Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:49, 9 November 2010.

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

 * Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I put a lot of work into it and it appears to pass all FAC criteria and is consistent with other featured album articles. This article has been GA for over a year and any changes that would be made to it at this point would be relatively minor. I will watch this discussion and make any necessary changes. Note that the last nomination was hastily closed when someone brought up a question about sources. It was listed for source review and that was taken down without investigation or comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: My knowledge of music sources is rather limited, and it might be a good idea for a well-informed editor to glance through the less well-known sources, and confirm that they can be accepted as high quality and reliable. I have queried a few, below, along with a list of mostly minor points:-
 * It isn't necessary to add locations for online sources, e.g. "London. The Daily Telegraph" and several more.
 * Refs 35 and 36: I think the publisher is Minnesota Public Radio rather than the program name.
 * Ref 38: Apart from access problems (I kept being redirected to a short film), I can't see where this source supports the statement that "Byrne's lyrics ended up being hopeful and spiritual". Can you help here?
 * Ref 45 et al; Why is Leo Abrahams's web diary a reliable source?
 * Ref 56: why is Blogcritics Magazine a reliable source - who publishes it, and what is the extent of editorial supervision?
 * Ref 61: publisher lacking
 * Ref 67: Christgau should be indicated as publisher as well as author
 * Ref 74: Why should Tiny Mix Tapes be taken as a high-quality reliable source? Have you read the site's "about" page? Fine as satire, but...
 * Ref 77 lacks a publisher
 * Ref 92 lists the source as "Slang Magazine" (the correct name would produce a blue link)
 * Ref 103: Italicise Chicago Tribune
 * Ref 145: What is the connection with Topspin? And can Flckr really be called the "publisher"?
 * Ref 147: What makes this reliable? Camn you clarify the publisher?
 * Ref 154: "BBC" is not really adequate. "BBC Radio 6 Music" would be more descriptive.

Otherwise the sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources I have fixed all of the issues that you raised, except:
 * Locations were added by User:RjwilmsiBot. The bot is not unimpeachable, of course, but I assume that Rjwilmsi knows what he's doing--at the very least, he knows better than me about this. I honestly don't know who is "right" in this situation, so I simply completed and wikified the  fields.
 * Cite episode doesn't have a  field. (re: #35 and 36.)
 * Re:#38: I'm not sure about that redirect, but the article reads in part: "'uplifting, hopeful, and positive' results. 'Life is long if you give it away,' he says in a Christ-like philosophical inversion... a song about Hurricane Katrina according to Byrne but which seems really to be about being a musician, which, through allusion, chord structure and a kind of wan hopefulness..." As you might imagine, the entire article from Beliefnet is about how the album has spiritual themes.
 * Re:45 et al: Abrahams worked on the album.
 * Re:74: Tiny Mix Tapes is widely used as a source for reviews; it is not a print publication (a la Spin or Rolling Stone), but has the credibility of other online review sites like Pitchfork Media.
 * Re:145: Topspin is a media company that handled the marketing and online distribution of the album (see #Marketing); I suppose Flickr is a platform for self-publication more than a publisher... Would this be better as an external link or something?
 * Re:147: C|Net is the owner of Download.com, which is itself a subsidiary of CBS (and consequently Viacom.)
 * Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know who added the Done comments above, as they are unsigned. Further, adding dones to every line only adds to the page size; why not simply add one line at the bottom saying all is done except ... ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops I added them and didn't use the proper amount of tildes. I have rearranged it for your benefit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Should there be a track listing template for the songs? I don't know if it is required or not, but it seems like every featured album uses this template to showcase its songs. BV talk 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No Track listing templates are not required by WP:ALBUM and looking at the first three (in alphabetical order), their usage is not universal: 1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_On%3F), Achtung_Baby, and Adore_(The_Smashing_Pumpkins_album). Personally, I don't like them, so I didn't add one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest removing or at least limiting the use of html4strict elements per WP:ACCESS point #4 and per W3 H89—particularly those nested in conjunction with hyperlinks (as one title attribute blots out the other when used in the same screen-area). ―cobaltcigs 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please expand This one is tricky for me--of course, I included the  tags to make the article more accessible and to conform to HTML standards. The way that browser vendors choose to implement   is up them: for instance, a browser may take USA and make an output like this: US (short for "United States of America"). How most (all?) of them presently do it--amongst browsers that even support the tag--is to have something like this: USA with some hover-over text that expands the abbreviation. None of this is demanded by HTML 4.1. Anyway, is there anyone else who has an opinion on this matter? Does   help in the manner it's intended? Thanks for commenting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I mean is if you write Foo (Foo ) you will have two conflicting tool-tips occupying the same screen-space. In this case the inner one will supersede the outer and interfere with usual inspection of the link-target (by hovering over it). It also turns the text black, making it non-obvious that a hyperlink is even present (unless one’s client is configured to underline all links, in which case the link’s underline obscures the dotted underline used to identify html4strict elements and realize things aren’t what they seem).
 * Usual caveats apply. I would not, under any circumstances, store non-trivial data in the tool-tip. For example, given something like Maria Sharapova one must visit the wiki-text or html source simply to copy the Cyrillic “hard-to-type” characters to the clipboard.
 * Actual abbreviations like Jan may be acceptable in a table where space is limited. I would say just link to the month if you think enough readers are too clueless to figure it out, but “consensus” seems to be against doing that (condescension or no). But I really do dislike seeing these used as some kind of “non-link link” way to say we acknowledge that the meaning might not be obvious, but we still don’t want to help you navigate to it.
 * There is also the issue of browsing via Lynx or a cell-phone, or by reading a print copy, etc. where hovering over anything becomes physically impossible. But even in a normal browser I figure any content one cannot appreciate by simply looking at it (short of audio) should probably be reconsidered, saving that hidden text gag for web-comic punchlines and stuff.
 * But I guess as long as the information is available elsewhere the tags can remain mostly harmless clutter to the few readers who accidentally notice them.
 * ―cobaltcigs 02:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that tooltips are a way to render  and although popular, are not the way to do it. For that matter, I know that circa has a link and tooltip that displays the link style cascading over the abbreviation style. If you know how to do that here, I would certainly appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rendering the tool-tip is pursuant to the title attribute of a tag, not to what type of tag it is.
 * On the circa template only the tool-tip for the  element (link) is accessible. If you turned the tags inside out, only the tool-tip of the would be accessible. That is, unless you made the outer element extend beyond the edge of the inner element. The perspective is akin to a solar eclipse. Moreover the html source reveals that both title attributes say the same thing—c.—so I don’t know what the creator meant to accomplish by that. Surely the #switch statement should have dictated whether to use one tag or the other, not to use both.
 * In actual practice, I’ve been happy to spell out the word “circa”.
 * ―cobaltcigs 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the WP:FAC instructions and avoid overuse of templates for color coding-- they cause the FAC archives to exceed Wiki's template limits. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Image comments. There are three non-free use images in the article - the album cover; the unusual and (if I have read correctly) award-winning three-dimensional packaging of the deluxe edition, which is quite different to the standard cover; and a detail of the album insert graphics. The article text discusses these items explicitly, and that discussion appears based on reliable sources. As such the fair use of the images appears generally sound. I can see there might be debate whether the third image (File:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today closeup.png) is truly necessary, in the sense that the words in the article might adequately convey what the image shows (fair use requires that it is not possible to sufficiently describe in words what can be shown in the image). I would either seek other reviewers' comments on this, or the nominator might eliminate that image in order to simplify the discussion. I'm happy either way. The remaining images appear in order, including one free one from Flickr that has had an administrator review, and the other that came flickr i went and checked that there was indeed an appropriate licence there. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.