Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paranoid Android


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008.

Paranoid Android

 * Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk), Giggy, Papa November, WesleyDodds

A current Good Article about an acclaimed 1997 Radiohead song. This article has largely come about as a result of a collaboration between Giggy, Papa November, WesleyDodds, and myself. Additionally, Peanut4 GA-reviewed the article, and Risker recently copyedited it. The article is extremely comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written, and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support as a co-nominator. Giggy (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC) For what that's worth; I forget if Sandy wants us to note this sort of thing here or not.
 * Me too. I'll help to address any comments where possible. Papa November (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from Herr Fuchs
 * Images: Iffy on Image:Paranoid Android video.png and Image:Paranoid Android CD2 back.JPG. How does a different tint and packaging necessitate an image to illustrate the prose? What purpose does the android video have, when the art style and content in the image are no commented upon? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The tint is not all that justifies Image:Paranoid Android CD2 back.JPG. The primary purpose is to illustrate everything about the back of the CDs, including its use of symbols taken from the OK Computer artwork and the overall design, all of which are discussed in the text. All of these factors combined create a need to show what the design looks like. Additionally, the content of the scene in the music video screenshot is discussed in detail, although I also added some information about the drawing style used. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the music video image concisely illustrates all the important parts of the lengthy discussion in the music video section. It's difficult to fully appreciate such things as the inaccurate depiction of the band members or the contrast between the mild-mannered protagonist and the bizarre characters he meets without an illustration.  I have expanded the fair use rationale for the image, to hopefully explain why it is so important to the discussion.  I also moved the image within the article so it sits right next to the paragraph which it most specifically illustrates. Papa November (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fair use rationales should be beefed up. How is the image low resolution? Why can no free alternatives be found? See Image:Star-trek-II-spocks-funeral.png for an example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Papa November and I significantly added to the image FURs. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, they look better now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hpfuxqy0ld6e gives a "forbidden" message when attempting to access it
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. Giggy (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with comments:
 * I don't see "Cover versions of the song have been recorded by notable artists from a wide range of musical genres, including Brad Mehldau, Easy Star All-Stars and Christopher O'Riley." as particularly vital fo the lead . . . I mean so what, almost every half-significant song has been covered.
 * Fixed. Ceoil  sláinte 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you add a quote about the song in the lead; preferably one that drives down how weird and, er, down-right mindf*cking it is.
 * I quite like the Simon Williams quote for this reason, but I'd rather not include it in the lead. "[N]ot unlike 'Bohemian Rhapsody' being played backwards by a bunch of Vietnam vets high on King's Cross-quality crack" is hilarious and covers the mindblowing aspect of the song, but it doesn't concisely sum up the song in the way I would like a quote in the lead to. Evan Sawdey got closer with the broader "sweeping, multi-tiered centerpiece", but while it sums the song up it doesn't get into the weirdness. None of the other quotes really worked either, so I ultimately didn't move any quotes to the lead. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree; I haven't really seen a quote that sums it up well (apart from the Williams one which probably shouldn't go in the lead). Giggy (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That cover versions section is rather dull and mostly unneccesry, I think. Unless multiple secondary sources (or the band themselves) specifically single out the covers' for comment, like Tori Amos' "Teen Spirit" or Dinosaur Jr's "Just Like Heaven", there's no need to mention them really.
 * Fully agree. No need to big up the article with multiple small claims. Ceoil  sláinte 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I significantly trimmed up the covers section, cutting out a lot of the previously mentioned covers. There's also a bit more about the Radiodread and Sia covers. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Check for British English spellings: "humorous" etc...
 * Fixed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless secondary sources mention discuss what's written on the back of the CD cover, I don't think it counts as notable for us to include. indopug (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim Footman discusses it; added a bit about that. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment  'Support. (as long inactive but still an alt rock project member) Its very good. Some small things from the first half I've read:
 * bleak but intentionally humourous song - I have a problem with this; ok they named it after the robot and the other (non-thom) guys were joking around when they put it together, but ASFAIK or have heard there is nothing funny about the finished product.
 * primarily written by singer Thom Yorke contradicts the later claims that it was drawn from 3 seprate pieces written by 3 seperate members of the band. A wild guess are the sources contradicting each other that since post Kid a the band members have to tow the Yorke line; he wrote it - nothing to do with us. Again, "Paranoid Android" is categorised by three distinct moods written in what Yorke referred to as three different states of mind." Right. It might not be possible to resolve this, but it could be implied - in 1999 Greenwood said, in 2000 Greenwood admitted, in 2001 York "declared/ decreed" ;).  Ceoil  sláinte 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it there might some miscommumication of the possible fact that Yorke wrote the lyrics (which would seem like the sort of thing that would be mostly his job), not the music. As currently phrased, "primarily written by singer Thom Yorke" is not supported by the body of the article. I'll leave it up to Brandt Luke Zorn to decide what to do with it, since he's read more of the sources than I have. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * aah, understood, sorry slow there, but clafaried now. I'll happily support this on the basis that it cover the subject matter in fine detail, is well written and carries the reader along (although the 'packaging' and 'cover versions' sections are dull - i'd even kill cover versions bit altoghter), and the sourcing is fine. A second sound sample-or a third to cover all three sections-wouldn't be out of order. Ceoil  sláinte 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Well written.
 * I personally did not understand how Thom Yorks words make sense regarding "it's actually my opinion that is of no consequence at all"
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean here; Is the wording in the article unclear? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "quite [] affectionate [], " are those brackets correctly placed? isn't it normal to have [ ... ] if the intent is to signify a gap? Greetings, and good luck.--Kiyarr lls- talk 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.