Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Is This It/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 SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010.

Is This It

 * Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This Is It

RB88 (T) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Media review: Three images:
 * File:Is This It.JPG: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.
 * Usage: Good, standard.
 * Rationale: Good.
 * Alt text: Good.


 * File:IsthisitUS.jpg: Alternative (U.S.) album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image.
 * Usage: Good. Primary cover for main/home media market; sourced critical commentary on art in main text.
 * Rationale: Decent, but "Purpose of use" field should be improved to clarify significance.
 * Alt text: Good.


 * File:113355527 25c7280cc7 b.jpg: Commons image of band in concert, used in main text.
 * License: CC-by-SA-2.0. Verified.
 * Quality: Acceptable for main text.
 * Alt text: Good.

One audio sample:
 * File:TSBL.ogg: 23.8-second sample of track from topic album (fair use).
 * Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on both lyrics and musical composition.
 * Technical aspects: Good.
 * Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks DCGeist. One of the most thorough media reviews I've seen. I tightened up the US cover a bit. Great job. RB88 (T) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Gil Norton never worked with Husker Du. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE RB88 (T) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Drive-by comment Comments Support by PL290 (media licensing and cites not checked). Looks good on a quick glance. My impression is that this This is a comprehensive article and the prose is sound. I hope to find time to look more closely and will add further comments if possible. PL290 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two lone subsections. In both cases the significant body of text preceding the "lone" subsection should acquire its own subheading.
 * DONE RB88 (T) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PL290 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "With support from personal "guru" JP Bowerstock" - this use of "guru" in quotes hints at something without making it explicit, and hence is not really encyclopedic.
 * Used "mentor". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "the three songs created were scrapped and were not used on Is This It." - somewhat tautological (since, if the songs were scrapped, they could not have been used) though I think I see the point intended; perhaps this could be recast along the lines of "the three songs originally created for Is This It were scrapped".
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "and formed a good collaborating team with the producer." - again somewhat tautological combination of "collaborating" with "team" - perhaps "a good collaborative relationship".
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "both parties organized a listening session with the musical material Hammond, Jr. and Casablancas had brought" - it seems to me that unless I missed one, there is only one Hammond, and so once Hammond, Jr. has been introduced, "Hammond" would suffice and be clearer for the remainder of the article.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The transfer from the two loud guitars and the rumble of the bass picked up by the drum kit microphones was not eliminated on the advice of Moretti" - but rather, eliminated for another reason? Comma after eliminated would do it.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The record was streamed on Australian websites by the band's distributor BMG and remained available to listen even after the CD release" - the streamed record did not listen - perhaps available to listen "to", or just available, etc.
 * Used "for listening". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Japanese release date of August 22 occurred after two one-off shows [...] in the country" - the word "occurred" here seems to imply a chance happening and hence loses the intended point that it was (I assume) deliberately timed to follow the shows. Was it deliberate timing?
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Moretti has called it a "horrible coincidence" that the band members deeply regret" - coming after "I found something even cooler" merely not surfacing in time to use different artwork, it's left unclear exactly what is "horrible" and "deeply regretted" about the foregoing sequence of events.
 * Came in PR as well. That's all he said. I removed as it's not that necessary. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ""Is This It" is The Strokes' closest attempt to a ballad." - it just me, or is there a persuasive but non-grammatical blurring of "closest attempt" with "closest to a ballad"?
 * Simplified to "attempt at a ballad". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "an upbeat, singalong chorus that is appended by a technically difficult guitar solo" - I don't think you can use "appended" like that! One thing is appended to another. Perhaps recast or use another word.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "as well as danceable drumming patterns that evoke the sound of primitive 1980s drum machines" - danceable is somewhat subjective and the sentence appears to work well without it. Consider removing or rephrasing to be more encyclopedic.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2006, Is This It was named at number 48 by The Observer" - perhaps e.g. "ranked" rather than named?
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2009, Is This It was named as the best record of the 2000s by NME [...], and at number two, behind Radiohead's Kid A, by Rolling Stone" - again, "ranked" etc. rather than "named" seems to fit what Rolling Stone did
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Uncut named it at number five" - same again.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efficient response to the above comments which have all now been addressed. PL290 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the comments. RB88 (T) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments Big and small, with everything in-between. I'll add more as I think of them.
 * You only need the earliest release date in the lead. Save the release history details for the article body.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the lead, it would flow better if you discussed the making of the albu first before listing its chart positions.
 * It's come up before, but I use WP:LEAD always: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time context. Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article." RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also find it odd that the cover art change is mentioned after the album release, commercial success, and world tour.
 * Done in conjunction with your packaging split comment. The staggered release means a bit of disjunct, but in the current order it flows well, i.e. Packaging and then Content.
 * Is "hyped" the best NPOV word choice here. Personally I'd say it was "hyped", but I'm not sure that's the best word to use for Wiki purposes.
 * Used "Promoted". RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, article body now. The "Origins" section contains far too much setup. Keep what's necessary for context and move the rest (details like band members meeting when they were schoolboys, family members introducing them to certain bands) to The Strokes. i'd say more or else you could integrate parts of the first paragraph into the second and go with that.
 * I removed some padding but I disagree with the general sentiment. I think it's a nice, measured intro on how they got to the studio, especially considering it's a debut album and not a second or third done whilst on tour in two years. Debut albums tend to be the "life albums", so a bit of history and formative stages is required. Trust me there was a lot more I could have included. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "Studio Sessions" section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label?  Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence "The studio is located in a basement with poor lighting; candles were often used during recording" is a bit choppy. How about "Because the studio was located in a basement with poor lighting, candles were often used during recording"?
 * Removed the candles bit, not that necessary. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "formed a good collaborating team" Another odd phrase. Maybe formed a "good collaboration" would work better.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "To show the tones and energy they liked". Are you sure the source means "tone" as in intervals on a music scale? Judging by the context of the sentence is seems like they might mean "tone" as in "mood".  You might be better off just delinking the word.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "sculpted" is a very muso journo phrase. Literally, musicians don't sculpt. Suggest rephrasing.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm noticing quite a bit of passive voice. Example: "During six weeks of exhaustive sessions, the emphasis was placed on The Strokes' gritty sound". Who placed the emphasis? Try and cut down as much as possible.
 * Weeded out what I could find, within reason. RB88 (T) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Raphael mixed as he went along to maintain control of the record until the final mastering stage and to show The Strokes a final product as soon as the band finished performing a track" Seems like it coud use some commas.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is mentioning that the band revealed the tracklisting on May 15 noteworthy?
 * Along those same lines: "'Hard to Explain' was named as the album's first single with a release date of June 25 to coincide with the tour". We're not a news site; we don't need to indicate every instance when things were announced. We need to know when they happened. Simply state that "Hard to Explain" was released in June as the album's first single.
 * For both above: It's the promotion section. It essentially has to show how the band and label created marketing and excitement for the album release and a basic timeframe with a few dates is necessary to give a more accurate perspective. Both also flow well with the tour comment. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Moretti suffered an awkward fall". Is there such as thing as an unawkward fall?
 * Well, you could fall quite simply on your backside without much fuss or you could fall on top of your wrist or without using your arms in a reflex motion, the last two which I would qualify as "awkward". RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommend splitting off "Packaging" into its own section; it comes off as a non sequitor as a subsection of "Release". Alternatively, given the cover image change was such a big deal, possibly merge/integrate the information together with the rest of the "Release" section.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason "Lyrics" are above "Composition"? Why not just integrate the two (particular since you go down the tracklisting when discussing the songs)?
 * It's more of a personal preference really. I also like splitting them for a nicer article and for the reader to specifically understand both facets separately. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "It had notable success in Scandinavia" Does the source say that? You could do without it and not harm the sentence at all.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The record was listed at number 71 on the UK Albums Chart for 2001". I assume you mean the year-end chart? Also, it's awkward that the Scandinavia info is in between two sentences about the album's success in the UK.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "In contrast, Jon Monks of Stylus gave the album a rating of C+, one of the lowest that it received". That last part isn't necessary. People can determine that themselves if they want to.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the influence section: any chance you can find information about bands directly citing the record as an influence?
 * No luck here. I doubt any band of the last decade would cite an album released in 2001 for fear of being called copyists and losing street cred. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, a little bit of luck. RB88 (T) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "--two places higher than the The Velvet Underground's debut LP The Velvet Underground & Nico—" Does the source cited make a big deal out of this? If not, throw it out.
 * Well, considering earlier in the article we've talked about influences and transcending them, it seems a nice bit of information. Also to break the monotony of just listing lists. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's undue emphasis. After all, you mention other influences on the band, but aren't noting how Is This It outranked those records (which you shouldn't, by the way). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, took it out. RB88 (T) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same thing with the NME and Rolling Stone decade lists. I'm sure it outranked a slew of other notable albums, but it's not important to draw attention to it.
 * I like to include the second placed album it beat or the first placed album it was beaten by. It brightens up the listing lists process and also gives a perspective about the list and the pulication. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think "Release history" sections are worthless and you certainly aren't obligated to have one. However, if you do insist on having one, you should shore up the references. I don't necessary know how catalog numbers work, but those numbers listed are only part of the numbers I see in certain refs. Also, I'm not quite sure all those refs specifically state that that catalog number was specifically released for that region. Once again, double check the sources and weed out what isn't soundly supported. Or just chuck the whole thing and do without it.
 * I'm a bit puzzled by this. I checked the references and everything is in order. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's the one big problem the article currently has that needs to be immediately addressed. For the UK chart positions, you cite ""UK Top 40 Hit Database". The Official UK Charts Company / EveryHit. http://www.everyhit.com/." Every Hit is in no way affiliated with the official UK charts. It's run by some guy who owns a lot of singles; see the About page on the website. That's not the sort of source you want to rely on, particularly when you can ring up User:JD554 and ask him to cite the chart positions from his far more verifiability policy-friendly UK chart books (he has one that goes up to 2006, I believe). He's always willing to help out with that sort of thing, so it shouldn't be much of a bother to address this point.
 * EveryHit's reliability has been proven time and time again. In fact, it was JD who gave me sources to use during one of my FACs and someone else's too. But, here you go again: Used by Reuters, Used in Parliament!!, and even in Norway. I did remove the UK charts bit though. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, you have access to offical documentation. Between a fansite and an offical book of chart positions, go with the book. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's transcended the "fansite" tag when it was used in Parliament. But I've still got the British charts book from Talking Heads (and a whole lot of fines, too). It's now up. RB88 (T) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the last item, there's no major outstanding problems. Overall, I am pleased with the quality of the article. Address these comments and I'll be ready to support the article's nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments— FYI, I like this album a lot. Reviewing the lead for now:
 * "first released on July 30, 2001 in Australia by BMG, a distributor acting on behalf of RCA Records, the band's primary label"—seems like too much (unimportant) information. I suggest removing all mention of the record labels there, and moving the release date to the first sentence: "Is This It is the debut studio album by American indie rock band The Strokes, released in July 2001." The 2002 reissue bit can go as well. Instead, mention how RCA released the thing with a different tracklisting ('cause of 9/11) and album cover a few months after the Rough Trade version (if necessary).
 * DONE all removals and added the track change. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is considered a zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s"—What is "It" here? A little vague: do you refer to the album or the release of the album? Also, since you discuss the legacy in the third paragraph, why not move the sentence there?
 * DONE. It was added at PR, especially because WP:LEAD says "Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article." RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "western English-speaking world" is very vague. Check out its article, did the album go platinum in all those countries?!
 * DONE away with the vagueness. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't put my finger on it, but the second paragraph reads very choppily to me. Especially "details young life and encounters in cities like New York". I also don't see why the three singles need to be mentioned there. Songs like the title track and "The Modern Age" also revolve around the same themes. (I have gone ahead and tweaked the second paragraph)
 * Well, you've sorted it out yourself and I tidied up.
 * You haven't exactly described why the record is considered so influential in the thing. Namely, the whole "Return to Rock" thing The Strokes championed along with The White Stripes; without this The Libertines, Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys probably wouldn't have flourished so much. (I prefer you give specific info like this rather vague statements about it being zeitgeist-defining)—indopug (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Zeitgeist-defining" is not vague. For one, it was specifically used by The Guardian and covers everything, from NYC's scene, music, attire etc which are mentioned by all the other sources. Specifying just the Return to Rock bands would not be summative in the lead and also incorrect. It did much more than that, including changing the music industry and pop music. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a Spin book that can possibly add to this, given there's a chapter on the "Return of Rock" (my god, isn't that pretentious?) in it. I'll need to double-check it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TBH, I think I've covered all bases with regards to Legacy, but it'd be nice to add Spins "Return to Rock" phrase as a tying sentence. RB88 (T') 14:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You use only a single source when it comes to discussing the lyrics (the Roach book). Surely this section can be expanded considering how acclaimed and written-about Casablancas' lyrics were?—indopug (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's yer lot I'm afraid. All interviews and biopics focused on image rather than content. If it wasn't for the SOS article, I think I would have struggled for the recording info as well. Like for the whole article (and all my articles), searched Google Archives, music publications (not just the obvious ones), fansites, and the relevant books. If you can find me a source about lyrics, I'd be shocked. At one point, I was thinking of merging Content into Studio sessions due to its thinness. Thank God for the bits of info from Roach. RB88 (T) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the sources you've used in the article? For example, the Rolling Stone review quotes a lot of the lyrics, and tries to grapple what Casablancas is trying to say. Similarly, you might find snippets in the all the reviews/interviews. You could also use the RS review for general descriptions of the band's music—"The Strokes are obsessed with rhythm, and at times their approach is more like that of a soul or funk band than a rock band: Each player, even the drummer, pushes at the melody from a different rhythmic angle until there are no more angles left to explore. Albert Hammond Jr. and Nick Valensi's interlocking, incessant rhythm-guitar parts free bassist Nikolai Fraiture to sweeten songs such as "Someday," "Last Nite" and the title track with graceful, Motown-like countermelodies."—indopug (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I argue that reviews shouldn't be used for general descriptions of the band's music, because reviews aren't held to the same criteria as a interviewer or someone writing an article. The point of a review is to provide critical opinion, and thus they should be relegated to the critical reception section. That reminds me: I noticed there was something from the legacy section pulled from a PopMatters concert review. You should junk that, because the writer is merely setting up his review, and the review is not an objective look at the band's legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I didn't use reviews. I knew you were gonna pipe in at some point with that. As for the PopMatters thing, I disagree. "The review is not an objective look at the band's legacy" makes no sense. All attributed quotes in Legacy are subjective points of view, often from subjective lists. It doesn't matter if it's a concert review because it doesn't mean what he wrote or elements of it are not true. If you read the review, the first half is totally historical and about the New York scene. So, historical and his opinion, and considering he works for a notable and reliable source, it merits inclusion. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: the PopMatters review. It's the opener for a review about a concert performance from 2006 (a performance completely unrelated to the album), which is meant purely as editorial, not hardcore journalism. This is a concert review, not an article about the legacy of Is This It. It's inappropriate to quote this particular review for this purpose. You have plenty of other more appropriate sources in that same section that directly address the topic at hand, anyways. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<-- All that I've read above is your personal, subjective decision about biopics, what constitutes one, and the differences in journalism. The fact of the matter is that PopMatters and its writers and content fulfil both WP:N and WP:R. This is what he wrote in the first historical part of the concert review:

''"For those steeped in the band-a-minute scene of present-day New York, it's easy to forget that, at the turn-of-the-century, not only did the local scene not compare to today's, but that there wasn't really a scene at all. Circa 2000, NYC was a pretty musically barren place to be - a city with plenty of rock n' roll history, but very little in the way of a present. And then, with an unassuming 11-track debut album, five city kids in thrift-store clothes came along and changed everything. Since the release of Is This It?, New York has not only returned to its glory as a hotspot for cutting-edge music, but has actually been elevated once more to a prime focus of international attention.What the Strokes did, however, goes hand in hand with how they did it. It wasn't by reinventing what it means to be from NYC that the quintet gained the spotlight, but rather by reminding us what it always meant. By capturing the essence of precursors like the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, Blondie, and Television and reconstituting it for a new generation, the band became the sole contemporary heir to the very same lineage that put the city on the rock map in the first place. And now, just a few short years later, with the band members still not even out of their 20s, the Strokes stand as the fathers (or at least godfathers) to modern New York music, with everyone from Brooklyn to London citing them as an influence. So where does that leave an essentially young band that, just five years on, is already viewed as the established order, or the soon-to-be old guard?"''

And this what I wrote: Doug Levy of PopMatters suggests that, through Is This It, The Strokes created New York City's post-millennial music scene and returned it to a cutting-edge glory, "with everyone from Brooklyn to London citing them as an influence".

I don't see any problem whatsoever with sourcing apart from your personal opinion about what constitutes journalism. RB88 (T) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a review about Is This It. This is a review about a show five years after the album came out, with the author using his opinion on the record's impact to set up the review. The piece as a whole is not directly about the album and shouldn't be treated as authoritative, because that's not the point of the piece. This is like quoting the first paragraph of a review for a concert promoting Kid A to describe the legacy of The Bends. It's especially striking if you compare it to the other references in the section. There's best-of album list, best-of album list, best-of album list . . . and then an excerpt from a concert review from years later. You shouldn't have to rely on a concert review that has nothing directly to do with the album for statements about the album's impact. Find something more relevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for... Alright, used NME instead. You better support. RB88 (T) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comments
 * Composition: I notice that although you do track-by-track analysis of the music, you are not highlighting the overall trends on the album. If you don't want to use reviews per Wesley, there is this CMJ article I found in Google Books: here. In particular, Valensi's quote: "there's no bullshit, no gimmicks, no tricks to try to get you to like the song. We don't put in a guitar solo just to have one." Also, CMJ's description "nervous energy pop with a romantic slouch" seems apt (obviously, there might more statements in the sources you have already used).
 * I'll add 1 or 2 quotes like for the lyrics section. BRB. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you say most of the sources concentrate on their 'image', we probably should devote more to their fashion-sense as well. I just see "skinny jeans and guitars" . ..
 * Well, the image has to be in relation to their and THIS album's influence as it is in the Legacy section. It can't just be about them. Remember that it is an article about the album, not the band. As I've said above, I think I've covered all bases in terms of summation and comprehensiveness there: music, attire, industry. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The track listing is pretty simple, is that template really necessary?—indopug (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's come up before. TBH, I think readability and presentation often get neglected on Wikipedia. Yes, it is simple but the alternative is just a whole lot of quote marks, dashes, and numbers that will make reader's brains vomit. The article is neater this way. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I've come a bit late after a request, and it looks like the problems I found have been brought up and addressed by others already. The article looks very good, and I support the nomination. Tim  meh  02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. RB88 (T) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am close to supporting, but have a few final quibbles—
 * you continue to use "English-speaking world" even though it is such a vague descriptor (per its own article, it covers so many countries. The Strokes didn't revolutionise all those markets).
 * DONE RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Move "zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s" to the third paragraph of the lead where you discuss the impact of the album.
 * DONE RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * while I agree that Is This It did influence many bands, and started some hip fashion trends, I am not so sure it was "a zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s", or why "record is considered crucial in the development ... of the post-millennial music industry in the English-speaking world". The Legacy section only explains bands influenced by the album, and musical styles that became popular because of it. This does not translate to changing the music industry itself. As an alternative, could you add a quote in the lead instead that neatly sums up its influence? At the same time, it wouldn't like Wikipedia itself is stating that the album changed the music industry; it is an opinion that we would be attributing to somebody else.
 * That's why I said "it is considered". The lead is meant to summarise the text and I'd rather not add a quote. I did tone it down a bit however. I think influencing bands, scenes, trends, and charts is clearly influencing the music industry. Plus there's a direct quote from the Boston Herald about it. It's not just about about band influence the Legacy section. RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That pic of the band is awful. How about this one instead?—indopug (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DONE, but not that one. RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Few more I found while copy-editing yesterday:
 * "After signing with RCA, The Strokes received full artistic control from the company." and "The producer and the band were given complete control only when Casablancas persuaded the delegate..."—contradiction?
 * DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Raphael mixed as he went along to maintain control of the record until the final mastering stage, and to show The Strokes a final product as soon as the band finished performing a track"—needs a bit of a rewrite 'cause I needed to read it a couple of times to let the meaning of the sentence sink in.
 * DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "A typical concert set-up of The Strokes from 2006"—how do you know it was typical?
 * DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you modify the second paragraph of Critical reception so that it doesn't mention that The Strokes were influenced by the Velvets and Television thrice.
 * DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Music recording sales certification, platinum and gold should in lowercase in the middle of sentences.
 * DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "extremely favorable"—'extremely' generally has negative connotations, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a blander term like 'very'.
 * I've never heard the argument that an adverb like "extremely" inherently has positive or negative connotations. It depends what follows it as is the case with adverbs. I think it's fine. I use very/highly for over 80s on Metacritic and extremely for 90+. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NME blog piece that says the album is overrated and sucks, and has an awful legacy. Worthy of usage? (you do use one that calls it album of the decade)
 * NMEs consensus as a publication is that this is the next best thing since sliced bread. That's a minor view within the publication. Also, the section is called Legacy and not Non-legacy. The wide consensus is also extremely favourable. Plus, I even squeezed in the negative comments about encouraging bad copyists. RB88 (T') 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The July and August 2001 cover art"—not very clear what you are referring to here, esp. confusing since you bring dates into the picture. How about just call it the "cover art", and call the other one the "US cover"?—indopug (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the point, but it's the lesser of all evils. Anything else (I don't even know how to replace it properly) would confuse the reader, mess the flow, and ruin the timeframe. I think it's OK especially coming straight after the Release dates a paragraph before. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support—indopug (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Took you long enough. Cheers. If Wes doesn't support, I'm going round his house and smashing his virtual knees in. He'll be in bits (geddit?). I'll get my coat. RB88 (T) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlinked
 * Why is "produced" linked? Is "singles" an uncommon word? Who doesn't know what a "drum kit" is? "Amplifiers"? Under "Personnel", I can't see much that needs linking: hand up who doesn't know what a guitar is, or drums, or photography? Several items are linked for the second time. Tony   (talk)  11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Tony, I don't think it's overlinked. I went through it just now for the 1786th time. Producer and amplifier are fairly technical words or that need a better understanding by non-experts. Things like singles and drum kit may be more common, but I do write my articles for the whole spectrum of hermits to cognoscenti and the linked pages have fairly music-specific text. (A time springs to mind when someone said to link DJ cos he didn't know what they did!) As for Personnel, the convention for albums is to link the materials (and even the names sometimes) for reader ease. But I'm willing to delink them if you're that bothered. RB88 (T) 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment The only outstanding issue to me is that when I checked the references upon my initial review, it didn't seem like some details in the Release History section were supported by the references. However, as I'm currently stuck using a shoddy public computer, it's a bit of a hassle to load more page windows to double check the refs. Can others take a look at the section? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I said before, all cites support the codes even if you cross reference them. It's very easy, just click through. I don't understand what's so hard. (But maybe these straws are warming materials in the winter.) The European one you mentioned on my talk page is from Ultratop, the Belgian body, which has the Pan-European chart rankings next to the codes. But, I also found a nice shiny EU flag source to keep you happy. See, same code!. RB88 (T) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do cites 83 and 85 verify the exact release dates you listed in the table? Furthermore, can you inline cite all the release dates? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The cites are not about the dates. I don't think dates need that in the same way as track listing doesn't. It just happens/exists. Codes however are more specific and need refs (although you could argue the same there). I'm just thorough and like to source them. RB88 (T) 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to be thorough, cite everything in the table. Also, the catalogue code would be listed on the album itself (therefore being a self-reference item like a tracklist), but the full release date wouldn't (at most you get a year on the copyright notice; I don't think I've ever seen a full release date on album packaging). Thus the latter needs an inline citation more than the former. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took it all out. I can't be arsed with this anymore. Major markets are covered in prose anyway. I know you've been campaigning to have those lists removed everywhere and now you got it. Well done. So release the straws and support. I'm done on my side. RB88 (T) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love you too. Moving on, I mentioned above, "In the 'Studio Sessions' section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label?  Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?"  I reread the article section and it implies that the group moved from Rough Trade to RCA, but then the release section has Geoff Travis talking about the Australian release.  And we know that the album came out in the UK on Rough Trade. Is there further information to clarify the band's label situation?  For example, when it first got a record deal, Oasis was signed worldwide with Epic Records, expect for the UK, where they were signed to Creation as part of their contract agreement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. RB88 (T) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Awesome show, great job. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added one sentence that may need tweaking, so refs won't be left hanging in mid-air. There's an awful lot of linking in there ... do we really need links to The New York Times, guitar, and other common terms?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I tidied it up a bit. I'm surprised you consider The New York Times an overlink. Organisations always have to be linked. Also as I mentioned above, the Personnel section follows Albums which requires linking for all materials, regardless of link repetition or common words. I don't think the article is overlinked. I've gone through it tons of times. RB88 (T) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, another guideline I haven't followed :) Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.