Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fantasy Black Channel/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 SandyGeorgia 23:01, 20 June 2009.

Fantasy Black Channel

 * Nominator(s): Rafablu88 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. I have followed the template from the three other FA electronic albums, namely Arular, Supernature and especially Made in the Dark. What's more, the article attained GA without any glitches whatsoever. So, here we are... my first FAC, so please be gentle (or constructively merciless). As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RECAP: I thought I'd sum up the situation so far. There have been 1 2  3  4 5 supports, 1 slight positive lean (with regards to sources) and 1 oppose (whose contents have been noted and article material changed accordingly). Rafablu88 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Sceptre's comments were noted and quotes successfully merged within the article. User's mentioned review has not been undertaken. User eventually copy-edited the article and SUPPORTED. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Awg1010's OBJECTION was noted and material changed. User eventually SUPPORTED.
 * 3) Otterathome's comments were noted and material changed. Metacritic qualifies for WP:EL as site contains accessible, in context, functional, neutral, accurate amount of detail (i.e. professional statistics). DABs were fixed and sources added to cover art. Major chart markets were also added. Lead citations were kept as they immediately follow sourced material. User has not commented further.
 * 4) Timmeh's advice was noted and material found about album title conception. User has not commented further. User eventually SUPPORTED. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Ealdgyth's sources comments were noted and followed. Third-party citations for Drowned in Sound (Reuters) and Gigwise (Absolute Radio and Prefix Magazine) were found thus showing reliability as per his own criteria "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" at Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Click Music's and Subba Cultcha's (who were only used for interview quotes) writing rules and editors were found as per his own criteria "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight" at Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. User leans SLIGHTLY RELIABLE but his guidelines have been fulfilled.
 * 6) Giants2008's grammar advice was noted and followed, including paraphrasing a considerable amount of quotes. The remaining ones are well integrated in the text. User has not commented further but has noted that he's not an expert on the subject so cannot decide since the sources have been left at editors' discretion by Ealdgyth.
 * 7) Karanacs's OBJECTION was noted and material changed. User has not commented further. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Jappalang's OBJECTION was noted and material changed. User eventually dropped his case. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Dabomb87's comment were noted and material changed. User agreed with changes, did a comprehensive copy-edit and SUPPORTED. Rafablu88 Rafablu88 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Laserbrain's provisional SUPPORT was noted and material changed. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nominator support is assumed. Please don't bold the words "support" or "oppose" - those should only be bolded by reviewers in their own comments. This is so the delegates don't get confused. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Apologies for this. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: will review in a few hours. Just a tip: if you have long quotes, consider using blockquote (if you have them). Sceptre (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had a cursory view following your comment and can only find one long-ish quote at the end of Origins and conception, but I feel that it is nicely merged in the text. WP:MOSQUOTE says "more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines". I have a quote box for this purpose in the article in the vein of Modern Life Is Rubbish. There are a few other long quotes but they are critics' views so I doubt they warrant a blockquote, plus their length is less than what mosquote says. Looking forward to your review. Rafablu88 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I think the article is good enough to be featured, having had a go at improving some of the prose. I may continue to tighten some wording over the next few days (read: weeks) but I think that it passes the FAC as-is. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks and cheers for the c/e. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think more edits probably won't be needed now to be honest. Dabomb87 and I have edited, tweaked, and pretty much ironed everything out. But if you see anything else then by all means change it. Rafablu88 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

*Object: Article includes File:HeartbeatLOTP.ogg a 30 second sample of a 3 minute and 2 second song. Non-free use rationale guideline states "...the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter." (emphasis added.) So if the original song is 03:02 = 182 seconds * 0.10 = 18.2 seconds as the maximum allowable Non-free use.Awg1010 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out. Noted and changed accordingly. New sample is 18 secs. Please return to amend preceding comment. Rafablu88 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the ten-percent/thirty-second fair use rule is a debunked standard and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia guideline. Just use as much, or as little, as necessary just to prove your point. Sceptre (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK. 18 secs still shows what I wanted, i.e. style, genre, production, and a bit of vocal delivery. Rafablu88 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Well now that there can be no question of fair use of File:HeartbeatLOTP.ogg I am very impressed with the overall article. It is comprehensive, and well formed. IMO this is worth FA. Awg1010 (talk)
 * Thanks. Rafablu88 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Otterathome (talk)
 * 1) Do the Metacritic and MusicBrainz links really comply with WP:EL? Plus they are in the references.
 * 2) You have 3 dab links and 1 redirect. See dab links tool.
 * 3) You don't strictly need citations in the lead.
 * 4) Source of File:Fantasy black channel.jpg is missing. From website/scan?--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) There are only three chart positions little, it was not released in many places?


 * Right, here we go:
 * Metacritic and MusicBrainz does indeed comply with WP:EL. Metacritic is an exhaustive database that provides either information not provided elsewhere and gives original collated data. It assigns a normalised rating and collated data from notable publications, essential to ascertaining the level of critical acclaim whilst MusicBrainz gives technical data that is usually only found by purchasing the physical material (CD).
 * DABs sorted.
 * Citations can be put anywhere in the article, especially where there are quotations (hence the citation). In addition, the GA reviewer Timmeh holds the same opinion but it is fairly intuitive anyway being an encyclopedia and all.
 * Added The Hollywood Reporter source.
 * Added major chart markets (unfortunately it did not chart in any).
 * Extra thanks for the comments. They made me find more sources and detail with regards to release dates and such. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM: I added a better MusicBrainz link to fully comply with WP:EL. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM: I removed MusicBrainz from the sources and external links since more research showed Discogs to be more exhaustive about technical information. Discogs was not added to the external links because all the information it produced is recorded in the references. Instead I added album lyrics and they should definitely qualify for WP:EL. Rafablu88 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see a mention of the working title, but I don't see any information on how the band came up with the name Fantasy Black Channel. That would probably be useful information and should be included if you are able to find any on it.  Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will trawl the archives. Back in a min. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, these guys pick out names at random and are cryptic. Most of the interviews are jokey and surreal. This is from The Skinny: "We’re really bad at names – really, really bad at it, and so we end up just picking one at random or just picking one up. Even the band name just fell together because there wasn’t anything else that sounded that good." I have added a small comment saying it was randomly chosen. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll support, as my concerns have been addressed, and the article now looks good enough to be a featured article. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I'd like to say that all the sources look reliable to me. I would not have supported if they weren't reliable. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.drownedinsound.com
 * http://www.clickmusic.com/
 * http://www.subba-cultcha.com/article_feature.php?id=5697
 * http://www.normanrecords.com/records/89363
 * http://musicbrainz.org/release/fffbcb98-b741-4858-a412-41b2e6f75be5.html
 * http://www.gigwise.com/reviews/albums/44927/late-of-the-pier--fantasy-black-channel-parlophone-released-110808
 * http://musicremedy.com/l/Late_Of_The_Pier/album/Fantasy_Black_Channel-5889.html
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
 * Is Noize Makes Enemies a published magazine? If so, needs to be in italics in the references
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Link titles have been changed. Also, Noize Makes Enemies is not a print publication but rather an online-only magazine trying to emulate the success of music reviewers such as NME (hence the [post]-ironic title). I believe it started as a blog but expanded to include editorial features and now incorporates both. BBC Radio use it as a source of information at times. History
 * I'm not sure how familiar you are with music publications but Drowned in Sound is one of the most eminent, recognised and cited websites, perhaps only second to Pitchfork Media for online quality especially now Stylus Magazine are defunct.
 * Click Music started in 2007 in the UK and publishes in the same vein to Drowned in Sound. They now have a fully-fledged editorial team (and swanky offices to boot I can assure you as I've been there). Also, their interview with Late of the Pier was an exclusive. Details
 * Subba-Cultcha is similar to Click Music. They also managed an exclusive interview with LOTP. I do not think they have staff writers but they do undertake peer review and have an editorial team. Details
 * Normanrecords is an independent label supplier of music, especially 7" in Leeds. I used it to show the release of the "Space and the Woods" single. Considering that single was essentially a demo and a limited edition, I could not find a more suitable internet source. It is not used for any other purposes in the article.
 * From a preceding point you will notice that MusicBrainz has been discussed. It records music information about the release date and country, the CD disc ID, an acoustic fingerprint for each track amongst other things. It is one of most exhaustive databases on the net. I have used it in the article for technical and rare release data that can only be found by purchasing the CDs themselves. I notice that the BBC has licensed them to augment their music web pages and BBC editors will also join MusicBrainz. The website is similar to Discogs. Music Brainz has been replaced with Discogs. See earlier ADDENDUM for more information.
 * Gigwise is probably as eminent to Drowned in Sound and has expanded considerably. I would consider it better than many print media. It is now Lycos Europe's UK music arm and has been nominated for the past 3 years at the Journalism and PR Awards in the UK.
 * MusicRemedy is one the oldest online music databases, starting in 2000. It is more geared towards media (videos, news etc.) instead of reviews. I have only used it to show the existence of a hidden track on the album. I could not find a more suitable internet source. It is not used for any other purposes in the article. I also notice it is in partnership with MTV.
 * Hope all of this helps. Rafablu88 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for this slipping through. (We have a mare that is due to foal but she's not in any hurry to get with the program, so I'm severly lacking sleep). To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- Right, well I thought I had established reliability and given enough information and links. I'm slightly confused but nonetheless, here's some extra info I could find:


 * 1) Drowned in Sound was named Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards:   Nominated at the 2007 PLUG Awards for Music Website of the Year:
 * This doesn't really establish that they are reliable though. Ideally we'd see news organizations, etc using them as a source.Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drowned in Sound in joint venture BSkyB, one of the most recognised media organisations in the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation (As an aside, I feel slightly insulted having to continually find sources to prove DiS's and Gigwise's reliability when it is received thought that they are two of the best music publications in the world. I think there may be a culture clash here especially if you're American and have little info on UK sources, hence asking the reliability question in the first place. Also, finding other so-called respectable media sources surely brings up the debate about their reliability too, hence starting a perpetual cycle and we don't get anywhere?) Rafablu88 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some more: Rafablu88 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM: Apparently, BSkyB and DiS have ended their partnership although link no. 5 should be sufficient to provide third-party information on DiS's reliability. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Click Music's page that gives information for submissions that indicates fact-checking and editorial oversight (already posted!):
 * See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Subba-Cultcha's page that gives information for submissions that indicates fact-checking and editorial oversight (already posted!):
 * See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your "See above" comment applies to Click Music and Subba-Cultcha. The DiS point was about awards whilst the Click Music and Subba-Cultcha was the fact that they undertake fact-checking and editorial oversight, thus fulfilling one of the criteria in the link you have provided. I would say that the links I have posted stand and prove the point, so no extra information about use by other media is required. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Normanrecords has been removed and replaced by Discogs.
 * 2) Gigwise was also nominated for a Best Online Music Publication Record of the Day award:   They are backed by a media company, Lycos Europe, with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight:
 * Are they backed and owned by Lycos? Or is it just that they are a partner of Lycos'? (Which is how I read the above). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigwise owned by media conglomerate GiENT Entertainment Network . They also, like Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, undertake fact-checking and editorial oversight. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And more: Rafablu88 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And even more: Rafablu88 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rafablu88 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) MusicRemedy removed.
 * I'll leave these comments out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I lean slightly reliable, depending on the use of the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I should add that the sources for which no external reliable media sources were found, i.e. Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, are only used to obtain quotes from the band in the interviews they gave. The references contains little or no original research if reviewers are so inclined to conclude that they definitely need third-party proof. But, ultimately, I think the links provided showing editorial overview should be enough to fulfil the criteria. What's more, both interviews were exclusives, hence showing a certain level of notability in the two sources' work. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Few quick thoughts on the prose from me. Just know in advance that I've never heard of the band and rarely review music articles.
 * Origins and conception: "Then, as Farley asserts, they branched out into listening from the last 40 years of music, including Motown and soul music." Pretty sure it should be "listening to", not "listening from".
 * "with the band ultimately signing to...". This is a somewhat awkward structure. The best advice I can give you is to read this guide, which goes into detail on noun plus -ing sentence structures and how to fix them.
 * "due to Parlophone giving them free rein". Again, this is the slightest bit awkward when you read it. I recommend a change to "because Parlophone gave them free rein". This also gets rid of some passive voice, which is a positive.
 * Alkan's influence and production: "with Eastgate noting that...". This is similar in structure to what was in my second comment.
 * "Late of the Pier usually proceeded by taking bedroom recordings into the studio where they were refined and tweaked with Allen so as to turn them 'into a more presentable package'." Comma after "studio". Rest of the punctuation usage seems good up to this point, by the way.
 * Finalising the project (2008): "with Faley claiming that...". Third one like this so far. Please do a good scan for these throughout the article.
 * "Subsequently, Late of the Pier took a break from the recording studio in order to embark on a headlining UK tour...". The struck words are considered "redundant" by most of the leading FAC reviewers. Whenever you see an opportunity to convey the same thoughts in one or two fewer words, it's usually worth doing. This type of prose tightening is what seperates GAs from FAs, and it causes problems for almost everyone at some point. If you have trouble with this, don't be afraid to bring in a copy-editor or two to help.
 * The one general comment about the article is that it is quote-heavy. I expect to see that in a reception section, but the rest of the article is filled with them as well. Consider paraphrasing a few more things, although I admittedly don't know what is considered acceptable in music-related articles.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I removed all the -ing passive voice problems as well as "in order" on a few occasions. Some sentences were separated and "because" used more. I understand your quote comment. I tried so hard last Saturday and Sunday to remove a lot of them. I additionally removed a few just now. The Origins section has to have a few because most of the sources are interviews and so the reader has to be shown what the band themselves say about the album and the process but I still eliminated a few that could be paraphrased. As you said, the critical reception needs quotations. I removed a few in the Composition section although considering that the reviews are the only sources that explain the content of that section, it is extremely hard to paraphrase. I only left the quotes that were too left-field to paraphrase as well as the ones that made a comparison to a certain song. The balance is pretty good and the prose tight. I will again make the comparison to the other FAs Arular, Made in the Dark and Supernature with regards to quoting. Rafablu88 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to say something about your first comment. Saying "listening to the last 40 years of music" surely insinuates that they listened to ALL the music whereas "listening from" is more selective, especially when it adds "including Motown and soul". What do you think? Rafablu88 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tough one. I'm still not that fond of "from" here, but see your point on the tone and scope. Is there another way to phrase it?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it to: "listening to diverse genres from the last 40 years of music" I think it works. Rafablu88 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. The prose does not currently meet 1a. I recommend an independent copyedit. I agree with Ealdgyth that the sources listed above lean slightly reliable and are probably okay.
 * Noting that Karanacs is on a wikibreak now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will be tackling your points shortly. I would like to say that the article, especially the lead and the origins and conception section, has had copyedits from various users. You can check the article history. Rafablu88 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have read and dissected the article half a dozen times and will be able to address the remaining points later today. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has been copy-edited multiple times and much labour has gone into changes. I think all the points have been addressed. Will give it a cooling-off period till tomorrow and then will come back to confirm my assumption. Rafablu88 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now I can definitely say that all the points have been addressed to the best of my and the copy-editors' abilities. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose issues:
 * Watch for redundancy. Examples creative process that lasted for more than two years from its conception - don't need "from its conception", it is assumed that the process couldn't begin until it began.
 * DONE This has been sorted out in conjuction with some of the other points. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't jam two relatively unrelated thoughts into one sentence. For example, the two clauses in this sentence don't really have much to do with each other: It was eventually produced by Eastgate and DJ Erol Alkan between 2007 and 2008, peaking at number 28 on the UK Albums Chart on release  I was confused when I first read it.
 * DONE You're right. Lead has been reworked. Checked the whole article and no similar problems were found. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Paragraphs need better flow. In the second paragraph of the lead, the article first discusses the creative process, then talks about the album's release, then goes back to the creative part - the themes, etc.  That seems out of order to me.
 * DONE See above point. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch for verb agreement - why use "there would be" instead of "there was"? (first para Early ideas...)
 * DONE Sorted out a few occasions.


 * Sentences don't always flow well...the Alkan's influence section seems particularly bad at this.
 * DONE Reworked the whole section and tweaked a few cases in other sections. The copy-editors sorted the rest. Will now see if all redundancies have been addressed. Rafablu88 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Assume that your readers are not familiar with the music. Parts of the article need more background to help those unfamiliar readers (like me!).  You might want to actually describe what ideas they got by listening to Nirvana and The Prodigy (at least what type of music those two groups played)
 * DONE Added genres and detail. I'm surprised I missed this as later on in Lyrics and compositions I've always explained years, genres and histories properly. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why the second paragraph of Early ideas... starts with "Consequently" - a consequence of what?
 * DONE Removed and explained better. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is/was "'Interesting Adventure'"?
 * ??? It was the working title for the album. It says so when it is first introduced in the second paragraph of Origins and conception. One later mention assumes this. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any information on who wrote the songs or how they divided up the work? (I see that this is contained much later in the article.  It should be mentioned in the origins section)
 * DONE Added what's said later, that Eastgate was the chief creator. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bathroom Gurgle" was immediately recorded by the new collaboration - this doesn't read well
 * DONE Used "subsequently". Rafablu88 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are so many common words linked, like limited edition and studio and music video?
 * DONE Removed more than a few. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the overall tone of the article (or at least the Origins and Conception section) is just a bit off. It reads like we're getting an intimate account from the band and doesn't seem as encyclopedic as it should.
 * ??? I'm a bit puzzled by this comment. Of course it is an intimate account from the band as it is the Origins and conception of the album, i.e. how they worked, what they thought, what they did etc. I don't know what people expect to be in it other than these facts and quotes from interviews. As per 1a, I think it is engaging and professional and totally neutral especially in a section where it is hard to be so. The rest of the sections are dispassionate and are all as per WP:ALBUMS. Are you able to give specific examples that I can work on? Rafablu88 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Too often, the article seems to use "the band" as a person - need to differentiate between "the band" and "the band members". (it doesn't make sense to me to say "a friend of the band")
 * DONE Disambiguated on numerous occasions. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The critical reception section contains a LOT of quotes. Perhaps it might be possible to paraphrase some of them?
 * DONE Paraphrased a lot. It should be fine now in the Critical reception section where the prose is tighter. Rafablu88 (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to reply or comment further. Will address the remaining comments soon. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done I think. Please return to amend your comments. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you implemented Karanacs's suggestion of an independent copy-edit? I support when she is satisfied. Tony  (talk)  12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you can see both Sceptre and Dabomb87 have done it. Giants2008 and WesleyDodds as well as the above two users had already c/e'd before Karanacs's comments. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on non-fair use concerns (criteria 3): DONE Removed. Rafablu88 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Fantasy black channel.jpg: other than "The two versions of the cover art are from a friend of the band members from Brighton, Jon Bergman, who they asked to do some art and, in turn, he sent them "pictures of cats and other weird things".", there is not one mention or commentary about the design or significance of the alternative cover art. The significance (#8 of WP:NFCC) of this image is disturbingly low or non-existent.  The primary identification (the most common visage of the album) is more than enough; having the alternative image just to be there is plain decoration.  If there are critical reviews of the secondary cover, please add it and identify in the fair use rationale why words cannot describe what the reviews say of the art.
 * File:HeartbeatLOTP.ogg: a bit more explicitness in the fair use rationale here on why a 10-second clip is needed to help illustrate the words in the article please. The wording in the image's caption could be slotted in the rationale; "illustrates Erol Alkan's production aesthetic" could be more explicit in the rationale here.
 * As above, can "Alkan's production aesthetic" be further clarified? What is this sample to illustrate about his aesthetic? Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE Added specific rationale and extra detail. Happy now? Rafablu88 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The second should be very easily resolved. If the first is insisted to be included, then its significance should be enhanced. Other media are okay. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Media files are okay. The photo is verifiably licensed for free use, and the copyrighted media are appropriate as fair use.  Jappalang (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * "childhood friends Sam Eastgate, Andrew Faley, Sam Potter, and Ross Dawson initially conceived the sound of their first album" Conception only happens once, so what do you mean by "initially conceived"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, basically I wanted to show that the process had more than one stage, i.e. 1. they listened to The Prodigy and Nirvana and 2. they then branched out into other genres. I see you removed the "soon" from the second sentence which is probably why it makes less sense now. Do you think it needs the "initially" (and if so we should probably readd the "soon") or not? Rafablu88 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I cracked it! Used "developed" and readded "soon". "Conception" comes in in the next sentence to sum everything up. No redundancy and much better flow. Rafablu88 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "whom they asked to do some art and" Can this be phrased better? "do some art" is woefully inadequate. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed it. Wasn't that essential. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The band ultimately signed to Parlophone instead of Atlantic Records because Parlophone gave them free rein over the recording process for 'Interesting Adventure' without pressuring them to be commercially successful immediately." You say this as though the band might have had a reason to pick Atlantic Records instead. The article doesn't explain this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Separated the two issues. They only gave a positive reason for choosing Parlophone. Rafablu88 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment  I'd like to hear Karanac's opinion (she indicated that she would revisit tomorrow) before making any verdict, but I am leaning toward supporting. The changes since the start of the FAC have made the article that much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to full support after further review and further comments by other readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Provisional support. It's looking solid, and it was an interesting read. A few issues:
 * I'm spotting MoS problems in the lead and other places. Single quotation marks are never recommended (unless inside double quotation marks) because they muck up search engines.
 * "Unconventional time signatures and experimental chords were performed during the nascent recording stages in Eastgate's bedroom because, at the time, no band member could play an instrument properly." What does this mean? The passive voice eliminates the subject. We assume the subject is Eastgate, but you've just said no band member could play... isn't Eastgate a band member?
 * "This was followed by the recording of an EP titled ..." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" without clarification. This what?
 * Check the punctuation in the quotation at the end of the "Finalising the project (2008)" section. If the final period is part of the quotation-within-the-quotation, it should be inside the closing single quotation mark.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All done I think. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources: more feedback is needed (particularly from those who supported) on the questionable sources identified by Ealdgyth. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for repeating myself but what else does there need to be said about the sources? All fulfil Ealdglth's criteria as per his link. I really don't know what else I could personally find in support. Also, don't supports tacitly assume the sources to be reliable since that is one of the key criteria that the article is examined against before an informed decision is made by the aforementioned supportive users? Finally, one of the FAC people, Karanacs, has explicitly stated that she leans reliable in the same vein as Ealdglth. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources - I examined the sources and weighed Ealdgyth's comments. For my part, I'm satisfied with Rafablu88's explanations and rationales. Are some of them the highest quality music sources? No. Are they the highest quality available for this topic? I would say yes. The only two that remain somewhat questionable to me are Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, but they are not supporting anything controversial, just interviews. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a more detailed review of the questioned sources, but my browser shut down on me. So, suffice it to say that I think that the nominator's rationales are sufficient. Since the sources are only being used for criticism on important musical aspects and interviews rather than statistics or other facts, I think the sources are fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Laser and Dabomb! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that Timmeh has also had his say (positive) after his support above. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weighing in on sources - This is an article about a band; the sources available won't match a figure like Harry S. Truman nor a musician with the fame of Elvis Presley, and they don't need to. They do however meet the standard of reasonable research and impartiality. With that being said I don't like that so many references are used repeatedly; Ten times, in the case of "Wilson, Jared (4 November 2008). "Late of the Pier Interview". LeftLion. http://www.leftlion.co.uk". It just seems off, to my eye. But I said that I support this nomination and that is exactly what I meant! Awg1010 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.