Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hex Enduction Hour/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2016.

Hex Enduction Hour

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark E Smith's finest moment and maybe one of the most enduring and influential early 1980s Post-Punk albums. Smith has always been instantly quotable and an engaging, acerbic subject. Note he tends to swear in that Manchester way, if I ever get hauled to arbcom for this. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Media review - I would argue for a more extensive FUR for each of the audio excerpts, indicating why these particular clips are needed for reader understanding. Also, the current FUR for File:Hex_Enduction_Hour_by_THE_FALL.jpg is incorrect - it's File:Hex_Enduction_Hour.jpg that's used in the infobox. Why are both needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, removed the promo artwork and one of the clips...working on FU for the remaining two. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I have only a few issues.  Interesting choice of subject by the way.
 * "Vocalist and Fall leader" maybe "frontman" for leader?
 * "touring rock groups" maybe "bands" for "groups"?
 * "laval-walled" lava-walled?
 * "who apparently often posed him loaded questions" I would drop the apparently and just say who is saying this.
 * "He later said that what was going through his mind with Rough Trade was "Fuck off", while Kamera's attitude was "Yeah! Get on with it" This is saying, as I read it, that Smith's attitude was "Fuck off". Given that the second part is about what Kamera's attitude, I'd expect the first part to be about Rough Trade's.
 * "memorably claimed" says who?
 * "The track has been compared to dub "if it had been invented in a drizzly motorway ..." I'm not sure I understand what is being said here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All done, except the last, which is a reference to Northern bleakness ie the surreal while also kitchen sink. It seems clear to me, but obviously need to figure this one out. Anyway, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Great record, and nice to see the mighty Fall getting some Wiki attention at long last. A couple of things jump out at me:
 * The album is referred to simply as Hex in the lead, whereas the full title is used in the body of the article. Should this be consistent throughout, since it's not a particularly long title anyway?
 * In the final sentence of the 'Re-issues' section, the title is formatted as "Hex Enduction Hour" - I think this should be Hex Enduction Hour, per this guideline.
 * Thanks :) — sparklism hey! 08:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple more from me:
 * *In the 'Background' section, Rough Trade should be linked, and possibly briefly described
 * The same section talks about the "post Iceland recordings", but this is the first time that Iceland has been mentioned in the body of the article (it's mentioned in the lead and the next section) — sparklism  hey! 20:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sparklism, now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think the "post Iceland recordings" part isn't quite right - it appears before the mention of the band recording in Iceland. — sparklism  hey! 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had another look at this one:
 * *Smith is described as "Fall frontman Mark E. Smith" in the lead, but simply as "Smith" in the first mention of him in the main body of the article - I think he needs 'introducing' properly here
 * By linking again? I disagree 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you've had a go at this :) — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * *"According to critic John Doran this unease seeps into the album's sound..." I think this is in the wrong section, since we're still giving background here
 * But its pernanat to how Smith viewed The Fall at the time. The quote would be out of context and needless otherwise. Ceoil (talk)
 * OK — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * *"the ambience would resemble their live sound" - whose 'live sound'? (presumably the bands)
 * Ok Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "and wanted that "we recorded part of it in a cave..." doesn't quite scan right to me
 * A direct quote, and scans with the "otherworldly sound" above, but to ok with changing Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and BOLD-ly tweaked this in the article. If you don't agree, please feel free to revert :) — sparklism hey! 16:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Change was for the better. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * *"vocals are higher in the mix than on previous releases" → previous Fall releases?
 * ok done Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * *The first mention of Sounds (magazine) should be italicised
 * Yes it should Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds is repeatlinked later in the article, as is Rough Trade Records (twice in the same section)
 * NME and Hot Press should also be italicised
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead states that "It was their first album to include Karl Burns and Paul Hanley in the band's classic two-drummer lineup" but this isn't mentioned in the body of the article
 * True, but not sure if this fact bears repeating, verbatim. The reasons why are certainly interesting and could be expanded on, but out of scope? I'm ok with leaving to the article body, if LEAD is more important than juice. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agree about it being out of scope to go into further. As far as LEAD goes, my view would be that this comes under the "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" part, so I'd prefer to see it in the body - this is just my personal preference though, and it's cool if you don't agree. If it stays solely in the lead, though, will it need a source? — sparklism hey! 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same for "Smith was inspired both by the otherworldliness of the landscape and the enthusiasm of an audience unused to touring rock groups."
 * Is this sourced anywhere? — sparklism hey! 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * *The lead says "The album was widely praised on release" but the Reception section says "Overall however, the album was not well received."
 * Have fixed this. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * *In the professional reviews template, Allmusic should be stylised as AllMusic, and Pitchfork, PopMatters, The Quietus and Stylus should all be in italics
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * *Just a thought: was the album not reviewed in Melody Maker?
 * Not that I have found, and its long defunct. I lost my sub to rock's back pages a few years ago. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a look around too, and couldn't find any evidence that they reviewed it, which I'm surprised about but there you go. — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * *"Describing the album in the NME in 1982, Richard Cook described the band..." Perhaps the first 'describe' here should be 'reviewing', to avoid repetition
 * Yes, agree Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * *The lead says that "today it is considered a hallmark of the post-punk era", but the closest the body of the article comes to that is that is Pitchfork saying it was the "33rd best album of the 1980s" etc.
 * Yes, agree Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps (this is my first time at FAC, apologies if I'm not doing it right...). Thanks — sparklism hey! 05:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you; the above observations are most helpful, sorry if some of the responses are tearse. All well observed and on point, though I'm disputing a small few. Working through the others, you can challenge as you see fit. My apologies for the time gaps in resp, but appreciate your time and view; the real problem with wiki is the admin tendency to loinise "Shift-Work " as the greatest Fall album, and ruthlessly suppress dissenters ;) Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! No problem at all. I've struck my comments that have already been addressed to make reading this page easier - I'll take another proper look at the article soon. It's shaping up beautifully, btw. (Oh, and I heard that Jimbo's favourite record was actually Bend Sinister, but I can't seem to locate the source...) Cheers! — sparklism hey! 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bend Sinister? Jesus, what kind of board of directors have we. Anyway found the 82 MM review; added now. Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've replied above, sorry about the delay (busy IRL). You'll see I've made a few more tweaks to the article, hope this helps...thanks — sparklism hey! 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Those recent changes weren't me, by the way. You might want to look at those. — sparklism hey! 12:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did and done; interesting POV. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see there have been some significant changes to the article, so I'm going through again:
 * "a Northern England working class ascetics.." doesn't quite scan right - would this be better as "a Nothern working class ascetic.."
 * Done per your wording. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the lead states that "the album sold poorly" but then that it "sold well relative to its release on a small label" and the 'Reception' section says that "The sales reflected a surge in the band's popularity.." after it was " was the first Fall album to make the UK Albums Chart"
 * Re sold well, this is sources contradicting themselves, and its of course relative. Sold better than previous albums is safer and will go with this. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, article now reads "By mid-1983 it has sold twenty thousand copies". Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Smith fought that the remaining album track were recorded in a relatively ambient and open space, eventually a disused cinema in Hitchin. He had hoped that the ambience of such a space..." needs a copy edit, I think. How about "Smith wanted to record the remaining album tracks in a relatively open space, eventually using a disused cinema in Hitchin. He had hoped that the ambience of such a space..." or something. (Though I've got a problem with my own 'using a disused' there)
 * "would begin to resemble their live." is obviously missing a word
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Jawbone and the Rabbit Killer" sounds fantastic, but it doesn't appear on this album (!)
 * It should! But fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ) — sparklism hey! 21:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Winter, Part I" and "Winter, Part II" are not actually how the songs are titled in the track listing either
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The commentary for "And This Day" is interesting but unsourced
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2002 reissue was billed as Hex Enduction Hour+, and the 2005 remaster as the 'Expanded Deluxe Edition' - I think the collapsed headings in the 'Track listing' sections should reflect these
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hoping this helps :) — sparklism hey! 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and thanks. I think I have all these now. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noticed a bit of a howler:
 * we've got "it builds on the low fidelity production values..." and "in parts from low-fi production values..." in the first two sentences of the lead. They both link to different articles too - I think the former is correct, since we are not talking about the genre of lo-fi music. — sparklism  hey! 21:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and got rid of the other instance. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a further tweak of this. See what you think. — sparklism hey! 21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thats better. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. This is my first time at FAC, so I'm by no means an expert, but all of my concerns have been addressed. I haven't checked the media or the reference formatting, as I wouldn't really know where to begin, but the article looks good to me. Excellent work, Ceoil. — sparklism hey! 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment A few general observations:
 * 1) I usually despise too-formal prose on Wikipedia, but here the opposite is the case, thanks to too many quotes. 'Background' especially gives off a huge punk oral-history vibe.
 * 2) None of the influences in the lead—VU, Can, Beefheart—are mentioned again or expanded upon in the article; how did they influence Smith etc.
 * I'm going off single mentions. Smith is not the type to expand. Move to body? Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't see the point of the Album heading—articles on books wouldn't have a Book section. The old way was fine.
 * 2) The audio clips need captions, describing the music and vocal style etc.


 * 1) Aren't there any 1982 reviews of Hex? If not, it'd be great if you could source a biographer saying "the press ignored it" or band members' perceptions of how it was received. Also you should mention that what you're quoting are only retrospective reviews.
 * 2) Reissues seems sparsely unreferenced?—indopug (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for comments, working through Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indopug, I think I have addressed all concerns, except for either naming or alluding to 1982 reviews. Working and will ping. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update; almost done trimming quotes. Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (Damn...meant to comment on this yonks ago!) support on comprehensiveness and prose. Ceoil asked me to look at this some time ago and I thought it was shaping up pretty nciely. I took another squiz on my phone later and was happy with what I saw (i.e. lapsing into just reading and forgetting about prose-picking). So I reckon that's a good sign....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments just a few things
 * Comments
 * Was it really a tour of Iceland? How does a rock band tour Iceland?  There's nothing above 20,000 outside Reykjavik! Or was it a tour that stopped in Iceland? I notice the lede more definite on this point than the body.
 * "He proposed a final album" the band's last ever? Some uncertainty in meaning. I imagine they had fulfilled their contract to Rough Trade and were at liberty to peddle their services?
 * "He already had a number of songs recorded at Hljóðriti studio in Reykjavík during their 1981 tour." He or they? I'd move "recorded" to after the "had" for clarity.
 * "He had hoped that the ambience of such a space would begin to resemble their live sound. " for "begin to resemble" maybe "recall" or "emulate"?
 * "but that the word Enduction was made up; a word he just liked the sound of.[10] " since the text after the semicolon cannot stand on its own as a sentence, possibly a comma instead?
 * "that was acceptable by Fall Standards" query if "Fall Standards" is a proper noun. Maybe "that was acceptable to Fall members"?
 * "The preceding single, "Look, Know"" preceding what?
 * "the band's stock and popularity" stock?
 * "An excerpt was used in 1991" of which song?
 * "biro" I would pipe to ballpoint pen or similar.
 * Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited except as follows (ref numbers per this version:
 * Hex Enduction Hour is inconsistently italicised in the source titles (compare 9 with 13 and 15, although there are others. Note some have partial titles)
 * I'm not sure that ref #22 or 51 is consistent with your capitalisation practices.
 * Italics problem in #36
 * regarding #39, ends with a full stop, all others do not.
 * about #50 seems imprecise as to a date for a fortnightly magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all done except for the italicisation of album title in some refs; a necessity of using "" for the article title if the source is an magazine (which are magazine). Ceoil (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you happy with actions/responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up a bit. Aside from one thing more, I'm OK with it now.  But what is #23? "Middles, Mick. "The Fall". Omnibus Press, 2009. ASIN B002WHS6A0" If this is a book, can you give guidance to the reader on how to find the cited material?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Was unable to find a page number, so have removed. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.