Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OK Computer/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 GrahamColm 17:43, 10 October 2012.

OK Computer

 * Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this should be a featured article because, for an album that has proven to have central and lasting significance in popular music history, I'm confident that this article reaches the highest standard for completeness, depth of research and quality of writing. It's been a long time coming, with on-and-off work from many editors over the course of several years now, and the feeling is that the article is ready for the FAC process. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Initial comment - Like Brandt, I'm a member of WikiProject Alternative music and have contributed my fair share to the article (though certainly not as much as him). First thing I notice is that some of the newspaper/magazine article refs cite pages and some don't. Be consistent on whether or not you're going to include page numbers for them (page numbers aren't mandatory for newspaper and magazine pieces, by the way). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I took out the page numbers for magazine and newspaper articles, since the information is not available for all of the sources. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(disclaimer: I'm a member of WP:ALM and had the article in my watchlist for a while)
 * Comments
 * The lead sentence has two dates, neither of which is the one in infobox. I understand why that's so, but it's still confusing. I suggest simplifying to "released in (mid- ?) 1997 on Parlophone and Capitol."
 * Simplified


 * Overlinking: end credits, motorways, aeroplanes, copyright notice and other common terms.
 * Trimmed the ones you mentioned, will check for more.


 * Length: this is my only real concern. Yes, this article is comprehensive as can be but does it become too overwhelming? For eg, Critical reception: if the praise was near-unanimous, why quote fourteen similar-sounding reviews at length?
 * Will review
 * I majorly curbed the quotes in Critical reception. I think now it's summarized pretty well. I'll likely shorten the reception to the reissues as well.
 * Shortened the reissue section by a paragraph.


 * The Tracks sections, too, are very long and exhausting reads; I think several quotes and descriptions can be trimmed. For eg: any one of ' "cacophonous", "claustrophobic", "monumental chaos" ' can describe that song. Also, remember that this section is to discuss the songs' music and lyrics, not whether they are good or bad ("the dark heart of the masterpiece [OK Computer] or the most skippable track in the Radiohead canon.").
 * Will review, and removed the quote you mentioned.
 * Reviewed these sections and took out the parts I felt were extraneous. Feel free to review this further. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another issue of excessive detail—""—technical details like this (with brand names) are probably unnecessary as well. Wouldn't just "delay pedal" suffice?—indopug (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed this. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also check that the article doesn't repeat itself; for example millennialism in both Critical reception and Cultural response. "Lucky" stuff in Tracks and Background.
 * Will review.
 * I fixed both the cases you brought up. The only other redundancy I've found is the progressive rock comparisons at the ends of Critical reception and Musical influence sections, but in this case I think it's justified because it's in different contexts. But let me know what you think about that particular instance. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Gang of Four's Andy Gill does not review records for the Independent. :)
 * Fixed


 * Refs for notes 4,5,6? (move from main text to here so the prose isn't cluttered)
 * Moved (good call)
 * Why don't you use regular tags in the notes as well?—indopug (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I tested this out when I first added the notes, but it doesn't seem to be possible in WikiML to embed references (even of a different group) within references. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are art rock, post-Britpop and New Labour in quotes?
 * Fixed


 * IMO year-end awards and accolades are not retrospective reception but contemporary; para 1 of Retro should be in Critical accalaim.
 * Moved


 * Sorry to be blunt, but those four pullout quotes are rather dull, and repetitive of stuff already said. If you want a pullout quote, why not Chris Martin?
 * I took out the Stipe and Marr quotes, since they said virtually the same things, and not particularly original things either. I think the Davis and Lavelle quotes have some impact and add something. The idea of throwing up the Martin quote is tantalizing, but I really don't want to emphasize something that inane :P.


 * Copyediting needed: "work on the artwork" stands out, plenty of sentences can be trimmed to remove redundancy. But no big issues. (I'll chip in later)
 * Will review
 * I fixed the example you brought up. I've been gradually fixing cases of awkward wording as I find them.
 * Started copy-editing. Removed the five-member introduction as I don't think anybody who doesn't know them already will be able to remember five new names at a stretch. Best to introduce them as they come up in the prose.—indopug (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)—
 * I'm cool with this. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly like this sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why isn't Greg Kot in the review box?
 * Fixed


 * Pitchfork and PopMatters shouldn't be italicised; check the others (check their wiki-article if you're not sure).
 * Fixed, although I think they should be italicized despite being online only (the only reason I can think of for why they aren't). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

All in all, this is an excellent article that only needs a trim for repetitions and minor details to be FA-worthy.—indopug (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've responded to all the major points. One unresolved point is when to introduce the band since Dodds liked it. I'm fine with either way. We could await further comments, or you guys could duke it out. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see the point of having a photo of Tony Blair in the 'Commentary and interpretation' section just because Yorke criticized Blair. It's like saying, "In case you were wondering what Blair looks like, here's a picture of him." Seems kind of irrelevant to the album to me. --Viennese Waltz 13:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's any more irrelevant than the pictures of Davis or Chomsky. It's not necessary, but I think it's nevertheless relevant and useful. It helps to color the article a bit and provide historical context. It also captures Blair very close to the time that Yorke made his criticisms; I would not have used a photo of Blair anytime before 97 or after 98. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Some suggestions though. I revised the Chicago Tribune score (they use a four-star scale), so perhaps the sentence "Reviewers for Entertainment Weekly,[127] the Chicago Tribune,[126] and Time[136] were mixed or contained qualified praise." shouldn not include that publication. The two "tracks" subsections seem to veer from the preceding subsections' prose about the album in more general terms, instead detailing each song in specific. Maybe "tracks" should be under a separate "content" or "songs" section. Also, I'm not sure if a singles chart is necessary, as they each have their own article. Otherwise, superb and interesting article. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed this album was certified in the US, UK and Canada. I made a certification table that could be placed in a section below the charts per WP:ALBUMSEL, at my sandbox here. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's only three certifications worldwide, we probably don't need the table, just prose, though it would be handy if there were, say, more than five, to give a number. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Found three more for six certifications. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With six certs, I'm not opposed to adding a table in a "Chart positions and certifications" section. My only concern is the way those certification templates treat references. I'd want to reuse references from earlier in the article and archive links when possible. Is there a way to get around the default reference settings? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Used the "certref" parameter to create manual citations from the template's original links and archived them using WebCite; RIAA and BPI websites cant be archived correctly, so whatever preceding reference in the article that cited them can have its "ref name" anchor placed in the "certref" parameter in their respective certification template. BTW, certifications should probably have their own section as suggested by the style guide. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Added it to the article. Thanks for the support! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In-depth comments The article is looking pretty good, but there's some stuff that should be addressed before I can give my support:
 * The flow of the lead paragraphs is fairly choppy. Ex. "OK Computer was the first self-produced Radiohead album, with assistance from Nigel Godrich.", "The band made a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from the guitar-oriented, lyrically introspective style of their previous album, The Bends. OK Computer's abstract lyrics, densely layered sound and wide range of influences laid the groundwork for Radiohead's later, more experimental work."
 * How would you suggest rewording it? I've tried to be as simple as possible in the lead.
 * The content is sound; it's more the flow is choppy, especially compared to the rest of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The note describing the sound of The Bends is not necessary for context.
 * I like it, it sums up the band's sound from Pablo Honey onward and catches the reader up on Radiohead so far. It's not vitally necessary, but I think that makes it a good note as opposed to part of the main prose.
 * It's pretty superfluous. "In 1995, Radiohead were touring in support of their acclaimed second album The Bends" tells readers all they need to know to jump into this article. If they want to know anything further, they can just go to The Bends. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Midway through the tour, Brian Eno requested them" sounds awkward.
 * Reworded


 * Trim or paraphrase that quote from Jonny about the Dire Straits records on Jane Seymour's wall.
 * Trimmed


 * Looking at an earlier version of the Recording section, I note that some details I added way back when about Yorke's dominance in the recording session early on and his own opinion of why Canned Applause was unsatisfactory have been removed. The bit about Yorke being "the loudest voice" should definitely be restored.
 * Restored; not sure when or why these bits left.


 * The track-by-track breakdown is overly-detailed; that's where a lot of the article's excess length is coming from, in my opinion. With the singles, especially, there's details included better suited for the individual articles, as they don't have much to do with OK Computer as a whole. The standard options for covering the musical content of albums have typically involved the extremes of sticking to a broad summary like you and I did on Loveless (album) way back when (Remember that one? Good times.), or giving each song its own article (which given the depth of sources, could be doable). However, I posit pioneering a third option: split the track-by-track breakdown into a subarticle called Songs of OK Computer or something like that. Such an article would allow you to cover songs that aren't notable enough to have their own articles, and would prevent this article from getting bogged down with minutiae.
 * Including each song was inspired by Blonde on Blonde—And the section in OK Computer is actually shorter than that one. A couple other Dylan albums (and now Kid A) are written song-by-song. I don't think right now that an entire subarticle would be a good idea, but maybe if it gets to the point where every OK Computer song has its own article then this section could be diminished.
 * I have to say, I find the track section in Blonde on Blonde very inelegant, especially considering each song from that album has its own article. If I had been at that FAC, I would've raised some hard questions about it. But enough of that article: the main difference between these two pages is that this one is nearly twice as long as the Blonde on Blonde article, even if the track-by-track breakdown here is shorter. At 119kb, this page is well past the point where splitting into subarticles starts becoming an option (see WP:SIZERULE). The song details are the most logical elements to spin off. As I mentioned above possible options are to move the song details that aren't directly relevant to OK Computer as a whole into the song articles, or make a "Songs of OK Computer" subarticle where you can more or less move the whole Tracks paragraphs wholesale and add "main article" links where appropriate (such a subpage would not necessitate that every song have its own article). Either way, there's got to be a more concise way to discuss the music without going point-by-point--that's fine for a book, a bit of a drag for an encyclopedia article. Also, it'll help you cut down on the amount of non-free media currently in the article (currently at six items: three soundclips and three images). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that the best thing to do is going to be to pare it all down into like two or three paragraphs and then split off all the individual songs. I really do think that this is one of the few albums that could merit each song having an article, much like Blonde on Blonde or up-and-comer My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. I just know it's going to be a tremendous amount of work to do it right. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth one of the songs dissected in detail in the book Inside Classic Rock Tracks that I own is "Let Down". WesleyDodds (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the song sections have been removed from Kid A; they were added by an IP who sourced it entirely to a fan-site.—indopug (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the material in Release and Promotion could be rearranged to be either neater chronologically or neater thematically. Currently in that section, you have the band releasing the album worldwide between May and June, then embarking on a world tour that starts in May 1997 and runs until August 1998, then they go back to releasing "Paranoid Android" as the lead single, then the album debuts on the charts.
 * I rearranged this section to make more chronological sense.
 * This read much better. Though now I wonder, can you dig up a secondary source to verify the months of release for the "Karma Police" and "No Surprises" singles? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pulled from the Clarke book. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Everyhit is not considered a reliable source.
 * Fixed


 * Interesting inconsistency among the sources. Randall (and I think Harris, too, but I haven't double-checked) say "Paranoid Android" did not receive much radio play, but Melody Maker says it did.
 * From the Paranoid Android article: "As the song's popularity grew, Radio 1 played it up to 12 times a day." That's over an hour of "Paranoid Android" every day. I think we can come down on the side that it got played a lot.


 * The cite for the album's US sales is missing a publication title.
 * Fixed


 * You shouldn't link internally to the article when discussing the sales certifications.
 * Fixed


 * As I've mentioned to you before, the review boxes are unnecessary, particularly in this article where the books describe critical consensus very effectively. But they are optional, so keep 'em if you like. But you don't need them.
 * Eh, gonna keep 'em. I know the boxes aren't needed but I feel like it's an uphill battle to eliminate them and people seem to think they're useful.


 * The BBC Lusk review shouldn't be used to cite factual information, as it is currently used in the Commentary and interpretation and Musical influence sections. A review is an opinion piece after all, not reporting or a historical analysis.
 * Replaced by two historically inclined sources.


 * I think that note explaining what Britpop is and how it decline becomes unnecessary if you move the Harris info up to the top. As I recall from the Britpop book, he explicitly contrasts the arrival of OK Computer with the decline of Britpop in the pages cited.
 * Probably, but I think it's worth an explanatory note to sum up Britpop and its decline. I think Harris's quotes makes the most thematic sense where they are now.
 * This could probably be trimmed down, though. I'll try to take a stab at it myself soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Good luck with Kid A!" sentence is fun to read, but for context you don't need it. End the paragraph after cite 173, because by running on to include the "Good luck with Kid A!" bit, then the paragraph starts to move too far away from OK Computer.
 * I have considered removing this before, but I think this actually has much more to do with OK Computer than Kid A. I mean, this exactly encapsulates the band's (well, Yorke's... so, the band's) response to OK Computer's influence. I know it comes after, but it's a look back at OK Computer
 * "Radiohead described the pervasiveness of bands that "sound like us" as one reason to break with the style of OK Computer for their next album, Kid A." is a pretty satisfactory end to the paragraph. By adding that extra line, though, then it starts to become more about Kid A, which makes for a jarring transition when in the next paragraph we have to return to OK Computer. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Taken out. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you could find a source that states a lot of musicians have praised the album, that would do away with the need to painstakingly itemize each plaudit someone in a band has given the album.
 * I honestly like how it is right now, with the lists out of the main text but still there for reference. I think a quote saying "lots of people like this album" or "lots of bands sound like this" doesn't do the same thing as actually demonstrating where the influence has materialized.
 * It's more authoritative and more elegant to find a single source that condenses the praise; that would eliminate the need for the note which merely rattles off the many names of musicians who like the album. The praise that appears in the article body and the pull quotes will balance it out so that the broad statements have some grounding in specifics. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, this part I still want to defend. I feel like any one quote is gonna simplify it to an abstract cloud of influence, whereas this way the exact prominent musicians impacted by the album are documented and cited for the curious reader. It does rattle a bit, yes, but it's out of the main text and I think the inelegance is worth the precision. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't think you need to list all the prog bands mentioned by the Guardian in a note unless the article says they were explicitly inspired by Radiohead and OK Computer.
 * Removed, good catch.


 * You have four citations for the sentence "The reissue was connected in the press to a general upswing in vinyl sales and cultural appreciation of records as a format". Any way to pair this down? I would hope one would suffice.
 * I think all of them are necessary—there isn't one source saying precisely that "The press thinks OK Computer is a very important album in the vinyl upswing," but they all mention it as a prominent reissue and a top seller, so it's clear that the album got a lot of mentions in the press.
 * The Tiny Mix Tapes article is quoting the Rolling Stone post also cited, so one of them can go. The Chicago Tribune article mentions the vinyl reissue in passing, in a way that's redundant to other sources. Possibly use the Independent source to cite the reissue program, as that one ties it into the upsurge in vinyl sales. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a more factual source to back up the statement that the rerelease was not remastered? Otherwise we're trusting a reviewer for that info.
 * I think it's telling that none of the other reviews or announcements of the reissues mention that the albums had been remastered, seeing as this would have been a highly relevant feature of the reissues if a remaster had taken place.
 * But if no one really made a fuss about it not being remastered aside from one reviewer (and even then, how does he know? Did he interview someone or cite a source to verify his claim?) then it's not really worth including. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Removed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I recall, "Bibliography" is not a recommended header for a section listing books cited, as it can also mean books written by a subject.
 * Changed


 * As a kind of idle aside, I'm surprised the Guitar World "Golden Age of Radiohead" article is not cited more in the Music section, given that's a publication that specifically deals with musical theory, performance, songwriting, production, and insight, as opposed to more critically-geared musical publications like the Rolling Stone and Spins of the world.
 * I reviewed the article, and there's a reason it's not used extensively in the music section. Almost 3/4 of the article has to do with the band's pre-OK Computer history, and very little to do with the music on OK Computer. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing all my points addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as we continue to work out solutions to the last remaining points, I want to say that in any event this article is very, very close to being the best album article Wikipedia has ever offered, and for that I congratulate BLZ for his extensive and long-running efforts to bring it to this point. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated :) --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Final comments
 * On several occasions you have listed out names of publications that makes for inelegant reading: "NME,[85] Melody Maker,[136] The Guardian,[70] and Q.[82]", "Rolling Stone,[131] Spin,[38] and Pitchfork Media[130]", "Entertainment Weekly,[129] the Chicago Tribune,[128] and Time[138]", "Mojo, Vox, Entertainment Weekly, Hot Press, Muziekkrant OOR, HUMO, Eye Weekly and Inpress", "NME, Melody Maker, Rolling Stone, Village Voice, Spin and Uncut. Q and Les Inrockuptibles", "NME, Melody Maker, Alternative Press,[145] Spin,[146] Pitchfork Media,[147] Time[148] and Slant[149]", "BBC Music,[151] The A.V. Club[152] Slant[153] and Paste[154]", "Allmusic,[190] Uncut,[195] Q,[194] Rolling Stone[193] and PopMatters[198]"—eight instances, all within a short space of each other.
 * There are several ways to deal with the above. I'll leave you to choose what's appropriate (with only a few suggestions)
 * Leave as is (the "It topped the year-end polls" list is necessary, I think)
 * Create into a note (the "The album came second" list)
 * Remove list completely from prose and bundle refs in the sentence into a single one. (The reissues list and the mixed-reviews list)


 * As for the Tracks sections, if they were transferred a separate songs article, I think it the remaining music and lyrics info would need beefing up.
 * A slightly out-of-the-box suggestion: I've seen Tony recommend at FAC the removal of "chain links" in articles with a high-density of linking. Eg: in 'Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody"' or 'Bob Dylan song "Subterranean Homesick Blues"', you delink the artist, as the adjacent song/album/book/movie linked-article would anyway have it. I won't press on this (it might have it's own disadvantages), but it might help reduce the sea of blue in sentences like '"Fall on Me" by R.E.M., "Dress" by PJ Harvey and "A Day in the Life" by The Beatles'.
 * Why does "Critics have compared the style of the guitar-playing to Pink Floyd and, more broadly, arena rock" need to be backed by four cites?—indopug (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Regardless of the above comments, as Wesley says this article is one of the best album articles on Wikipedia (my favourite remains Loveless, also yours, but that has an inherently better story). It is definitely worthy of the album itself. I look forward to seeing several more from you.—indopug (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments reading through now. I'll make straightforward tweaks as I go and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK Computer was the first self-produced Radiohead album, with assistance from Nigel Godrich. - album title mentioned in the sentence before, and "Radiohead" used in both preceding and following sentence. Can we possibly reword.....


 * In the lyrics subsection, both paras begin with "Yorke's lyrics..." - can this be tweaked as it is a tad repetitious...


 * Scanning down from Critical reception, I count seven paras starting with "OK Computer...." - bit repetitious. If you really can't find an alternate way then ok.


 *  with direct comparisons to Pink Floyd's 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon cropping up frequently among critics and fans - are the last 4 words necessary?

To be honest though, I am reduced to minor nitpicks....nice read and I think we're over the line prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. I did see some words I wondered whether we could remove but wasn't 100% sure it wouldn't introduce ambiguity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


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