Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joey Santiago


 * 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Joey Santiago
Guitarist of the American alternative rock band Pixies. Quite an interesting article to write actually. Objections should be addressed quickly. CloudNine 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Great work. All my issues were addressed in the peer review. Tommy Stardust 07:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. My comments at the peer review were professionally addressed. Santiago is not exactly the most documented figure in rock, but this article represents a systematic marshalling of the information available. Another valuable contribution to the Wikipedia Pixies coverage by CloudNine.qp10qp 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice. All of my concerns were taken care of after I passed it as a GA. At that point a Peer Review was unnecessary in my eyes; it's FA class without a doubt. NSR 77  T C  16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great work, again Cloud nine. To take issue with Qp10qp; a lot has been recorded, spoken, and written about this guitarist. In quite places though; and CloudNine has found them all. Ceoil 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's a surprising amount of information about said guitarist. Expanding Dave Lovering is the real challenge now. CloudNine 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I like this article a great deal. I made some edits, many minor, to help tighten it up a bit. I have some other concerns and questions, but I lean toward support. Here are the problematic things I saw (in order of appearance, not importance):
 * NOTE: I hope you don't mind, but to make this now long page easier to read, I've taken the liberty of replacing your instances of "Done" with the template ✅, and also added it in other places where you indicated that you finished off the issue but hadn't written "Done." --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the lead, there are several years mentioned, but no years are given to place the Pixies heyday. It's a little strange to be introduced to Santiago in the first sentence and be told he's best known as being part of the Pixies, then be told they broke up in 1993 without having been told when they were playing in the first place. Perhaps this is as simple as adding "in the late 1980s and early 1990s" to the first sentence, or perhaps there's a better way to do this. But I think it's pretty important to place the era of Santiago's best known music in the first sentence.
 * ✅ I think I had this before, but removed it in the interests of brevity.
 * In the "Youth and college" section, does his birthdate bear repeating? I've seen many WP biographies that do not repeat it, since it's in both the lead and infobox.
 * In my opinion, yes. It gives a context to the start of the biography.
 * In the "Pixies" section, the following sentence is confusing: "They both took temporary jobs working in a warehouse, with Santiago working for a butcher block company." The first clause makes it sound like they worked in the same warehouse, but the second phrase makes it sound like Santiago worked at the butcher block company and implies that Thompson worked in some other warehouse. Which is it?
 * ✅ Hopefully I've clarified this now.
 * "Pixies" section. "The pair arrived at a name after Santiago selected the word randomly from a dictionary and liked the definition, 'mischievous little elves.'" Should that comma be a colon?
 * When I've seen sources mention the definition, it's usually with a comma.
 * "Pixies" section. "The Pixies rehearsed throughout 1985 and 1986, and began touring around Boston in late 1986 and during 1987." Were they playing only in the Boston metropolitan area at this time? (I think so.) If so, "touring" isn't the right term. "Touring" implies leaving home to go on the road. They lived in Boston, and therefore it is more correct to say that they "began performing around Boston." If they actually played beyond the metropolitan area that early, then say something like they "began touring around New England."
 * ✅ Nope, just Boston in the early days. Clarified with "performed".
 * "Pixies" section. "Santiago met his future wife, Linda Mallari, when he sat beside her after a 1987 Pixies concert at The Rathskeller." The Rat is (was?) a tiny club. What a hole! But what a great venue—I fell in love there in 1986... but I digress. Ahem. Anyway, The Rat was just a small club (not a theater or concert hall), so most people would not label a performance at a small club like that a concert. The most accurate American rock term would be "show," or "gig," not "concert," or in lieu of those, "performance." But "concert" implies a longer performance at a large venue, neither of which were true about a Pixies show at The Rat in 1987.
 * ✅ Indeed. I've always "gig", "show" and "concert" as interchangable, but I can see your point here. Replaced with "show".
 * Also, no one called The Rat by its full, formal name. If I remember correctly, all their advertisements and the club's sign during those years said simply "The Rat." I think you'd be more accurate going with that. How do your books refer to it? Are there any photos of the door? Reprints of Pixies bills?
 * I tend to use "The Rathskellar", because that's the name of the Wikipedia article on the place and its proper name. An analogy would be "Coca-Cola" and "Coke".
 * I see your logic, but I'm not sure the analogy works in this case. Everyone knows that "Coca-Cola" is "Coke", but most people from Boston I know would say, "Where was The Rathskellar? I never heard of it." I don't think it's correct to use the WP article's name as your guide on this; if your reference material says "The Rat" 99% of the time, then I think you should say "The Rat." I doubt you will find a single quote from the Pixies or journalists referring to "The Rathskellar"—or a gig flyer, etc. Go to your sources for guidance, not the WP article on the club. If no one, including the club itself in its ads and signage, called it "The Rathskellar" in the 1980s and beyond, then its original "proper name" has ceased to be in usage and is not correct. --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replaced it with the Rat for now. You were right; I couldn't find a quote. I'll probably put in a move request on The Rathskellar soon to clarify things. CloudNine (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pixies" section. You write, "his trademark erratic lead guitar." I think this comes off more negatively than you intend—it can be taken to mean that he lacked control over his instrument, and I'm sure we agree that that's not the case. It also doesn't illuminate what he sounds like very well, and this is the first mention of his style in the body of the article. I think "angular," "stabbing," "piercing," "volcanic" and a host of other adjectives would be more appropriate.
 * ✅ Good point. I've replaced it with "angular" for now.
 * Also, I know that the main Pixies article is linked, but is there further information in your sources that could be discussed here about how Santiago developed his guitar sound during this early Pixies time? It was quite remarkable and influential, and it might be nice to hear more about some of the landmark moments that happened musicially during this time, if possible. I know that as a musician, I'd like to hear just a few key Santiago arranging and/or recording anecdotes in this section, lest it be too weighted toward being a chronological list of events.
 * Sure. I'll be working on this.
 * "Pixies" section. "...; the Pixies had released three albums in two years, as well as constantly touring." This seems grammatically incorrect, though I must apologize that I can't explain exactly the term for it. I think the verbs need to agree; as it is, the last phrase seems to dangle. How about "...; the Pixies had released three albums in two years, while touring constantly"?
 * ✅ Perhaps it's a dangling modifier? Rephrased; it reads much better now.
 * On to "The Martinis..." section. "The band played live only occasionally, and toured until 2001." This is an odd combination. First you say that they rarely played out, then you say that they were touring until 2001. Did they actually play extended tours or did they only play occasional shows? Not sure what the reality is, but this needs more clarity.
 * Hopefully I've clarified it now.
 * That's better, but it might be good to additionally write (in the Smitten paragraph) that although they did continue to do studio work, they no longer played live.
 * Done. Thanks.
 * "The Martinis..." section. You write, "a limited edition extended play"—perhaps this is WP's encylopedic style, but I've never seen this written out in writing about rock. Is it OK to say "EP"?
 * I tend to favour clarity over brevity; not everyone knows what an EP stands for.
 * True, but because almost no one says or writes "extended play," it's not particularly clarifying to know what "EP" stands for. No one commonly says "I just bought a fantastic '70s soul long play"—they say "LP". That's the term that has more meaning, because it has more usage, and many people have no idea what the abbreviation stands for. It's the same for EP; many music fans know what "EP" means—fewer songs than an "LP" but more than a single—but couldn't tell you what the abbreviation actually stands for, and the word "extended" is not specifically meaningful anyway. Also, "extended play" is awkward to say within a sentence without saying "extended play record" or "extended play album," whereas "EP" is commonly said on its own. Therefore, I'd suggest using "EP" with a link rather than "extended play". I think it's better for Wikipedia to follow the style of how music writers write about these things rather than to impose phraselogy that isn't commonly used.
 * ✅ Replaced with EP for now. I see your point.
 * Section organizational problem. "The Martinis and later projects" and "Smitten and Pixies reunion" are a little odd organizationally. These were the thoughts that arose as I read these two sections: 1) Why did a new section start when I'm still reading about The Martinis? Shouldn't The Martinis stuff be together in one section? 2) Wait, that first section was mostly about things other than The Martinis... 3) Why is this section named for a rather obscure album, Smitten? 4) Why is that obscure album given equal weight with the Pixies reunion in the section title? 5) Why am I reading about his **Weeds work twice, at the end of both of these sections? There are probably several ways you could solve these problems. Both sections are short—you could combine them into one. Or, put everything but the Pixies reunion in the first section, then have the final section contain only the reunion info. Whatever you do, you'll need to retitle the section(s), and I would suggest putting something about film and TV composing in the title, since this seems very important to his recent career, and is emphasized in the text.
 * A very good point. I believe I've addressed all your points (except perhaps the last).
 * "Musical style" section. You write, "Santiago still often speaks of a lack of confidence on the guitar; as he was learning the instrument, he saw himself as a self-conscious amateur." This is oddly contradictory. First you say he still speaks of something that hasn't been mentioned before. Then you link the idea via semi-colon to how he felt when he was learning, as if this backs up or carries on the idea in the previous statement. I think it would make more sense to say, "As Santiago was learning the guitar, he saw himself as a self-conscious amateur; surprisingly, he still often speaks of a lack of confidence in his playing."
 * That sentence has always been an awkward construction. I've replaced it with your version.
 * Discography. I could be missing something about WP music article style here, but having each subsection start with "With..." seems to imply that Santiago was a guest who recorded with the listed groups, and that's only true of Frank Black. Disregard my take if this is the dominant WP style, but I would do one of two things instead: "Pixies," "With Frank Black," and "The Martinis," or "As a member of the Pixies," "With Frank Black," and "As a member of the The Martinis."
 * ✅ Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
 * Discography. Could you distinguish between which projects he was a sideman on, which he composed, and/or which he was the headlining act? In particular, how is he billed on the Weeds soundtrack—simply as composer, or is he also the artist?
 * Notes. The citation punctuation seems inconsistent in its use of periods at the end of items.
 * Hopefully I've addressed this.
 * Hmm, not sure what you did, because I still see inconsistency. This is why I don't like cite templates; some of them show periods (full stops?) at the end of each citation, but others don't. The resulting Notes sections then display an inconsistent format. Not sure what to say about this. I find it irritating, but it's not that big a deal, I guess. But if it was me, I'd forego the different cite templates and simply write out the footnotes as they should be, because that gives you complete control over how they appear. BTW, I just added a period to the end of the first book reference; the second one had one, but the first one didn't. Then I realized that the books were in quotes (like articles) instead of in italics, so I fixed that, and then I saw that the formats weren't the same for both books, so I unified them as per WP:CITE. The only thing missing is the city where the books were published, so you may want to add that per Harvard referencing style for books.
 * I'm guessing you mean the book references? I've seen many FAs that have a period at the end of a web reference, but not a book one. I do use cite web though, as it's incredibly helpful. I'll look up the city.
 * Good work! --Melty girl (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a thorough review. I'll be working on your detailed comments throughout the week. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing a great article—it was fun to read. --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 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.