Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hybrid Theory/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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Hybrid Theory

 * previous FAC

I'm re-nominating Hybrid Theory as an FAC, because it recently passed as a good article after some changes. The main difference from this nom to the old nom is that the article went through a thorough copy-editing, which is the reason it did not pass. (done by Malachirality). But I still could not find anything about the artwork. Sorry. Anyways now, since most of the common mistakes have been fixed, I think it has the potential to become a featured article. It's also currently undergoing a second peer review, so tell me what you think. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close Articles cannot be on FAC and PR together. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, please withdraw your opposition, for the PR is now archived. Any further scrutinies of the article shall be conducted here. (SUDUSER)85 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just removed the peer review from WP:PR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous vote. A serious article indeed. --Brand спойт 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Overall, I can't find anything wrong with this article. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: The article is well-sourced and well-written. 72.148.42.192 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is very well written and organized. The only thing I can suggest is mentioning any form of criticism towards the album in the Reception section for a fair representation. Perhaps mention why it only got 3 stars from Rolling Stone. However, this is really a small thing - the article is neutral for the most part. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I followed your suggestions and brought in an excerpt of Rolling Stone's review into the article as a reference. I also moved the "Accolades" section below the general "Reception" section for connectivity purposes. I think it looks better now. Thanks for the tip! (SUDUSER)85 08:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: well written... :) -- Brískelly  &#91;citazione necessaria&#93;
 *  Conditional Support on a couple of very minor fixes below: prose is crisp and clear. Final para on Songs has odd sentence:


 * Although it did not become a single, another song from the album is "Points of Authority". - need to highlight why this song is mentioned. Maybe move last sentence next to this or expand a bit. Just hangs oddly otherwise.
 * ✅ Maybe it should be removed, I don't know? Anyways, I reworded it to Another song from the album is "Points of Authority". (SUDUSER)85 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A word or two describing Sputnikmusic would be helpful
 * ✅ reworded to "Sputnikmusic, a music review website..." (SUDUSER)85 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise possibly the best Album article I have seen up at FAC (but I haven't looked at many) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ All changes you addressed have been fixed. (SUDUSER)85 08:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - well done. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - Quite a bit needs to be done before this goes FA:
 * Lead
 * Needs restructuring. 1st para should be about recording, music info while the second about release and reception.("Hybrid Theory peaked at #2", "he album was a commercial success")
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think grammy nom mention is neccessary in lead.
 * ✅ removed. (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A quote by a critic surmising the albums nature/impact would be nice
 * ✅ Added what Ruhlmann said about the album in the lead. (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * remove mention of RIAA.
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Background
 * link chester, first time in the body of article.
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Bennington's Phoenix band" sounds awkward (like rock band);change to "band in phoenix"
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "itself to" - "itself as"
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Welsh electronic music producers" to "Welsh electronica band"
 * I don't really the point in this though, I mean they are actually producers and not a band. Overlooking this. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Zomba - make it Zomba records for clarity
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Recording
 * I'm not sure if lyrics belongs here at all. Anway that block quote is rather ugly with the white spaces it creates, and requires the mention of RS magazine twice. Make that into normal quote.
 * ✅ You're right the lyrics don't belong there, I expanded the point a little and put in the Songs section. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, they were initially turned down by most major, and several independent record labels. - Reword
 * ✅ changed "turned down" to "rejected" (SUDUSER)85 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * played 42 different showcases - seems unencyclopedic.
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * universal feelings, emotions, and experiences, and as “everyday emotions... - LOT of redundancy there
 * ✅ removed this. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The rap sections in most - The rap sections of most
 * ✅ fixed (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Songs
 * draws from diverse inspirations - is that correct usage? I'm not too sure
 * ✅ reworded to "The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * aftermath feelings - sounds weird
 * ✅ removed the whole thing, don't think that's a reliable source. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * album eventually produced - why eventually?
 * ✅ rmv (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "single, was gradually recorded in increments after Linkin Park struggled with "Runaway",[14] and features a guitar" - change to - "single, which was gradually recorded in increments after Linkin Park struggled with "Runaway",[14] features a guitar riff and electronic percussion in the introduction which transition into a bridge with distortion-heavy guitars and aggressive drums."
 * ✅ reworded (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * in which a girl named (Katelyn Rosaasen) is abused - huh?
 * ✅ removed the whole thing; comes from unreliable source. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Papercut" was the album's third single, and its lyrics describe paranoia. - change to - "Papercut", the album's third single, features lyrics describing paranoia.
 * ✅ reworded (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * song and is later - song which is later
 * ✅ One of the many things removed because of rewording. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (the two also directed the music video for "Papercut") - mention this in the Papercut part itself
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * “Brad wrote this riff, then went home. Mike - mention last names in [brackets]
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite the above quote (even if it is the later cite itself)
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Release
 * remove all mention of eminem, keys and u2 and their albums... unnecessary
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * link 44th grammys, billboard 200
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Following the success" - huge sentence - split into two with the self tour in the other sentence.
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * appearing on charts - appeared
 * Although the notes are no longer on their website, they are available on fansites. - remove. Links to fan sites arent allowed (copyvio)
 * ✅ removed the fansite link (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In all, Linkin Park played 324 shows in 2001.
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and the second disc - while the second
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * If "Initial reception of the album was positive", why did an earlier RS review give negative comments while a later one gave positive ones? I think the tone of the section should be changed to "Mixed reviews" right at the start.
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * AMG is not italicised
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, remove that block quote; I mean, what is he even trying to say? Its so full of puncuation marks I cant even comprehend.
 * ✅ did still include a chopped review though, the reader has to know why RS only gave the album 2.5 stars according to what ShadowJester07 says above. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ruhlmann also said - remove also
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "described Hybrid Theory as " and "Hybrid Theory has its obvious drawbacks." and "Rock Sound"- MoS errors.
 * I think the whole kater recordings section should be shifted to the release section
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * in the traack listing mention 2002 japan for the bonus disc
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All information is from the CD.[48][I] - no need to mention that. also remove that cduniverse as it links to non-free unauthorized content
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * Remove ALL fansites... "songsfacts" is NOT notable/reputable source of information. Seeing how this article sources a lot of its information from fansites, i'm afraid it is not yet ready for FA.
 * All information is from the CD.[48][I] - no need to mention that. also remove that cduniverse as it links to non-free unauthorized content
 * ✅ (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * Remove ALL fansites... "songsfacts" is NOT notable/reputable source of information. Seeing how this article sources a lot of its information from fansites, i'm afraid it is not yet ready for FA.

Indopug (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support fits the bill. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Rockdetector.com isn't a reliable source. I'll remove my objection once an alternative source has been found. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay I removed the link. the information can be in the charts section. So please withdraw your objection. (SUDUSER)85 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Suduser85, do not remove my objection by yourself. That is frowned upon, and isn't the way FAC works. Editors remove their own objections (which I have now done). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Object I've decided to take another cursory look at the article, and found other issues;


 * "Throughout the following years, the album continued to sell at a fast pace and was certified diamond by the RIAA in 2005 for selling 10 million copies in the U.S.[20]" - Whether the album sold at a fast pace or not is an opinion, and therefore a personal observation. For example, why wasn't it certified diamond in 2003 or 2004? Perhaps that would have been a fast pace, but being certified in 2005 means the album sold at a slow pace. For you to deem it to have sold at a fast pace, you must have compared it to the sales of others (therefore, making your own personal observations).
 * "Four singles from the album were released throughout 2001, three of which were chart successes on the U.S. Billboard Modern Rock Tracks charts.[22]" - "Chart successes"? According to whom? This is yet another personal observation - please stick to the facts, and not add your own personal observation. Whether they were chart successes depends on how an individual person measures success. How do you measure chart successes? How high the song peaks? How long it stays on the charts? For example, why didn't "One Step Closer" get to number on the Modern Rock Tracks charts? As it didn't, perhaps some could deem that as a failure. How you have measured chart success in this instance seems to be the fact that three entered the top ten of the Modern Rock Tracks charts, while one didn't. That is a fact, but that being a "chart success" is your own personal observation (POV).
 * "The album also charted in 11 other countries at fairly high positions and ranked among the “top ten” in the charts of the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland." "Fairly high"? Yet another personal observation, per the reason given for the alleged "chart successes".
 * "The band was signed by Warner Bros. Records in 2000, due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue, who joined the label after resigning from Zomba.[4][5][6]" - Whose opinion is it that Linkin Park's signing with Warner Bros. Records was "due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue"? Whose observation is this? A critic's? A member of the band's? Please attribute this opinion to whomever believes it, or else this is merely a personal theory. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "The rap sections of most of the songs were significantly altered from the original, while most choruses remained largely unchanged.[10]" - "Significantly"? Whether something has been altered "significantly" or not is an opinion. You may deem something to be altered significantly, whereas someone else may disagree. Your source is just a track listing for the demo, and in no way way verifies that sentence since there's no text at that URL. Furthermore, the source is the "Linkin Park Assocation", a fansite. Please read Reliable sources. In my opinion, the "Linkin Park Assocation" does not fall under this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" - According to whom? Yet again, this is another observation and isn't factual. This time, it's the opinion of whomever wrote that biography for VH1.com. Either attribute this opinion to whomever felt it, or rid of it. At the moment, it's written as though it's a cast-iron fact. Simply put, it's not. It's an opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These are just examples of POV found within the article, and indicative of a wider problem. I will list more once these have been addressed. This time, let me withdraw my own objection (should I personally feel you've addressed my objections). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd like to say that I feel that this FAC is not really necessary. Why I say this is the problem is with all the sources - All the main sources are not reliable, but they are the only sources with the main information. The main thing is that no sources are actually from reliable mediums, and because of that, I think that this FAC should be closed. As for the other editors who took their time to review the article, I would just like to thank all of you. (SUDUSER)85 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you say the sources are bad? Billboard, MTV.com, NYTimes, VH1.com are fine, Rockonthenet is used reasonably. A few sites are not really familiar to me, but the only one that really jumps out is forfeitthegame.com. Hang in there. Two minor things: is "100, 000" intentional? and would you consider only using two columns for refs? Gimmetrow 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am looking at your main sources, and they all seem reliable. The only one that does seem unreliable as Gimmetrow mentioned is forfeitthegame, which is a fansite.   xihix  (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, http://www.lpassociation.com/music/disco M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose and close per Suduser85. If there are problems with the sources, the article cannot be a FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not an actionable oppose because the user has not said what sources are not reliable. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Suduser requested on my talk page that this FAC be withdrawn, but others have said the sources are reliable. Unless someone else is taking over this FAC, I will need to honor Suduser's request to withdraw it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * MOS breach: final punctuation after closing quotes where the quote starts within a WP sentence. Lots of fixing needed.
 * Edu justification for fair use is a bit feeble. "This sample shows the song's shifts between the verses, which are soft and melodic, and the chorus which is heavy and abrasive." Is that unusual for their style, or that of other bands in this style? What do those vague epithets mean, anyway? Tony   (talk)  13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.