Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Utero


 * 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009.

In Utero

 * Nominator(s): WesleyDodds (talk)

It's been a while since an article relating to the seminal alternative rock band Nirvana has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. The main reason for this is that there is such a wealth of material on the group it takes a long time to sort through everything and then fashion it into an exemplary article. As proof of this, I've been working on this article about the band's third (and final) album off and on for well over a year (although not as long as I've been working on Nevermind, which I hope to get ready for FAC by 2011 at the latest). Thanks to the occasional assistance from fellow members of WikiProject Alternative music (particularly Brandt Luke Zorn) and plenty of intensive work by myself in recent months, I feel that the article now meets all Featured Article criteria (I know the soundclips are a bit long, but that will be sorted out pretty soon). If you have any comments or concerns, please let me know (hopefully as soon as possible, because I really should return some of these books to my library at some point). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Image Media review The two images (front cover and back) are okay with the fair-use rationales and supporting commentary given. Awaiting comments and feedback. Jappalang (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box.ogg and File:Nirvana - Milk It.ogg, however, have the same rationales ("Allows the reader to understand the stylistic approach of the album and the loud-quiet techniques that are typical throughout. and Exemplifies the grittier and rougher production of In Utero in contrast to the band's previous album Nevermind.). Obviously if both songs serve the same purpose, then one should be removed (the one least fitting the rationales).  It could be an oversight of copy-and-pasting, but the purposes the two songs serve should be different.
 * Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All images media check out fine (hmm... should be media review). Jappalang (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never seen the album, but it was always my understanding that the song "tourette's" was intentionally not capitalized. Is that untrue?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it isn't capitalized, but because of Wikipedia's grammar rules, it is left capitalized. Also the reason that the rest of the song's titles aren't completely capitalized (e.g. "Serve The Servants", which is how it's listed on the CD; I own it). As for the rest of the article, I'll have to read it more before supporting or opposing it. I passed this article's GA review, but it might not be ready for FA. Tez kag 72 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's something somewhere in MoS that allows for things like eBay; if I was correct that it's not capitalized, it should be shown that way in the article. I think.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed per suggestion. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think it should be capitalized. WP:MOS point to Manual of Style (capital letters), which points to WikiProject Albums for Music albums.  In the last, it states "In titles of songs, albums, and band names in the English language, the project standard is to capitalize the first word and last word in the title."  Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the song title is intentionally lowercased it should be reflected as such in the article - that's what I've always thought, anyway. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not been able to find anything in the MOS to say that a lowercase first letter for the song is allowed. As already mentioned WP:ALBUMCAPS disagrees and the eBay/iPod rule is for when the first letter is lowercase and pronounced as a letter per MOS:TM, which I don't think applies in this case. --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why not WP:IAR? The song name is intentionally lower case. (Although this issue isn't important enough to hijack the FAC.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to hijack FAC, I was simply trying to see if you or Giggy could show why you felt your positions to be the case. I am happy for IAR to be the case here as it's such a minor point. --JD554 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry; I wasn't implying that you were, JD554 (I was the one who raised the issue). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the song is consistently referred to in secondary sources as "tourette's". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If Pennyroyal Tea was a single, why aren't any of its chart positions listed in the "singles" subsection under "chart positions"? There was a "Latvian Airplay" chart position listed on the Pennyroyal Tea article; are there any sources? Tez kag 72 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JD554 added the singles chart positions, so I'll see what he thinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Latvian chart position for Pennyroyal Tea is uncited. However, I couldn't find a source (reliable or otherwise) to verify it so felt it best to not include it. --JD554 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just noticed that the Featured List Nirvana discography doesn't list any chart placings for the song. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (WP:ALM member.) The prose is a bit dense at times, but I too believe that the article fits all the criteria. Tez kag 72 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * References (even printed ones that aren't on the web) in non-English languages need to note that in the footnotes.
 * Current refs 83 (Scapolo...), 90 (Kent, David..), 91 (Collin, Robert...), 92 (Pennanen ...), and 95 (Scapolo) are lacking page numbers
 * Current ref 83 (Scapolo...) is lacking a publisher
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked JD554 about this, so it should be taken care of quickly. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had AGF'd those sources as they were already there. However, I've been unable to get them confirmed so I've changed the references/data per Charts.org.nz, Australian-charts.com, Ultratop.be and Finnishcharts.com. This created space in the singles table to add the Netherlands position for "Heart Shaped Box" citing Dutchcharts.nl. --JD554 (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So all the ones lacking page numbers are replaced? And did the non-English sources get noted? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments—Surprisingly, there is no mention that InUtero is on the Rolling Stone "500 greatest albums" list (which should probably be in the lead), and generally, on many such "greatest albums ever" lists. There's a standard table that many classic-album articles have that lists all the accolades the album has received; we should probably add one here. I wonder if a Legacy section could be warranted considering that many (including the band) consider it to be the "true" Nirvana album, as opposed to the overproduced Nevermind, as well one of the most important records of the 1990s. indopug (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been considering that. I'll add a paragraph tomorrow (although we probably don't need a whole new section for it). There used to be an "accolades" table, but I removed it because a lot of it was unreferenced and it's better dealt with in prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. One more thing, are you sure none of that paragraph deserves a mention in the lead? indopug (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The broad sentence about critical acclaim sufficies, I think. None of the accolades really call out to be singled out in the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think maybe the RS500 deserves a mention in the lead, but you're probably a better judge of that than I am. Tez kag 72 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I always hate when an album or song's placing on the Rolling Stone lists is listed in the lead. Definitely worth noting in an article, but not so important it deserves a mention in the same breath as, say, a Grammy win or being added to the Library of Congress at the top of the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is one of the best articles I've seen for an album that was listed in the RS500. (I own the book.) Tez kag 72 03:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support as WP:ALM member. WesleyDodds has outdone himself and once again makes the rest of us look bad, the bastard. indopug (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm getting together a list of issues. I will post them here when I am done. NSR 77  T 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is all the information on "Heart-Shaped Box" listed entirely in the sound-sample description? That location is designated for a short summation of the info that should be in the prose. There should be no citations in this area unless new information is introduced. Please transport the—rather lengthy—info from the sound-sample description to the "Music" section of the prose and then write up a short summary of what the clip is supposed to represent. NSR 77  T 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the information is present in the production controversy section. Thematically I felt the sound clip fits better in the Music section, but it can be moved to the other section if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems more logical to have the info in the "Music" section. Then you wouldn't have to take the sample out of context; could be confusing to some readers. More comments are to come. NSR 77  T 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just move it to the next section, since the remixing is discussed there. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comments ... I'll give this the ol' once over...or twice....and drop some notes below. Over the line prose-wise. heh Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Released on September 13, 1993 by DGC Records, the band intended the record to be significantly divergent from the polished production of its previous album Nevermind (1991). - I know active is usually preferred to passive but the subject has shifted and it sounds funny. (i.e. the subject of the first clause is the album, then the band is the subject of the second. I'd make the second clause passive or try - "The band intended the record, which was released on September 13, 1993 by DGC Records, to be significantly divergent from the polished production of its previous album Nevermind (1991)." or just split them. Have a play anyway.
 * I fixed this by simply moving the clause to the first sentence, where it was originally. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To capture a more abrasive and natural sound - for mine, the bolded adjective "natural" is vague to the point of meaningless and adds nothing. I know what you are getting at ("raw", but that sounds too music-jargonny) or ? "less-produced"/"underproduced" or something which means somesuch..."spontaneous" (?) - anyway, have a play.
 * "Natural": that's what Albini and the band wanted, judging by the sources. I could go with just abrasive if you think that would suffice. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (bloody grunge music...sigh) I am happy to go with the flow here, if the term has a specific enough meaning that is implied :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is very good. I made some minor fixes as I was reading, but listed some below for your consideration:
 * "Upon release, the album debuted at number one ..." Is the "upon release" necessary? I think it's assumed that it can't debut until it's released.
 * I'll rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never really understood this concept, but is an "album" the same as a "record"? Because you call it both in the lead.
 * Yes, although some older folks instantly think "vinyl" when they heard the word. Still beats saying "album" all the time. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "... with work proceeding slowly ..." Avoid the ungrammatical noun plus -ing construction; please check for these throughout.
 * Why is this considered incorrect? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never been as good at explaining it as Tony1 is, so I'll direct you to his entry about it here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've altered most of them, but I left a few that if removed would have made the sentences worse. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In October 1992, Nirvana recorded several songs (mainly as instrumentals) that would later appear on In Utero during a demo session with Endino in Seattle." This is ambiguously worded as to sound like the songs appeared on the album during the time of the demo session. It can be solved by moving the ending clause to the middle.
 * Fixed and reworded. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Make sure that if a quotation ends in a period, you put the period inside the closing quote. Please check throughout, as there are a few of them wrong. (ex. "Albini observed that 'they wanted to make precisely the sort of record that I'm comfortable doing'.")
 * That's a quote fragment, and per the the Manual of Style punctuation is placed on the outside for that sort of thing (I know that in American grammar we are taught that punctuation always goes inside of quotes, but I've long ago come to accept this quirk of Wikipedia). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The band recorded the tracks live ..." As opposed to?
 * Recorded live means they all recorded together at the same time, instead of each doing their own takes which are later pieced together, which is the typical way of recording a big-budget album. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you meant when reading it in context, but it seems like there would be a better way to say this. Isn't there a recording industry term for when the musicians record synchronously in the studio? "Recorded live" usually means the album was recorded from a live performance with audience. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrote. Also, I just noticed looking back at the Azerrad book that he explains the definition of recording live. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "... with some dating back to 1990." Another noun plus -ing.
 * Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The phrase had originated in mid-1992 as Cobain's response whenever the question 'How are you?' was asked of him, was intended as humorous." This is ungrammatical.. I'll leave the revision to you in this case.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This was added by another editor from a source I don't own. I'll try and fix it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed thanks to Google Book search and re-reading the Azerrad book for additional context. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great article. Wish I could write like this. However, the paragraph attached to the sound sample of "Heart-shaped Box" is extremely difficult to read. Could it be shortened? The length of the caption makes it look like you could find anywhere in the article to put the info.-- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The caption helps justify fair use. I can try cutting it by a line or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Why don't you use the Template:Tracklist for the tracklist? It would be much more transparent and "nicer".--  LYKANTROP    ✉  15:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tezkag72  私にどなる  私のはかい  22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The template is not mandatory and is in fact needlessly complicated and difficult to edit. It's the same reason I don't use the cite tempaltes anymore. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.