Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Internationalist (album)


 * 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 00:55, 23 December 2007.

Internationalist (album)

 * check links

Article has been collaborated on by WikiProject Powderfinger and WikiProject Australian music, and I've rewritten it a few times. AFAIK the article contains most of the available sources on the subject - a lot of stuff has gone down the memory hole since the album came out almost 10 years ago. Obviously, I'm happy to act on any comments. Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  10:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The lead needs work. There's some peacock terms and redundancy with phrasing like "most adventurous work to date" and "The album contained the band's boldest political and social commentary to date". It could stand to be expanded, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a bit of work on the lead. . I'm happy to expand if you can find any new content. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it perplexing that an album with such coverage and accolades could be so vastly unsourcable only just over 9 years from its release, especially since it's the group's "mainstream" breakout album. Ironically, despite its own minimal coverage, it bears a great deal of reflections by reviewers using it as an anchor point of "what powderfinger's music should be like", almost marking it their ultimate album or the legacy release. Unfortunately, that reflection is accumulated by many reviews and none pegs it quite like that, making it original research for me to say it on the article (for now). That said, I believe we have all the information we're possibly going to gain, and it's well written and all. As a contributor, I give my support (though I've not contributed in a while). -- linca linca  11:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Overall, the article needs work. There are currently two reviews in this article, which is about an album that was released less than ten years ago. There's got to be some more stuff out there. On an WP:MOS note, the article goes from using "quotation." to "quotation". a few times. A "Context" section could greatly benefit the article considering I (and many other's who, for example, like the album) don't know anything about Powderfinger. There are also a bunch of small inconsistencies, for example "Bass guitarist John Collins..." should not link to the actual instrument but rather the role of a bassist and consequently reworded to read "Bassist John Collins..".
 * I've found some more reviews and will add them now. I also started on a context/background, but there really isn't much (most sources are from here) to work on :( I fixed the bassist link, and I'll look at quotations soon. &mdash;  Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like I'm just reading a bunch of quotes to tell you the truth. Quite a lot of the prose is filled with quotes that have little or no significance. Don't get me wrong, quotes are essential to demonstrate how someone feels during the recording process, of a particular event that caused strife (the list goes on forever) but the article uses them a bit excessively. Similarly, much of what is not quoted explains what the guitarist, singer, etc. meant by what they said. Sentences like "Numerous songs on Internationalist were politically and socially influenced, although the band denied it being a deliberate motif" need tweaking for fluency and are relatively colloquial. NSR 77 T C  21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, since I've never heard the album, you may want to explain what political and social events they comment on. It is very ambiguous. All that's in the article now is that the album explores these topics, but it does not divulge into how or why. This is key. NSR 77  T C  21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - does this] help in that regard? &mdash;  Dihydrogen Monoxide  06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the "Legacy" section should be scrapped unless a lot more information can be added. Right now it consists of one reviewer's thoughts that Internationalist is better then two of the band's other albums. NSR 77  T C  21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still kind of uneasy with the article. It's not very comprehensive and there's been way too much work going on during the FAC that should have occurred before (in a Peer Review). However, since I can't cite anything specific, I give the article very weak support. NSR 77  T C  00:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs work, a thorough copyedit. Thorough. A copyedit that will not miss errors like not wikilinking to the word internationalist, or repeated links, or addressing members by their last name and then later by their full name, or a red link, or use of the word "whilst", for example. I'd normally go through and correct most of these myself, but I'd rather leave this one to you.  Spebi  23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - well sourced, meets FAC criteria in my opinion. Most suggestions so far don't seem out of reach. &mdash; Rudget Contributions 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I performed a thorough copy-edit of the article and i think i've fixed most of the standing MoS etc issues.. The issues remaining are:
 * Needs a Background section.
 * Done. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Although it shared similar personnel with its predecessor, including producer Nick DiDia," - but the prev album did not have DiDia... Actually, that whole sentence can be removed, incl. the part about Tiddas (they're mentioned later anyways)
 * ✅ (removed)&mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The legacy section needs a rewrite, or can be altogether done away with (as per NSR77)
 * Removed. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a few more reviews.
 * That's seriously all I can find :( &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Stardust (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sorry all, I was offline yesterday - I'll try to address everything ASAP. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Article has bias in certain instances. For example, "It did, however, cement the band's position on the Australian music scene, with highly positive reviews" from the lead. The word "highly" is subjective, and an opinion. This is the conclusion of whomever wrote the article, and not the opinion of a biographer or anyone of that nature. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reworded. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The song's music video was one of Powderfinger's more lavish visual works, featuring computer graphics for the first time.[15]" - This is an opinion, so therefore needs attribution. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The source describes it as "lavish" etc. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, as it still needs attribution. Whether something is "lavish" is an opinion, not a fact. Currently, the sentence is written as though this is a fact. The sentence needs to say whom this is according to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed the word lavish - turns out the source didn't use that exact word (m'bad). . &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Australian music magazine Juice selected Internationalist as one of their top 100 albums of the decade of the 1990s." - The writing is awkward in this specific sentence, and the sentence needs a citation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Found a ref, reworded a bit. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "With Internationalist, Powderfinger first set their sights overseas, receiving lucrative spots at numerous music festivals in the U.S., including South by Southwest in Texas.[17]" - Whether these spots were "lucrative" is the opinion of the writer and therefore original research. Unless it can be attributed to a specific critic, it should be removed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * POV removed, reworded. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "lucrative" is still present in the lead. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "In 2000, two years after its initial release, "The Day You Come" was played an estimated 18,000 times on national radio and television.[12]" - Estimated by whom? How did they come to this estimation? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed - probably not factual. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Article is also inconsistent in using numerals. For example; "Sputnikmusic reviewer James Bishop called Internationalist a "beautiful, incomparable and truly surprising album", giving the album a perfect 5 out of 5." Elsewhere, numbers have been spelt out. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I'll see if I can find any other instances. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "It was played 4,000 times on radio in 2000, compared to the 18,000 of "The Day You Come"; a statistic Fanning jokingly described as "pretty pissweak".[12]" - Are these statistics factual, or more estimations? LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed - probably not factual. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, generally well-written and everything looks in order. A few things, however.


 * Fanning and Collins agreed that "music can be a vehicle for that escape." — I know we want to avoid sounding like a newspaper, but surely both of them didn't say this? One said it and the other agreed, or similar? It's generally better to provide direct attribution for quotes that like, in that directly cite who said it. I'm wondering if it can be tweaked, but I'll leave it to you.


 * Bassist John Collins said of DiDia; "Nick was really good...The way Nick based the record was that he wanted to record the band how we were at that particular moment, he didn’t want to play around too much." As a result of this attitude — I know the reference at the end of the paragraph may include this quote, but generally the reference must be straight after the quote (Citing sources).


 * and the album was mixed by DiDia soon after — link "mixed"?


 * Collins and lead singer Bernard Fanning described the album as not being "as easy listening as their previous work" — as above.


 * Numerous songs on Internationalist were politically and socially influenced, although the band denied it being a deliberate motif. — reference at the end of the sentence.


 * He said the reinvention was as much for the band's own interest as it was for the "public's perception". — the punctuation here (" before the .) is inconsistent with the rest of the article. You may want to check for other instances of this as well (there's one about punk band that I noticed, and there may be more).


 * "Fanning explaining that the band did not intentionally discuss political issues, saying "we don't try to do anything in particular"." As above.


 * Fanning said of "The Day You Come" "I wouldn't certainly say that we've written any protest songs- The Day You Come is the closest to that kind of song, and that typically, like most of our songs can be construed in many ways. And it was particularly about the way Australian electorate I suppose is moving, and thinking." — that's a long quote; would work? Regardless, the double-" near the start needs remedying, as it breaks up the flow.


 * because, according to Haug, the band — this is the first time Haug is mentioned in the section, and in a long time, so maybe having his full name would work (possibly linking also).


 * The second-last paragraph in the Album and single releases section is one sentence. Although I agree that partioning paragraphs for singles is a generally good idea, one sentence is too short. Maybe combine it with the last paragraph?


 * Despite being fans of Swervedriver, who were renowned for "their capability to reproduce their album sound perfectly in the live setting, Fanning said Powderfinger" — who said the quote, and where is the reference for it?


 * Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile and...fun", as were the performances in Austin — surely the quote would be better as two separate quotes?
 * Can you clarify on this? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could read Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile" and "fun", as were the performances in Austin?  Daniel  05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "people (in Australia) are going to get sick of you pretty quickly — I think quote convention is square brackets.


 * The quote from Haug in the second paragraph of Response needs a reference.


 * Lewis also contended — the "also" is redundant to "contended".


 * Might as well throw in a reference for the ARIA Awards section somewhere.

Otherwise, looking good.  Daniel  23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Need to run - will do this ASAP. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from one thing I specifically replied to, everything is ✅. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments I really am leaning towards what Spebi is saying; it needs a good copyedit: it misses possible links, it needs a bit of grammar fixes and lowering of the complication of sentences (hypocritical coming from me; I know I'm terribly verbose ;)) and there are many quotations that are missing sources:
 * ..."constantly re-invented themselves, and with success, I think"
 * ..."as easy listening as their previous work"
 * ..."Nick was really good...The way Nick based the record was that he wanted to record the band how we were at that particular moment, he didn’t want to play around too much."
 * ..."we don't try to do anything in particular"

are all examples of this. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All ✅ &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Query Is there any reason for why the heading is "Response" instead of the (standard?) "Reception"?--Keer lls ton 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was never sure what the "standard" is...I've changed it now - ✅ &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  Object —Not ready yet. Not written to the required professional standard; MOS breaches. Here are examples that indicate the need for a total copy-edit throughout.
 * Second sentence: "The album's title refers to the ability for music to assist one in escapism."—I don't get it.
 * I'm not sure how it isn't clear - combined with the escapism article (which it's linked too) it seems fairly obvious to me. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the readers shouldn't have to hit links to understand the logic of the sentence. What has escapism got to do with the title of the album? It's the second sentence, and stumps me. Tony   (talk)  07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about now ? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be like a dog at a bone, but "and the ability of an internationalist [links says "one who advocates internationalism"] to overcome racial and social tension" is very odd indeed. Why is it that someone who advocates internationalism (whatever that is, maybe I do? Unsure) be thus able to escape racial tension? Perhaps people who are free to move from country to country might in doing so escape racial tension (some have, sure), but are they advocates of internationalism, or merely refugees or free-birds? I think you need to remove the statement from the lead and unpack the meaning further down, where there's space to include detail. Can you have a look at the lyrics and any other sources that might reveal the answer to how to frame this? Tony   (talk)  10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the statement from the lead, I'll try it again (in the "Background" section) and probably end up quoting a bit more (source). &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently, I'm starting to share your confusion. Hence I through in a quote instead ;) . &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Third sentence: "Internationalist was often labelled Powderfinger's most adventurous work, with lead singer and songwriter Bernard Fanning experimenting further in his lyrics than before."—Slight discomfort at the sudden assumption that I know already that Fanning had been adventurous in this respect.
 * ✅ (reworded). &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourth sentence: "and was certified platinum several times in Australia"—You don't know how many times?
 * ✅ - A number was found, and sourced. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. Tony   (talk)  07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "It was the recipient of four ARIA Awards"—Just "It received"?
 * ✅ (by Spebi &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Last sentence in the lead (a parastub): "Despite its popularity in Australia, Internationalist failed to launch Powderfinger in the overseas market. It did, however, cement the band's position on the Australian music scene, with the band receiving fairly positive reviews on the album." A professional standard of writing is required for FAs. Such as: "Internationalist received fairly positive reviewers in the Australian press, and cemented the Powderfinger's position on the local music scene; however, the album failed to launch the band in the overseas market. on the album." See the difference?
 * Indeed I do; thanks. ✅ by Spebi. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, and sorry for my cut-and-paste errors in the example. Tony   (talk)  07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah, I had a bit of trouble working out what was going on... :) &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Logical problem in "although": "They also spent some time in the United States in mid-1997, although most of the songs on Internationalist were written in Brisbane by Bernard Fanning, rather than abroad." Huh?
 * ✅ - "But" works better in this context (along with a minor reword). &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does, but it's still not logical. "But" or "however" indicate that you're about to go against what you've just told us. Why is it that spending time in the US then was somehow unexpected because he had written most of the songs in Brisbane? Sorry to be difficult, but ... Tony   (talk)  07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aah, I see the problem now (I think). I also re-read the source and it seems I misinterpreted a bit...how about now? &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See MOS on ellipsis dots and their spacing, and on punctuation in quotations.
 * WP:PUNC stuff ✅ to the best of my interpretation of the guideline and the article text. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS on hyphens. "Australian-based". "18-second", etc; and chop "long" from the info page for the first sample.
 * I removed the "long", but I'm not really sure on your other point - could you please clarify? &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's usual to hyphenate double adjectives, esp. when they occur before the noun. "20-second sample", but "the duration was 20 seconds". "Australian-based" is always hyphenated. See MOS on hyphens. Tony   (talk)  07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I can't see any such issues in the article though... &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's OK, but it would be better to make the fair-use jusification stronger by inserting educational value (see WP:NFC. For example, how is it "rough", in musical or lyrical terms? Educate us. Tony   (talk)  13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replied inline to most comments, and a fair bit has been done. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see a couple of areas in the Response section that discuss a review of the album, but there are quotes and other important information that need to be recited (as in ). All quotes should be cited, even if you're using the same reference over and over again.  Spebi  20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ (AFAIK) - Tell me if I miss any. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None missed. This really looks featured quality now, I'm really impressed :) Support.  Spebi  02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't do much FAC reviewing so I couldn't pinpoint teensy errors, but overall this seems like a very fine piece of work. Well done! Support. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've withdrawn the oppose, but please keep working on it. Tony   (talk)  07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done a bit more and replied to some comments. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, though I would like a citation at the part where it has the tracklisting and times. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was removed a while back - I'll add it back. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (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.