Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radiohead


 * 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Radiohead

 * previous FAC

This article was nominated for FA previously here, but now after much work, I feel it fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for FA consideration. Atlantik (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: As a minor contributor to this article, I've seen some seriously thorough work done on it by the other editors. Easily one of Wikipedia's finest band articles. One thing I noticed from the previous FA nomination was an issue with the word "expressive" being used to describe the vocals. We've still got the word "expressive" in the lead, so perhaps it would be better to lose that adjective rather than run the risk of seeming POV. Otherwise I can't fault it. - Phorque (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems well written and well sourced. No concerns here. Scarian Call me Pat  22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Very well done indeed. Just one comment, there seems to be an extensive number of semicolons, especially in the first part. Removing those might increase the readability. I enjoyed the article though, and give you my full support. KTY! Baldrick90 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This is as good as it could ever be.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article and good subject. Kallerna (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent article, but I'm not too happy with the last section - "Legacy". First of all, it seems very short for a band who have received a lot of accolades and who have become fairly influential in recent years. Secondly, are we happy with the section title? Is it not a bit early to talk about legacy, given that they haven't split up or died? Finally, a more specific point:
 * "When asked in 2001 by MTV, "How do you guys feel about the fact that bands like Travis, Coldplay and Muse are making a career sounding exactly like your records did in 1997?", Yorke replied, "Good luck with Kid A."[4]
 * That seems like a bit too much of an in-joke. Can't you find a better quotation, preferably from a book or journal, about their influence? --kingboyk (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually rather like that quotation myself. I think it summarises well how Radiohead made a huge and revolutionary shift in their sound from "Creep" all the way through to OK Computer, Kid A and beyond that few other bands have been brave enough to do in the 1990s and 2000s.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the quote is good and says a lot. It seems so in-character with the band and with Yorke to make a self-deprecating joke like that when asked a serious/probing question about his band's influence and importance. It may not have seemed scholarly/journal material when The Sex Pistols called the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame a "piss stain", but it's sure as hell worthy of mention. - Phorque (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not even really a Radiohead fan. I used to be, but I never listen to them anymore. Despite this, I would say that that quote is representative of a good deal of Thom Yorke's attitude along with Radiohead's ideas as a band.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And as for the idea of calling it a 'legacy' section, just because a band's still together and still alive does not mean they can't have a legacy. You wouldn't say, for example, that The Rolling Stones don't have a legacy just because they're still alive, touring and occasionally recording?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The title "Legacy" is quite common for these types of sections in music FAs now. You could alter it to something like "Legacy and influence" if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: on the talk-page of the article, I have pointed out several non-compliances with WP standards, as indicated by the peerreviewer script. I strongly suggest that these issues be addressed.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
 * I've gone through the article and fixed these issues. The only issue suggested by the bot that remains to be addressed is that of compressing the article to make use of summary style, which I feel is not applicable for this article. Thanks for your comments. Atlantik (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May I recommend that you run the peerreviewer script yourself a couple of times, to really address all issues?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Let's go through them then:
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * For the record I did not realize that the link October 2007 existed in the In Rainbows section; it is now fixed. Atlantik (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
 * I've gone through and further reduced the captions, significantly weakening them, as they now describe only the bare essentials in the alloted few lines.


 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
 * I admit that I don't see how this differs from the first cited issue above; perhaps you could explain further.


 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * N/A, but others may disagree.


 * The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * Citation #1, title of the news article. Many other instances exist, but are in quotations from bandmembers.


 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * I, along with other users, have done this before the article was submitted for FA.

Atlantik (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I've made a few more edits, to deal with the minor issues. Effectively, the major issue that remains is that the article is just a very large text, rambling on about a new album and what they said about it. But it is two minutes for midnight, and I want to close the year on a pleasant note. Everybody all the best for 2008!  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment
 * coproducer or co-producer?
 * PLease check the citations - "In mid-1995, Radiohead toured in support of R.E.M., one of their formative influences and at the time one of the biggest rock bands in the world." - has the worng cite.
 * Check the links using the tool on the top of this page, i think some of them aren't 100%
 * first and thus far only live record - "first and thus far" is redundant.
 * more abstract, fragmented, dada-ist form of songwriting. - that is an opinion,especially Dada-ist, put it in quotes and say who thought it was so.
 * " This success has been variously attributed to hype; to the leaking of the album on the file-sharing network Napster a few months before its release; and to anticipation after OK Computer" - I would suggest removing this altogether because it leaves a negative image of the Kid A in the reader's mind. Wouldn't the fact that it had good music also play a part in the sales?
 * Indopug (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues you've brought up and gone through the citations. I only have a problem with your last suggestion-I think that sentence does do a good job of summarizing the reasons behind Kid A's success-while it may seem unflattering at first, I think that to remove it would be somewhat POV. Atlantik (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some external links are still not perfect. Also, I'm very iffy about the dada-ist word; you're basing it on an essay written by some undergrad! (Nevertheless, if you deem it notable, move that citation to the end of the sentence.) But apart from these small concerns, the article is almost as fantastic as its subject is and I am glad to declare my full support. indopug (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support great article, I always wondered when you'd put it in the FAC. igordebraga ≠ 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article. Much, much improved from a couple of years back. Coherently explains the band, its work and output and its contribution to popular culture - as it should do. --Richj1209 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (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.