Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intimacy (Bloc Party album)/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:53, 10 October 2009.

Intimacy (Bloc Party album)

 * Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed the first time with 2 supports, all sources cleared, alt text good, minor formatting sorted, a pending partial source review from 1 oppose, and a pending prose review. Here we go again. It's my most thorough work by far as it uses pretty much every notable, reliable source found on it. RB88 (T) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Have gone over and over, forwards and backwards, with a fine comb. Fixed all the were/was, have/has malarkey and some of the tense issues. I think some "has" are needed for temporal accuracy, and at the very least for some variation. RB88 (T) 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Update2 It's now had 3 extensive reviews on top of the ones in the first review. It's also been CEd by Dabomb87. I'm off for this weekend, so I hope to see more comments (and supports, obviously) when I get back. Although, to be honest, I don't think there's much more to be done. RB88 (T) 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: I take it you're heading for a Bloc Party discography FT? If so, you might need to take Silent Alarm Remixed and Intimacy Remixed to at least GA too, depending on how flexible your definition of the FT would be. Anyway...
 * The alternate cover isn't copyrightable; see threshold of originality; compare Hard-fi - Once Upon a Time in the West.PNG.
 * DONE.
 * "Gordon Moakes has noted that it was impromptu November 2007 single "Flux" that "opened a door to the fact that we could go in any direction" in future works." → "Backing vocalist Gordon Moakes noted that it was the impromptu..." Check the rest of the article for extraneous use of the past perfect tense when the simple past tense would work just as well. I prefer to use the simple past tense as it makes for a more relaxed but still professional tone.
 * I noticed this on my initial pass, and addressed some, but not all, of those instances. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you, but after all my FAs I'm still not sure about this. To me, the simple past tense gives off the impression of the comment being made at the time the prose is discussing and not, as is the case here, after everything has transpired. I'd appreciate more thoughts. RB88 (T) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC) See update
 * "from debut album Silent Alarm and A Weekend in the City respectively" → "from their previous albums Silent Alarm and A Weekend in the City respectively".
 * Addressed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RB88 (T) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Okereke has explained that the ambition was to make something as stylised as R&B or electronica,[20] with the rawness of Silent Alarm and the experience of A Weekend in the City" -> "Okereke explained...electronica, combining the rawness of..."
 * Addressed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. RB88 (T) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bloc Party were not stifled..." -> "The band were not stifled..."
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Intimacy was made available for download on Bloc Party's website on 21 August 2008.[18] Ten MP3 tracks were sold with a plain black JPEG cover for £5/$10, while a £10/$20 option for the online songs and the future expanded CD was also available" -> "Intimacy was made available for download on Bloc Party's website on 21 August 2008: ten MP3 tracks were sold with a plain black JPEG cover for £5/$10; and the MP3 tracks and the future physical release was available for £10/$20"
 * Seems a bit clunky, no? RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The lyricist has explained...": unnecessary past-perfect use, and it would be helpful to specify (is it Okereke?)
 * See the comment at the beginning. I'm assuming it's fairly clear following from the previous sentence about his breakup. What do you think? RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * About "Biko": might be nice to relate it to the Peter Gabriel song of the same name if possible.
 * There was no coverage about it, I'm afraid. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Much of Intimacy features Bloc Party's typical indie rock style.": would be easier to read as an inline list ("The friends went into the shop one at a time: Peter first; Mary second; Thomas last."
 * I don't fully understand here. The whole paragraph is meant to be a qualifying assertion for the initial sentence. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)]
 * Yes, which is why I would prefer to use an inline list because to me it's easy to read. Sceptre (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE, but not a big fan of inline lists. Did a workaround with Okereke's assertions like the preceding electronic paragraph. RB88 (T) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Second single "Talons"..." -> "their second single "Talons"..."
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Metacritic rating needs a one-word qualifier of quality: it's hard to ascertain whether this uses the "ten point scale" or the "four point scale" (where I work with Doctor Who articles, "average" is actually high as 77%, so I normally say "87% (considered excellent)".
 * If you click on the Metacritic rating citation link, it actually says "Generally favourable". RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to include said description so we don't have to go citation diving :) Sceptre (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, it's overall a good read, and at least GA-quality. Keep up the good work :). Sceptre (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the comms soon, but just wanted to say that I should hope it's GA as it passed its nomination. We're talking FA now dammit. :P Also, yes the FT nom has been complete for a while but I wanted to get all three main albums to FA. RB88 (T) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As requested, I'm slowly making my way through the article. Here's my first question: "and the experience of A Weekend in the City" This phrase isn't very precise; how can an album have "experience"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he refers to either the experience gained from the album, or the lyrical and musical maturity of the album. Sceptre (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted it. RB88 (T) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Several prose issues:
 * "Bloc Party's wanted to create an album" ("wanted", a verb, cannot follow a possessive)
 * "further distanced them from the traditional guitar band set-up" (the pronoun "them" refers to "Bloc Party", which is singular; should be "it" or "the band")
 * "Intimacy saw the return of Paul Epworth and Jacknife Lee" (an album does not possess visual organs and cannot "see" anything)
 * "the quartet felt they had 'unfinished business'" (the pronoun "they" refers to "quartet", which is singular; should be "it")
 * "The band were not stifled by varied choices" (the verb "were" does not agree with the singular noun "band")
 * "Comprehensive sales figures have not been published because Bloc Party have declined to reveal the digital download data." (the verb "have" does not agree with the singular "Bloc Party")
 * All the above sorted. RB88 (T) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation issues (based off rev 314263119 and a random selection of citations): RB88 (T) 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Images: RB88 (T) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC) That's it for now. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref #21 does not verify that "The release was called 'rushed' by the media"
 * Added ref for first half of sentence. RB88 (T) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref #25 does not refer to a "pay-what-you-want option"
 * Used "free" as per source. RB88 (T) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref #27 is a primary source and several of the sentences cited to it are original research
 * Ref 27 is the MUSIC SHEET for the album which details its instruments, musical notation, and effects!! How can it be OR?? Here's what's cited to it and ask yourself "Can it be ascertained from a music sheet?":
 * "The song contains studio effects such as overdubbing."[27] YES
 * ""Mercury" continues the Big Beat theme and contains a chorus that is vocally manipulated.[27]" YES, but I guess using the genre Big Beat is a bit off. I'll reword.
 * "features brass dissonance as harmony." YES, but I'll remove harmony for full non-ORship.
 * ""Zephyrus" begins with a solitary vocal line accompanied only by a drum machine pattern,"[27] YES
 * ""Signs" is the only song that does not include guitars" YES
 * ""Halo" has a fast tempo coupled with a prominent guitar-oriented melody which utilises only four chords, while "Trojan Horse" features syncopated guitars and distortion."[27] YES
 * ""Talons" also incorporates distortion from both lead and rhythm guitars,"[27] YES
 * "and sixteenth note guitar riffs."[27] YES
 * ""Biko" has a slower tempo and includes guitar arpeggi throughout, while "Ion Square" incorporates guitar overdubbing and an extensive use of hi-hat patterns."[27] YES
 * "The track features broken beats, crashing drum finales, and layered vocals."[27] YES, but I'll reword slightly cos of the crashing thing.
 * File:Intimacy cover.jpg fails WP:NFCC as there is already a free image in the article which serves the purpose of identifying the album.
 * Only those who got the digital download would identify it from the free cover. The artwork is always the one to take precedence as it was released physically under it. There is commentary about the stylised shot of the couple kissing. To recap what criterion 1 asks:
 * "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" NO, the download cannot convey the artwork which is an essential part of the album, especially of this release which has the theme of Intimacy and the fact that the physical release was different not just in artwork but in tracklisting, too.
 * "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" Resounding, NO. Art, from paintings to photography, can never be fully summarised without visual identification. Also, the album cover is in the infobox and not the text.
 * To be honest, RB88 is right about the album. It is an album cover, but not an ideal one to identify the album; most, if not, all people identify the kissing couple as the album cover. Therefore, it does not serve the same purpose and is NFCC#1 compliant. Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of my outstanding objections are based in personal taste and my own interpretation of policy rather than the FAC, so I will weak support. Good luck. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. RB88 (T) 14:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In "Origins and recording":
 * Okereke has stated that having two producers allowed for musical experimentation similar to Brian Eno and David Byrne collaborations... this is really weird and truncated, and distances itself from the source in a dangerously original direction. I'd expand and get closer to the source: Okereke has stated that having two producers allowed for musical experimentation. He felt confident that Lee would encourage the band's further shift in musical direction, and compared their collaboration with that of Brian Eno and David Byrne.
 * I like the first half. Not sure the second half is really that important in the grand scheme of things. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [...] Lee aided the band members' evolution with electronica by creating tracks with them. Evolution towards a more electronic style? What do you mean by "creating tracks with them"? Doesn't the producer usually have a creative influence? :)
 * Yep, "electronic direction". Producers have an influence but they don't normally craft the songs with the bands, only tweak some knobs like Epworth did. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They were not stifled by having varied recording options and decided to record the first ten tracks crafted after adjudging first ideas to often be the best. Adjudging? Really? Less is more, folks :) This whole sentence borders on the unintelligible. Try simplifying it and breaking it up.
 * Truncated it. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The band thrived under the pressure of timed sessions, which lasted only two weeks. "Thrived" sounds a bit excessive, but that's only my personal opinion. I'd use cooler, more distanced language.
 * Quoted it. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moakes has indicated that there was no worry about whether a song could be recreated live in concert in the same way as it would appear on record. This is a very interesting statement. Do any of the later sources mention anything related during tours, e.g. do any reviewers mention any differences between the album as a live act and its studio version?
 * Don't think it really matters tbh. That's what Moakes said. Plus in Live and Intimate, most of songs were performed as a quartet rather than with all the studio trickery (and brass sections and chamber choirs lol). RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Promotion and release":
 * a webcast during a forum with fans—say what? Was this a discussion forum? The band's website?
 * Simplified it. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lyrics":
 * The narrative in the songs occurs between two people and focuses on how lovers, friends, and enemies relate to each other; Okereke has pointed out that "it's about moments of shared vulnerability". This is so close to his original wording that I'd just make the whole thing a quotation: Okereke has pointed out that "All the action in the songs occurs between two people. It’s about how lovers and friends and even enemies relate to each other. It's about moments of shared vulnerability."
 * Reworded for non-quotable paraphrasing. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Dummy interview has an excellent quote from Okereke—"It’s almost like all the humanity has been bleached out."—and a follow-up question from the interviewer. That is really cool. Why wasn't this made present in the article, even if briefly?
 * Added it to composition. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More to come later. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. You know what? I'm cool with the rest. The prose is solid, and I especially like the "Bonus tracks" section (the treatment of bonus tracks in A Weekend In the City bothered me during its FAC). I do echo Stifle's concerns about the sheet music (see WP:PRIMARY and its paragraph on interpreting information found in primary sources), but I honestly don't think it violates policy in any way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, support. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed comments (again). RB88 (T) 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support - I know little about popular music, but this article was clear to an ignorant reader like myself. :) Still, there are a few issues that need to be fixed:
 * File:Bloc Party - Ion Square.ogg - This needs a bit more information on the reason why the listener needs to hear the music.
 * Added the composition information to the specific rationale. The file follows the template I've used for all three of my FA samples to cover all the bases: summary, legalese, specific rationale. Plus, all my music samples are always cited on top of the critical commentary/description in the text. You never see that. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that some of the information sourced to the sheet music could be considered WP:OR.
 * ""Mercury" continues the prominent drumming theme and contains a vocally manipulated chorus." - How can you justify "prominent" and "vocally manipulated"?
 * Replaced prominent with complex, which can be ascertained from a music sheet. The vocally manipulated bit is from the notes of the composition which detail how a song should be performed in terms of equipment, i.e. pedals and vocoder, hence the term vocal manipulation. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Qualified the drumming comment with more detail from the sheet. RB88 (T) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "an attempt at drum and bass" - How can you justify "an attempt"?
 * That's cited to the Fender ref. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ""Halo" has a fast tempo coupled with a prominent guitar-oriented melody that uses only four chords, while "Trojan Horse" features syncopated guitars and distortion" - How can you justify "prominent"?
 * Removed and simplified a bit. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ""Biko" has a slower tempo and includes guitar arpeggi throughout, while "Ion Square" incorporates guitar overdubbing and an extensive use of hi-hat patterns" - How can you justify "extensive"?
 * Explained it better, i.e. the use of hi-hat patterns throughout. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The track features broken beats, prominent drumming patterns, and layered vocals" - How can you justify "prominent"?
 * Removed it all. Broken beats seems to be enough on its own. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

These issues are actually not that large, so I look forward to their resolution and striking my oppose.
 * Thanks. Please revisit. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so quickly! I've struck my oppose and now supported. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comments  - I think this is my first FA review, done plenty of FLCs in the past so we'll see how I go. Going to try and keep it short & simple, because I'm already liking the article very much. My comments are up for discussion, so if you have any issues be sure to dispute, etc.
 * Studio album would usually be wikilinked in the lead, its not the most common term and easier to be clear about these things.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "physical form" and the later "physical release" may be worth considering Wikilinks for. It's a fairly ambiguous term that could be specified by linking to Compact Disc, for example.
 * Workaround. Used compact disc in the lead. The other mention comes after the price of the CD earlier in the paragraph. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood.
 * The lead is a little thin. You could expand on the singles and reviews.
 * Single "Mercury" hit #16 on the UK charts before the band had announced the release of the album (which eventually happened just 10 days following).
 * Mention things like the reviewers calling it their "peak" or finest career moment. Then emphasise a little more about the bad choices or not living up to the 'radical statement the band set out to achieve'.
 * Bulked it up with a bit more detail on promotion and the charting singles. Expanded the critics bit a bit, but I wouldn't want to put actual quotes in the lead as there is space to discuss them in the crit section. I like to keep the lead general and as a recap. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work.
 * "Chief lyricist Okereke completed most of the songwriting before the recording process." → Chief lyricist Okereke completed most of the songwriting prior to commencing the recording process.
 * I like your way too but copyreditors always change it as there's an adage that says, in tight prose, less words is more. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood.
 * "Ten MP3 tracks were sold with a plain black JPEG cover for £5/$10, and a £10/$20 option for the online songs and the future expanded CD was also available" - If the article is written in British English and the CD was originally released in the UK for sale in pounds - I think just £5 and £10 would be fine here. It overcomplicates things by including the, I assume, US dollars.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The release was called "rushed" by the media" - who are "the media"? Specifying an example or two wouldn't go astray in a short paragraph such as this.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilink Billboard 200.
 * It's linked in the lead, which I treat as a part of the text, and hate to overlink. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood.
 * The Content section header is indented due to the above picture for me, something to fix up?
 * That's the way wiki works I'm afraid. Depends on browser, screen resolution, etc. I had a look at both IE and Firefox. It looks worse on the other side of the text I think. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could move the image to the top of the promotion section, looks good there. Looks neat still anyway, so don't worry too much.
 * The Ares ("God of War") article refers to him as the "Olympian god of warfare"; no capitals? Same goes for Zephyrus. No capitals?
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Okereke has pointed out that" → Okereke has indicated that
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "while "Zephyrus" concerns an apology following neglect" - seems a little out of place, perhaps try to implement it into the above mention of it. Would help explain the importance of the Greek references better.
 * That's how Kele explained it to the ref. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have probably checked myself.
 * I won't read too much into Composition, but will suggest that it may be worth mentioning their previous styles and the progression on this record.
 * There's a sentence at the start of each paragraph. That was all that was discussed in the sources, plus I'd rather focus more on what's in this album rather than compare and contrast excessively. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know what i was saying here, got wrapped up in my own mind.
 * "that Epworth and Lee" → "that producers Epworth and Lee" (Just to remind the reader)
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Onion A.V. Club → The A.V. Club - it's the actual name of the publication, a separate "sister" company.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncut (magazine), it would be preferred if you used publications in the list at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. It seems perfectly reliable, and should probably be added to the list, this is more just a note I suppose.
 * It should definitely be added. Been going since 1996 and is owned by NMEs media company. RB88 (T') 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will be added soon I see. No problem.
 * WikiProject Albums states that the track listing template should only be used in "more complicated situations". This does not appear to be anything more than very basic, no alternate writers or producers, featured artists or anything. Should be formatted as per usual method.
 * Hmmm, it seems a bit neater and nicer to me this way. It looks a bit confusing with the loads of quote marks, dashes, and numbers without the table. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, I think we have to stick with what the template page says, and this is in no way complicated.
 * Charts:
 * They're an English band, so only UK should be listed first. The size of music markets is a very unnecessary and adjustable way of ordering things.


 * I don't sort by size. I only put the markets where they have a label at the top. The reasoning is that time and effort and promotion (which is discussed in the text) was specifically geared into those markets and this has to be reflected in the table. I also include places where albums did not chart if a contracted label is present in that country. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Perhaps take this to WP:Record charts as a proposal option?
 * ACharts is largely discouraged as a source. It's an unlicensed source with multiple deprecated charts published to some extent on the site. The UK charts are easy to find better sources for; use Zobbel, Chart Stats or The OCC.


 * Having done a few source dissections, I like the Zobbel and Chart Stats way of recording stats. Pretty comprehensive, but I've always followed WP:CHARTS. I'd rather keep it till an amendment is made there. In fact, I might start a talk page discussion which you could join. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the talk page discussion at WP:CHARTS, EveryHit has been proven reliable as its contents have been cited by the BBC and British MPs during policy discussions:, . So I've replaced ACharts. RB88 (T) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the singles chart anywhere else?


 * Not in the English-speaking world, no. I usually keep it to those markets. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one in Austria and another couple in Belgium, nothing too important you're missing though.
 * Someone will have to probably double check the information alluded to in sources (already being done above I see), excluding that and what I've mentioned, then I'm happy to support this very soon. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WesleyDodds did about 75% of it in the first nom before it was closed. I did the rest and the peeps above have contributed a lot. You're more than welcome to have a snoop. I think they're pretty much spot on. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Handing in my Support. Just go over my replies, might be one or two little things you might want to adjust. Otherwise, all comments resolved. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.