 1993" is unnecessary, you go over this later in the paragraph and sticking it here is out of place.
 * Done: removed. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "attention was drawn to the early material in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]" should be "the band's discography drew attention in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]"
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "new releases" should be "reissues" (and be sure to link to it so readers understand what this means)
 * Done. Only the Big Star albums were reissues, however, so I've reworded it to allow for the Bell one being new. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "He was offered, but turned down as "too commercial", the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears." --> "He was offered the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears, but turned down as "too commercial"."
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "(or Ice Water[11])" Is it really necessary to know that this was sometimes spelled slightly differently?
 * Done - no, not necessary, so removed. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The four-piece band eventually chose a name" Shouldn't this be "new name"?
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "other reviewers wrote that "every cut could be a single" from this "important record that should go to the top"." I looked it up and the publications that printed these quotes were Billboard (high praise from an important source!) and Cash Box. Additionally, Record World called it "one of the best albums of the year". I think that the publications should be credited in the text, and that new sentences should be devoted to mentioning the additional praise.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to find that there is virtually no explanation of the sound of each individual Big Star album. The "Musical style and influences" is a good general overview of the band's sound, but surely it's a good idea to explain the differences between each record in their individual sections?
 * Done. It was definitely needed. I've tried not to overdo it, as the album articles are of course where much of the detail should go eventually. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "[...]existing copies of #1 Record from the stores again." Is the "again" needed? They hadn't been previously removed.
 * Done: removed. This was a slightly interesting one! The word isn't needed and the style is more encyclopedic without it. As a point of interest, perhaps it's more in British English then that "again" is commonly used in the sense not of "another time" but of a reaction or response, as a result of which the status quo ante is restored. For example, to pick something up only to put it down again; or, the music got loud and then got quiet again. Used in that sense it has a function in conveying a connection between an action or state and another that preceded it. Anyway, that's by the by and purely for interest in case that usage is new to any reading this; I do think the style is better without the word in this case. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "according to Fry (quoted by Clark) and Hummel (quoted by Jovanovic)" Why not put direct references directly after Fry's and Hummel's names instead of the parentheses?
 * Done. Turns out Jovanovic says both anyway, so I've removed Clark. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bell quit for good"; "Hummel too quit for good": I'd suggest removing the "for good" part, as it's not only repetitive but very informally worded. The mention of Hummel's quitting is far enough away from Bell's quitting that I think the "too" is also unnecessary.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Radio City was released in January 1974. Like #1 Record it received excellent reviews, critics noting that "the sound is stimulating, the musicianship superb" on what was "a collection of excellent material" and affirming that Alex Chilton had "now emerged as a major talent"." I suggest changing this to "Radio City was released in January 1974, and like #1 Record it received excellent reviews.", and then spend a few sentences detailing those quotes and the publications they came from.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "sales of Radio City were prevented"; this makes it sound as though Colombia deliberately suppressed every copy of Big Star's album, which is not true; Radio City actually sold around 20,000 copies, much better than #1 Record had performed but still not great. Perhaps "sales of Radio City were minimal"? Additionally, the information I mentioned above (from the same page you already cite) is important.
 * Done. PL290 (talk)


 * "(The phrase "sister lovers" was[...]" No need for this to be in parentheses. Also, why not briefly explain how #1 Record and Radio City were named in their own sections?
 * Done.PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The first three Big Star albums are included in Rolling Stone magazine’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time." "September Gurls" was included in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs list, a fact which should be noted in that sentence.
 * Done. Also "Thirteen". PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" is a long title, and I'm not sure I like parts of it. For example, "Posthumous" seems a strange choice, given not only that Big Star is a band and not a person but also that they became influential before reuniting, so it's not really posthumous at all. "Popularity" might be a bit misleading as they're still only a cult act. Perhaps "Legacy and influence" is more succinct?
 * Done. I've also made it a subsection of "First era" since its the latter's legacy and influence we're talking about. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that logically, the "Covers and references" section should be a subsection of the "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" section. They cover similar ground, so it seems strange to see them separated by unrelated sections.
 * Bearing in mind my response to your previous comment, I've instead made it a subsection of "First era", located immediately after what is now "Legacy and influence". Does that all seem OK, or would you suggest something different from what I've done? PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "In 1998, #1 Record's "In the Street" was used as the theme song for the sitcom That '70s Show;[10] in 1999, a new version titled "That '70s Song" was recorded by Cheap Trick for the show.[10][43] This and Big Star's own "September Gurls" were included on the 1999 album That '70s Album (Rockin') released by the television program's producers.[44]" Logically, this should be in the "Covers and references" section.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Second era: 1993 to present" section in general is very choppy, with short paragraphs. It really should be reworked into a better organized section.
 * This was largely taken care of when more material was moved here from two other points. I've taken out a further paragraph break; are you happy with the result? PL290 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bogdanov et al. reserve "snarl" for another #1 Record song, "Mod Lang"" "Mod Lang" is on Radio City, not #1 Record.
 * Done. (Doh!) PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "Musical style and influences" section: I think that it would make most sense if the first paragraph came after the second, and if the third paragraph were incorporated into the "Second era: 1993 to present" section.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the audio sample boxes, as the quotes about each song are used later, it's a better idea to format the descriptions more in the style of articles like R.E.M.
 * Done: I've formatted the descriptions in the style used by R.E.M.; I have retained a few parts of the quotes as they're suitably descriptive without getting POV; does this seem an acceptable result or would you suggest it's better to completely eliminate any quotations from the descriptions? PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Stringfellow is also known for his work with R.E.M." Not sure about ending a sentence with the last period of R.E.M.'s name... Perhaps reword this or slide the information into an earlier sentence?
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed throughout that there is very little insight from members of the band and/or people who worked with the band. Without going into too much detail, which should of course be reserved for the individual articles about the band's releases, it would be nice to include some quotes from Big Star-related people.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably aware of this, but there is a 33⅓ book devoted to Radio City. While it might not be needed for this article (33⅓ books are usually used in the article for the album they're about and not so much in the band article, although there are exceptions), it might be good to lighten the dependence on Jovanovic as a source. And it's certainly worth looking into.
 * Noted - I have in mind to get that, and it will be excellent when it comes to developing the Radio City article further. Unfortunately I don't have a copy yet but will hope to address all review points without recourse to that. PL290 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support All of my points have been met. I believe that, other than a few minor MoS issues which I'm sure will be resolved, that this article is feature-worthy. Good work, PL290! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Images have alt text, but it needs work to satisfy the WP:ALT guidelines. The alt text is simply a copy of the caption. But alt text should not be a copy of the caption; it has quite a different function from the caption, and it's quite rare for the same text to be good for both. Please read WP:ALT (particularly WP:ALT  and WP:ALT ) and then have a go at writing good alt text. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done: new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better. But these proper names shouldn't be in the alt text. The average reader doesn't know what these people look like, so saying (in effect) "It looks like Stringfellow" in the alt text won't help them. Can you please remove the proper names from the alt text? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done: proper names removed from alt texts. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick comment Could you move the line "in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped...in all of rock & roll" to last paragraph of the lead? It seems more appropriate there, as that is the paragraph where you talk in detail about the group's legacy. Otherwise, it seems a little POV to tell the reader how influential Big Star were before you even lay out the basic facts about them.
 * Actually that sentence was intentionally prominent; not as POV, which I hope it avoids by being composed of cited quotes, but to establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD. In view of this, would you be happy to leave that sentence where it is? PL290 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article could also do with a MoS polish. For eg: I see Rolling Stone linked and unitalicised twice in the same section. indopug (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been attempting to adhere to MoS as I work on the article but had missed italicising Rolling Stone for some reason; that's now fixed. I'll go over it again at the end of other editing to check for any other MoS issues. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.last.fm
 * http://www.secondhandsongs.com/medium/29386
 * http://www.discogs.com
 * http://tripatlas.com/3_Lb._Thrill
 * http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=4980
 * http://www.inertia-music.com/catalogue/40773/Okkervil_River/Overboard_And_Down/
 * Current ref 71 (Big Star perform..) lacks a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * last.fm is part of CBS: . I've now rendered it "lastfm.com (CBS)" in the notes to make that clearer. The rest don't look too reliable though, I agree. I've substituted better sources for all except two in your list. I drew a blank for Matt Brown's cover version, so I've removed it from the article. The other troublesome one is the R.E.M. Christmas fan club cover version. However, it's listed in the WP article R.E.M. discography, so I've added that as the cited link. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the REM thing, you can't cite the Wikipedia article. You need a source you've seen yourself for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed as no source available. This should now address all the items in your list. PL290 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable source for the R.E.M. Christmas single. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Reinstated to use this source. PL290 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Last.fm is not a reliable source. It's user-generated content. You need to remove it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that although last.fm does indeed contain some user-generated content, the cited parts are not user-generated. As you're querying it though, I'll check it out in the morning. PL290 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's as I thought: only certain content on last.fm is editable, such as this Big Star review where you can see an "edit" link. I'm not using that. Content I've cited to demonstrate the existence of a cover version mentioned is not editable. PL290 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can find a better source than Last.fm, though. This isn't a music reference site; it's a site to show off what you're listening to (yes, I have one). It's routinely discouraged from use in music articles. Try Allmusic. Even then, to state the cover is notable, you need more than just a mention of a tracklisting, since the original doucment (the album itself) could tell you that (and you wouldn't need a citation for that). Also, this is not an appropriate source, not the least because when logged into my account I can edit it to say whatever I want. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading the article in-depth, you really should get rid of those long lists of cover songs. That's inappropriate minutae for a band article; if it's notable, stick it in the articles about the songs being covered themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point; I suspect the detailed list of covers had more value in the past, before other content took over the role of demonstrating the band's notability. I'll look at condensing the list, probably into one sentence that just states artist names with reliable sources. I'll also hunt down a better source for the July 2009 concert. PL290 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks and reads much better. Also, I'd recommened make the Legacy subsection its own separate section, separate fromt he band biography. It's common practice in band articles, as a band's legacy and influence is not part of its biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I reviewed this article for GA, and helped copyedit it and dragged some other editors in to have a look. I think it has congealed nicely since then and passes criteria. I suppose I could jiggle a little prose around but no deal-breakers stand out and much of what I might tweak would be subjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I need to do a thorough run-through of the article in the next few days. I see some things that worry me.  I may not get to it right away, so I hope this doesn't suddenly get promoted or something (which has happened before with FACs I wanted to list objections to). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment Give me three more days to review the article in-depth and figure out if I'm going to field an object. Rather busy off-wiki these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed a newly ambiguous Hyde Park. Trust that is all but please let me know if anything else is needed. The api workaround tool Dab_solver.py generated various other output without saying why, but I think all is now well. PL290 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, please trim down the external links section as per WP:EL. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tentative support.
 * Niggle: most US style guides say no dots in "USA", although the you dot es dot is still clung to, ironically. But in the infobox, I'd go with spelling it out, just once: "United States", as more stylish in isolation. No space problem there.
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a bore, but I think FAC needs to be reminded (I certainly do) by Black Kite of the issues concerning NFC sound files. There seem to be a lot of them. Let's see what he says. Tony   (talk)  12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) PS Except he's away until 19 August; even if this is promoted, we can easily make adjustments if necessary afterwards, and report them at WT:FAC.  Tony   (talk)  12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, the sound files can be adjusted if necessary; however, the question has been considered with other editors (see talk page if interested) and there are good grounds for this particular range of four sound files for this article. They are specifically selected, each demonstrating one aspect of the band's musical style, per their captions, in support of the article text. I hope they can remain but if it does after all transpire there's any violation of WP principles then I would support whatever changes are necessary to bring them in line, whether during this FA review or at a later time. PL290 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, I stopped reading after the first sentence. It reads like an advertisement for the band, and provides very little actual info. As it would be unfair to oppose based on one line, I'm not going to vote, but I hope this can be addressed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Images are all free, with proper attributes and reasonable alt text. No problems there.
 * Audio has a slight problem. All the rationales are fine, they are reduced quality, and seem to be important to include for the text with reasonable "captions", but the last three audio samples exceed the 10% limit per WP:SAMPLE. There's a table on that page that id's how much is appropriate with a given song length.  (The first sample is ok). --M ASEM  (t) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Audio is all good now (I feel the 4 samples are fine and not excessive and at least backed by discussion). --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Sources - Checked through most of the sources and I can see no problems. The extensive copyediting and stylistic changes above probably ensured that if there was anything (which I cannot see in the history and from looking at sources I have access to) then it would have been changed from the source. Heavy use of quotations are good. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support (disclaimer, I'm a big Big Star fan) I dont like the accolades in the 1st sentance Big Star is an American rock band that created, in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped inspiring succeeding generations",[1] earning it recognition decades later as "the quintessential American power pop band" and "one of the most mythic and influential cult acts in all of rock & roll".[2] . Too much too soon. All this is true, but it is overkill in its present form. Just go for the usual "formed by.. in..(bass) etc, and save that stuff for the last para. I met this at PR, and most of the body of the article is fine, but the lead remains a problem though easily fixed by a cut and paste and a better opening. Would be leaning towards support once the lead is toned down, very nice work overall. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I wonder if my interpretation of Wp:LEAD is off the mark... that sentence has been criticized before, but of course it could just be personal preferences. The reason for that particular opening sentence is to meet the guidelines in Wp:LEAD, i.e., as well as summarizing the article, the Lead should explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and should establish notability in the first sentence if possible. I've seen opening sentences taken up with "formed by... (bass)" etc. and they don't have the impact that Wp:LEAD appears to be aiming for, and the reader finds nothing interesting or notable in the first sentence. In view of this, do you still feel it's inappropriate as it is? Do you interpret Wp:LEAD differently? PL290 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do to be honest. You gushed before you even explained what Big Star is. Its academic now anyway, I've reworded a bit. I dont want to fall out over this though, I think the work here is terrific, have been following the development for the last month and a half, and am delighted to Support. More articles like this please, PL290. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel like an idiot, as I have never heard of this band even though I am a music fan. So the article doesn't make much sense to me. How did I miss something as big as this? &mdash; mattisse  (Talk) 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.