Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Title TK/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2016.

Title TK

 * Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The recording of the Breeders' Title TK album was filled with lots of affecting episodes, which are summed up succinctly in this new Featured Article Candidate. I invite you to read this engaging account of the highs and lows of the recording sessions, and get privy to details about their end results. The article was originally reviewed for GA in late 2014 by Sparklism, and more recently peer-reviewed and/or copy-edited by John, Famous Hobo, FrB.TG, SchroCat, and IndianBio. I look forward to all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I said everything I had t say at the PR. I can't find anything else preventing me from endorsing this article's promotion to FA. Good job! FrB.TG (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, FrB.TG, and thank you again for all of your suggestions in the PR.


 * Image check: No image copyright issues. Support. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)`
 * Thanks a lot for your support and you image check, Stifle—I really appreciate it!


 * Support Article is looking really good and this seems to be the next logical step, well done!  Rob van  vee  14:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Robvanvee. I'm glad you like the article, and I appreciate your support. :-)


 * Hello! Hopefully I'll review this article tomorrow, could you ping me on Friday if I haven't begun work on this? Thank you. pedro home | talk  15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi pedro. Thank you very much. I will definitely ping you on Friday if you haven't started work on it by then. I'm looking forward to you feedback, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thank you again for your interest in this article. As you requested, I'm pinging you. :-) Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I had my say at PR, and think this is up to FA standards. Good work - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks really a lot for all your help and your support, SchroCat!


 * Support: I really like the way the images are aligned now, facing the article rather than away from them. So I can support this article for being promoted as featured article. — I B  [ Poke  ] 08:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, IB! I really appreciate your contributions to the article and your support. Moisejp (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed this for GA and it's been on my watchlist ever since. Looking at it again now, I can see that it's come a long way since that review, and I think it meets the FA criteria. Great stuff! — sparklism hey! 14:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your support, Sparklism. Also, thank you during the GA review for pushing me to expand the article beyond what it originally was. I seriously believe it wouldn't have this far if I hadn't scoured my sources and expanded it, thanks to your prompting! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well I'm late to the party. Anyway, I read through this article twice now, and honestly, it's a great read. In case this hasn't gotten enough supports, here's an additional Support. I guess I can try to make myself useful and do a source review, if you need one. oh and by the way Moisejp, I'm going to eventually get back to that "Help Is on the Way" peer review, and address the comments, just taking a small break from song articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Famous Hobo, thank you so much for your support and for your feedback during PR. Sure, if you would like to do a source review, that would be awesome and very much appreciated! Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Prism
 * I don't think you can use the genres listed on the AllMusic sidebar, so alternative pop-rock should be changed to "alternative rock" which is actually written on the review.
 * OK, I've changed it as I don't have a strong opinion. But I am a little curious about why you feel we can't use the genres listed on the AllMusic sidebar. In theory, the genres in the AllMusic sidebar seem to be specific to the album itself, while Phares' review suggests the band is part of the alternative rock genre, which doesn't eliminate the possible that a band could dabble in other genres (for certain albums) different from their main one? In this particular case, the difference between "alternative rock" (which I had been linking to anyway) and "alternative pop-rock" seems negligible. But in other cases, when one is trying to find a good source for the genre of a particular album, the AllMusic sidebars are, I find, really handy.
 * That is only because I remember stumbling upon a WP page where editors were advised to ignore those AllMusic boxes, and only to use them in case other reviews were nonexistent or did not mention an album's genre.


 * and the output from these sessions was supplemented with two tracks recorded in Los Angeles
 * I think this comment is meant to suggest cutting "with engineers Andrew Alekel and Mark Arnold"? If you feel strongly about this, I can do it. I was just a little concerned then it might sound like they recorded the two songs with Albini in Los Angeles. What do you think?
 * Oops, I meant to say that this is lacking another reference to the album. You're saying that the combination of those sessions resulted in Title TK itself but I feel like you need to mention the album again.
 * OK, I've added "for Title TK" to this sentence. Thank you for the suggestion.


 * Perhaps this is a question of personal preference but may I suggest switching funny for humorous? Feel free to disregard this one.
 * Done.


 * the way the arrangements → "how the arrangements"
 * Done, thanks.


 * "by the band's 1993 album Last Splash" This is relatively vague. Did they leave during the recording, the release or...?
 * Kelley Deal replaced Tanya Donnelly before the recording of the 1992 EP Safari; most sources say Britt Walford (using a pseudonym) was on Safari and that Macpherson replaced him for the recording of Last Splash (although I believe Erlewine says it was Macpherson who used the pseudonym for Safari). I wanted to simplify all of this for my breezy background account. The vagueness of "by the band's 1993 album Last Splash" is from this point of view possibly a good thing. Just now I considered changing "by the band's 1993 album Last Splash" to "before the recording of the 1993 album Last Splash". But I'm worried that by being more specific here, it sounds like Kelley Deal and Jim Macpherson both joined right before Last Splash was recorded. But if you have a good solution for this point, or disagree with me, I'm very flexible about reworking this sentence, thanks.
 * Leave it be then, no problem.


 * I'm confused by how the infobox and the prose alternate between "The Breeders" and "the Breeders"
 * It's unfortunate, in the infobox the same parameter populates "Studio album by XXX" and "XXX chronology". So either one is stuck with "Studio album by The Breeders" (if "The Breeders" is used for that parameter) or "the Breeders chronology" (if "the Breeders" is used). I realize "Studio album by The Breeders" is inconsistent with my usage of "the" mid-sentence throughout the article. If you have a solution, I'd be happy to hear it. But I am strongly against using "The" mid-sentence in the main text of the article.
 * Yes, it seems like that's tricky. No problem.


 * [went] AWOL in New York: I feel like this could be paraphrased.
 * I'm happy to rephrase it. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to do so? I'll also have a think.
 * I just remembered that I did have it paraphrased in an earlier version of the article: "Deal took 1998 off from musical activity." But I wasn't even sure that was accurate, because (from piecing together info in various sources) it seems she was practicing the drums during at least part of this period. Another possibility is something like "took 1998 off from recording". But I can't even been sure that's true—all I know is any recording in 1998 is not documented. But throughout her career, Deal has often done one-off sessions that aren't necessarily well documented. The truth is we don't know what she was doing that year, although I need to include something in the article for that gap. That's why I ended up just keeping "AWOL in New York", which as you say is vague, but it's really all I have. But, again, I'm very open to paraphrasing it if you have a good suggestion. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The second sentence in the Music section could be broken in two sentences, with a new one starting with 'Another commentator'.
 * Again, I'm flexible about this if you have a strong opinion. But I feel that currently, both reviewers comments respond to the statement "Throughout the album, one-off and unexpected musical ideas are common:" That's why I felt a semi-colon would convey that semantic link more clearly. What do you think?
 * That's okay.


 * Beer drinking seems more like an interpretation of the sources than what the reviewer actually states: for example, the Orlando Sentinel article merely reproduces partial lyrics to "Sinister Foxx", which do mention beer; Christgau's remark seems more like a quip.
 * OK, I have removed all mention of beer drinking as a theme.


 * It's interesting that there's not a description of each song, but if the information provided on sources is superficial and would result in similar content, that's okay.
 * I did consider at one point adding a description of each song, but, as you say, I felt it would have been repetitive with the content already in the Music and Lyrics section.


 * also designed Breeders' releases including Pod, Safari, Last Splash, "Cannonball", and "Divine Hammer". Superfluous information; saying that he designed several Breeders' releases with one or two examples would be satisfactory.
 * OK, I have cut these down to two.


 * Not sure if the review part should be written in present tense, but it flows well.
 * I mentioned to someone in the peer review that while it's true that possibly most articles use the past tense in the Review section, here are some FAs that use the present tense: Night (book), The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (in the Legacy section), School Rumble. These are ones I found kind of randomly and I'm sure there are others. Even if these are the minority, I believe there is enough precedence to allow the present tense as a legitimate alternative to the past. Personally, I am more comfortable with using the present for reviews, possibly due to my academic background. Let me know if you disagree, thanks.


 * Try paraphrasing the NME quote in the critical reception
 * I'm going to have a look at this. Please let me know if you have a good suggestion.
 * Hi pedro, I had another look and confess I don't have any ideas for a good paraphrase in this case. If you have a good suggestion, I'd be very happy to consider it. One complication is, in the lead, the line "as well as for how the arrangements highlight the individual musical components, such as vocals, guitar, and drums" is meant to encompass both The Guardians and NMEs comments. So any paraphrase would also have to make sure that the tie-in with the lead is still valid, and not repetitive. Also, the NME quote touches on the starkness/minimalism of the sound of the album, which is mentioned elsewhere including in the lead, the Music and Lyrics section, and the sound-clip caption. The NME quote uses "skeletal", which is used before, but also "empty sounding", which is not. But I feel right now there is a good balance between the different sections regarding these various points. So I'm a little hesitant to rewrite this particular sentence and possibly disrupt the balance. If it's not a deal-breaker, I'd be happy to keep the quote intact. But again, if you have a really good paraphrase idea that doesn't disrupt the balance, I'd be glad to consider it. Thank you.


 * The Metacritic is awkwardly placed (it's normally included at the beginning of the section)
 * I moved it to the start of the section. Thanks for the suggestion.


 * The Clarke and Christgau refs don't redirect to the Footnotes section when clicked on, haven't checked on the remaining.
 * Hmm, could it be your browser? I am using Chrome version 50.0.2661.94, and all the links to the Footnotes section seem to work fine for me, including those two.
 * This is a bit bizarre. It's now working perfectly fine, so my Chrome must have gotten a bit confused.

Otherwise an extremely informative, complete article. It actually got me to listen to the album, which I'm enjoying (it sounds like a less heavy Loveless of sorts). pedro home | talk  14:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much for your suggestions. I've responded to all of your comments. There are the two paraphrasing ones ("AWOL in New York" and the NME review) that I'm going to have a think about the best wording for right now, but, again, if you have any suggestions for these, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm glad you really liked the article, and that it prompted you to listen to the album. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've now responded to your remaining comments. Thank you again for all of your suggestions, and do let me know if you require further action, or have further suggestions. Moisejp (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick replies, I believe that the article should be promoted to FA. Support pedro home | talk  00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * pedro, thank you again so much for your suggestions to improve the article, and also thank you for your support! Moisejp (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment: After seven supports, I would expect this article to be in a better state. There is nothing majorly wrong from a first glance, but I don't think the prose is quite tight enough. There are numerous examples, and I have copy-edited one paragraph to demonstrate some of the little tweaks that I think are needed. But just a few illustrative examples. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Harmonies between the Deal sisters are prominent throughout the album, with Kim Deal's vocals described as rough but endearing": Try to avoid "with [noun] [verb]-ing" structures. Something like "Throughout the album, there are prominent harmonies between the Deal sisters, and Kim Deal's vocals are described as..." And I think we need an actual quotation here.
 * I'm very open to rewording this, but I'd just like to confirm, User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing says what you said, that we should avoid "with [noun] [verb]-ing". However, the structure I've used is "with [noun] [verb]-ed". Again, I'm happy to consider other wording regardless. About your point of including an actual quotation, maybe we can move "rough and endearing" to be one of the paraphrases you'd like to see in the Music and Lyrics section (see my comment about that below, at the bottom). To be honest, I kind of prefer to avoid using direct quotes in the lead, and another option would be to just remove "with Kim Deal's vocals described as rough but endearing" from the lead altogether, if it would need to be replaced by a direct quote. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we find a different verb such as "considered"—maybe that's not the perfect match, but I'll have a look in the thesaurus—instead of "described", we wouldn't need a direct quote? Moisejp (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "The 1997 sessions took place at four different New York studios, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for studio time, hotels, and moving musical equipment between locations.": A little jumbled. Maybe something more like "The 1997 sessions costs hundreds of thousands of dollars through the fees for using four New York studio locations and the associated expense of moving equipment between them."
 * OK, I have changed it to a variation of your suggestion. The source also mentions hotel fees, so I included that. Feel free to further copy-edit the sentence as desired. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Deal followed his advice, and went back to her hometown of Dayton, Ohio, to practice the instrument": Comma overload. Maybe "Deal followed his advice. In order to practice the instrument, she returned to her hometown of Dayton, Ohio."
 * I'm afraid in this case, I really prefer the original version. In the sentence preceding this, it's already established that the purpose is to practice the drums. In the existing version, "practice the instrument" comes at the end of the sentence as a mini-clarification that that was her goal; in the version you propose, it's brought to the forefront even though this purpose has already been established—plus "in order to practice" is heavier than simply "to practice", which also adds to the undue weight. I feel the three commas in the sentence is somewhat unavoidable when two of them are inherently linked to the city-comma-state-comma format that's common in English. But I really respect your opinion, and if would like to discuss this sentence more, I'd be happy to. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a few other issues: My oppose is not set in stone, but I think the article needs just a little more work to reach FA standard. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we overdo the direct quotations here. I think the flow of the article would be improved by a few more paraphrases.
 * A particularly bad example of this is the last paragraph of "Music and Lyrics", where the use of single word quotations leads to fairly meaningless statements such as "create a "bittersweet"[12] and "haunting" effect.[20] Kim Deal's singing on the album has been called "rasp[y]",[21] "weary",[21][22][25] and "more sandpaper than sugar"." This doesn't really tell the reader anything useful. Also, it is hard for an encyclopaedia to use phrases such as " a "hopeful",[22][25] "sweet",[22] and "melting"[24] quality to her voice" without more explanation. "Hopeful" is hardly a factual description, even if it is a quotation.
 * There is a lot about the recording of the songs, but very little about their composition. Could we add a little more?
 * Similarly, there is a lot about the overall album, but not much about individual songs. Other album FAs tend to focus on songs as well as the overall picture.
 * Finally, I wonder are we being too positive about the reception. I only glanced at the AllMusic review, and while it gave four stars as reported here, I noticed "a new Breeders album is just a nice addition to what's going on in indie rock instead of its salvation. From its very name, Title TK (journalistic shorthand for "title to come") reflects this: it's a surprisingly low-key, self-effacing return that doesn't feel like an attempt at reclaiming Last Splash's glory." This is not negative, but it's hardly flattering. We also have "Very much a take-it-or-leave-it work, Title TK doesn't even try to live up to fans' inflated expectations of what a Breeders album should be -- though the band may not have spent the entire nine years they were gone crafting this album, it feels like the only album they could make after such a long wait. Title TK isn't always a flattering portrait of the Breeders, but it is an admirably honest one." Again, while not contradicting this article, it maybe gives a more rounded assessment of the album than we give.
 * Incidentally, the same review talks about individual songs in more detail. I'm sure other reviews do likewise, and could be used to give more information.
 * A useful point of comparison is Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album); while a very different album, and while far, far, far more has been written about that work than will have been written about this, it may give an indication of what content could be added if it were available.
 * Hi, thank you very much for your feedback. Also, thank you for your nice copy-edit in the lead. I really appreciate it. About your idea for a section about the songs themselves, I actually have notes for such a section that I was at one point considering including. At the time, I was worried that it would be repetitive with what is already in the Music and Lyrics section, and I didn't include it. But I would like to look again at my notes and see whether I can craft something satisfying from them in the coming days. It won't be on the same scale as Sgt. Pepper, but I hope to get two or three sentences per song.
 * About copy-editing and paraphrasing issues, could I humbly ask you to help me with that, especially if ideas jump out at you for paraphrases or copy-edits that you think would be suitable? I would really like to see any ideas you have for this, especially for the paraphrasing. You could go ahead and make the edits, and then if it happens there are any I strongly disagree with, I would be happy to work out a compromise from there. For the examples you gave (""rasp[y]",[21] "weary",[21][22][25] and "more sandpaper than sugar" ... " a "hopeful",[22][25] "sweet",[22] and "melting") I summed this up as "rough but endearing" in the lead. Personally, I feel "rasp[y]", "weary", "sandpaper", "sweet", and "melting" are vivid descriptions that evoke relatively clear images in the reader's mind, which may be part of the reason I chose not to paraphrase them originally. But, again, if you have ideas about reworking this content effectively, I would be very happy to see them.
 * Regarding whether the Reception section is overly positive, I feel that we can't help it if AllMusic gave 4 stars that may or may not accurately reflect the review (the Spin review is also more negative than its three stars implies)—that was an editorial decision/judgment made by the publication. But I think overall the Reception section reflects well the degree of positive vs. negative appraisal. It mentions that Metacritic gives it 71%, which is by no means reflective of extreme praise. And I did include two negative reviews in the text itself to counterbalance the positive ones. The Seattle Times review does actually say a few positive things in it as well, but I focused on the negative for it in an attempt to have a good overall balance of positive vs. negative.
 * Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm almost finished drafting my attempt at a Songs section. I hope to finish tomorrow or soon after. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off looking again until you are finished everything. I'll take another look then and if I've got the time, I'll do a quick copy-edit if there's anything I think I can do. Let me know (i've watch listed this page), but there's no rush. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I've actually stumbled on a few more sources that I'd somehow missed before, and will take a few extra days to incorporate that content. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear reviewers and contributors to this article : Sarastro1 asked for more about each individual song (Prism had also mentioned the idea), and I have now added a Songs section. I'm totally flexible with the content in this section, and as I mentioned in my edit summary, I'd be very happy for you to be bold in copy-editing, removing any points that don't work well, reorganizing paragraph breaks, etc. Some of the songs have more written about them in sources than others, and the amount I have included about each is proportionate. Also, if it happens the section doesn't work at all, I'm also totally willing to write it off as a failed experiment and revert to what the article was before.

Also, while I have everybody's attention, I was wondering whether there would be consensus for cutting down the paragraph "The singing on Title TK includes prominent harmonies between the Deal sisters.[3][12][20] These harmonies interweave their similar voices,[2] and create a "bittersweet"[12] and "haunting" effect.[20] Kim Deal's singing on the album has been called "rasp[y]",[21] "weary",[21][22][25] and "more sandpaper than sugar".[2] Reviewers have also heard a "hopeful",[22][25] "sweet",[22] and "melting"[24] quality to her voice. Her vocal delivery on "Off You" has been described as "heartbreaking"[20][22] and "fragile".[18]" Sarastro1 has brought up a number of issues about this paragraph. I could move "rough but endearing" from the lead and reduce this paragraph to something like "The singing on Title TK includes prominent harmonies between the Deal sisters,[3][12][20] which interweave their similar voices.[2] Deal's vocals have been described as rough but endearing." Since this is now so short I could attach it to the previous paragraph. Personally, I feel this would reduce the vivid descriptors of Deal's singing, but I'm very willing to do it if consensus is there. Or if anybody else has other brilliant ideas how to improve this paragraph (through paraphrasing or other means) I'd be very happy to consider those ideas too. Thank you for your ongoing help with this article! Moisejp (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, enough messing around. So I finally did that source check, and everything came out fine. Every ref was well formatted, though on the ref "The Breeders are the real Deals", you need to link author Greg Kot. That's the only author with a page that I could think of, though it might be a good idea to check to see if any of the other authors have pages that can be linked to. But for now, since the sources all checked out, I give this a Source Review Support. As for the songs section, I must say, I'm once again impressed. There seems to be a bit of an over reliance of quotes, but every quote seems justified in my opinion. And the paragraph about the vocal styles between the Deal sisters, I'd support sizing it down. Most of the descriptors are very similar, and can be easily summed up to rough but endearing. However, I wouldn't cut it until more editors voice their opinion. I could be the only one for it. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks really a lot for your source review, . I added an authorlink for Greg Kot and also Chuck Klosterman. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, could you please take another look at the article, and see whether it has come along far enough that you would consider removing your opposition? Some notes: Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I have added a Songs section.
 * You also asked whether there might be more to add about the actual composition (I interpreted that to mean the writing/development process) of the songs. Unfortunately, I don't have anything in my sources about this.
 * I have gone through and removed/paraphrased lots of the quotations including most of the one-word ones.
 * I have some comments above about some of your concerns about specific points.

More comments: I've taken another look and I'm afraid I still don't think the prose is up to standard. It is a little wordy in places, and there are some convoluted sentences and several parts just have very little meaning to be brutally honest. It is an impressive piece of work, but I don't think it approaches the professional standard required. Just a few examples (and they are only examples), but I don't think that, at the moment, it is worth doing a line-by-line review. Sorry, but the oppose stands. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them except for "*We also have a very repetitive sentence structure, where most sentences follow a "[subject] [verb] and [something else]" pattern." I agree that there could be room for improvement on this point, maybe especially in the Songs section, which I had to write quite quickly for this FAC. For adding variety to sentence structure, I would like to go through and make a sincere, concerted effort at the end of this whole process, not now. My reason is because you wrote that your last batch of suggestions were just "examples", which implies you will likely have more to say before this is all done. For instances that are just about adding variety to sentence structure, I can handle that—I'll be able to see when too many sentences in a row follow a "[subject] [verb] and [something else]" pattern, and can edit them accordingly. But I'd like to know before then whether there are other sentences you feel are "meaningless" or superfluous or for whatever reason don't work on a fundamental level. Let's get those instances out of the way first, and then I can I really focus on adding variety to the sentence structure. (If I spent a whole bunch of time now reworking sentence structures, only to find you had bigger issues with these sentences, and then I had to edit them again, that would be a big waste of time.) Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have started to work on adding more variety to the sentence structures, and will continue to actively work on this in the coming days. But I would still like to ask you, if there are remaining issues that you feel don't at the content level rather than the stylistic level, I'd really appreciate if you could let me know sooner rather than later. I'd very much like to get these out of the way ASAP rather than being surprised by them later when there is no time left to address them. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "which feature austere instrumentation and unpredictable musical flourishes, often possess a somber, intimate feel": For me, this is meaningless. I'm sure you can justify this, and give examples of similar articles, but if this appeared on the main page as a FA, what would the general reader understand by it? What is austere instrumentation? What are musical flourishes? How can songs have a "sombre, intimate" feel? We are also expressing an editorial opinion on the songs in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Reworded to clarify it was reviewers who said all of this. Also, changed to "stark arrangements and unpredictable musical embellishments" (which is used later in the soundclip box). But I really don't understand what is unclear about "somber, intimate feel". Songs can have a feel to them. And it is perfectly normal to describe the feeling of a song to be "somber" and "intimate". But I have removed them from the lead and from the main text. I feel it's unfortunate that the vivid descriptive words used throughout the article—which give the reader a tangible grasp of the character of the album—are so meaningless to you. But anyway, I have removed those terms.


 * "unconventional, enigmatic, dark, and humorous character of the lyrics": What, all at the same time?
 * Another editor cut it down to be this. I have restored it to what it was before: "Reviewers have commented on the unconventional and enigmatic, as well as dark but sometimes humorous, character of the lyrics"


 * "Title TK generated three singles": No it didn't. Someone chose three songs from the album to release as singles.
 * I have rewritten it to be "Three singles were released from the album: "Off You", "Huffer", and "Son of Three". "


 * "Reviews have included praise for Albini's contributions to the sound of the album": As written, this sounds like each review has included a section praising Albini's contributions.
 * I have changed this to "Appraisal has included commendation for Albini's contributions to the sound of the album..." Appraisal is uncountable and thus does not imply that any specific number of reviewers said this.


 * "as well as for how the arrangements highlight the individual musical components": How can arrangements highlight musical components? Again, this is fairly meaningless. It might be solved by using a better word than "highlight". But even so, I'm not clear how an arrangement can do this.
 * I have changed "highlight" to "isolate". This refers to two quotes from the Reception section: "Betty Clarke singles out the "separation of sounds" on tracks such as "T and T" and "Off You" as the best aspect of the album" and "John Robinson hears the album as "tuneful ... and impressively empty sounding, the arrangements of the tunes showcasing skeletal guitar and drum patterns and Deal's remarkable voice"." Those both make sense, right? If in the lead changing from "highlight" to "isolate" is not enough for you, can you suggest another wording that satisfyingly encompasses those two review excerpts?


 * "Between the formation of the alternative rock group the Breeders in 1989 and the release of their album Title TK in 2002, the group underwent several personnel changes; throughout this period, vocalist and songwriter Kim Deal remained the only constant member": Very, very wordy. Can we not cut this right down to "From their formation in 1989, the line-up of the Breeders changed several times; by 2002, the vocalist and songwriter Kim Deal was the only original member."
 * I have used your suggestion. In the peer review, SchroCat asked that I add "the alternative band" here, but I hope he doesn't mind if I take it out for the conciseness you ask for.


 * We also have a very repetitive sentence structure, where most sentences follow a "[subject] [verb] and [something else]" pattern.
 * "1998 was "a lost year" for Deal, in which she "[went] AWOL in New York"": Starting with a year is not a good idea. Where are these quotations coming from? I think we need WP:INTEXT attribution.
 * It was SchroCat who proposed this structure. But regarding, WP:INTEXT attribution, I can't do it, so I have taken the sentence out for you. There is no satisfying way to paraphrase this sentence (see my explanation to Prism (pedro) above). And if I attribute the direct quotes to author Martin Aston in-text, it really bogs down the text, because the next sentence is not sourced to him, and I'd have to then clarify that someone else said that. There is now a gap for 1998 in the narrative, but maybe it's OK. Nothing really happened that year that affected the recording of the album.


 * "Music critics have described the sound of Title TK as "skeletal",[17][19] "minimalist",[18][20] and "stripped down",[2][6] and have noted the expressive effect created by the band's restrained instrumentation.": Still not a fan of these short quotations, and why does each quote need two references? Again, could all this not be replaced with something far simpler such as "Critics have observed that there is little instrumentation", or something similar. I'm struggling to find a way to rephrase as, again, words like "skeletal" and "minimalist" are so vague and meaningless in this context. It is no good just lifting quotations from reviews if the words chosen do not convey what the critics were getting at, and the resulting sentences are so vague to the general reader.
 * I really disagree with you that these terms are meaningless and vague. On the contrary, they vividly convey to the reader that the sound of the album is not overly polished but has minimal instrumentation. And the reason I gave two references for each was so that the reader could clearly see that multiple reviewers were saying this. In any case, I have paraphrased this as "Music critics have commented on the minimal instrumentation used on Title TK.[19][20]" with two references total.


 * "The phrase "Title TK" means "title to come" in journalistic shorthand.": Should this not come far, far earlier in the article? Our general reader is probably wondering what TK stands for, and should not have to search/wait for the end of the article to find out.
 * I have now added this to the lead so the reader becomes aware of it sooner. But in the main text itself, I really believe the Release section is the most logical place for it. The album title, as well as the artwork, are aspects that are finalized (in theory) with the release of the album. But if you have a specific other place you'd like to propose, just let me know, thanks.


 * As I observed before, I think the review section is too positive. There is little cohesion in the paragraphs either, where we just have a string of random quotations from the reviews, but no overarching direction to the text. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * About your concerns about the review section, I just want to make sure you read my reply to you about this above. But I'll restate these points and add some more.
 * Above you said that the AllMusic review seems to be less praising than the four stars given. The four stars awarded was an editorial choice made by the editors of AllMusic. I can't question this, and can't put "Four stars (but actually the review is, arguably, less praising than this rating!)". I also can't not include AllMusic in the infobox, as this is one of the big names in music criticism. I also can't not include Billboard, Christgau, NME, Pitchfork, PopMatters, Rolling Stone, or Spin, also all big names. The Seattle Times is not a big name in music criticism, but I have included it because the review is not overly positive, and I wanted to add some balance. (As I mentioned above, the review does include some positive comments among the negative ones, but I did not mention these in the body of the article to try to balance the overall positive and negative.)
 * In the GA review, Sparklism suggested there be no more than ten reviews in the infobox, which I think is a good idea. As I stated in the last bullet, I need to include all the big names, and I have included The Seattle Times. So if you want more negative reviews in the infobox, I propose I replace review of The Guardian (which is a major newspaper but not necessarily a music big name in the same way as the other sources) with this negative review from The Riverfront Times: []. Would that be helpful for resolving this point?
 * I mentioned above that the main text includes the Metacritic review of 71%, which is by no means overwhelmingly strong praise. As you know, Metacritic summarizes the general opinions of many reviews. So already the reader knows just from this that what the general consensus is. Then, I talk about five positive reviews and two negative ones, which I think is right on par with the 71% overall. So I definitely don't feel the main text is unfairly slanted towards the positive.
 * You say that "little cohesion in the paragraphs either, where we just have a string of random quotations from the reviews, but no overarching direction to the text." My intention for this section was simply to show some different comments from various reviews, to give the reader a range of elements that different reviewers liked or didn't about the album; from this the reader can get a feel for different aspects that the community of reviewers found good or not—a general breadth of aspects. I don't know how I could add more "cohesion" to the section. There is no overarching big trend of aspects that many reviewers said they liked or didn't. If you have a concrete suggestion about how you would like to see more cohesion added, please tell me. I did previously have "More negatively,..." as a transition for the second paragraph, but another editor removed this. I will tentatively add it back as a minor measure for cohesion. Moisejp (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The point about giving only examples is that I don't think that it is currently worth doing a line-by-line review. I've twice looked at samples which have had problems and for me, that is enough to oppose unless there are big improvements to the whole article, not just to the few examples I've given. An article that needs so much work at this stage in the FA process is a bit of a worry for me. Now, these are only my views and other reviewers may disagree. The best I can offer right now is that if the FAC is archived at any point, I would be more prepared to spend time on it away from the heat of a FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi and, could I please ask for your advice on the best way to proceed?

Sarastro1 has kindly offered to work with me to improve the article if the FAC gets archived, and I appreciate this offer. I realize he's the most seasoned FA editor of the nine who reviewed it, and his Oppose undoubtedly has more weight than each of the eight Supports. Still, I'd like to weigh my options (if I have any) about how to proceed.

I'd like to very respectfully say that I really liked the version of the article from May 8 [] before Sarastro1 contributed his Oppose; apparently eight other editors really liked it too, enough to Support. While most of the comments accompanying their Supports were short, four of the editors did participate in the article's peer review, and had hashed out all of their concerns at that time.

Again, I say this with full respect to Sarastro1, but I have not agreed with several of his suggestions in the FAC. However, I have gone along with these in the spirit of compromise, and in the spirit of trying to get unanimous support. But I feel the article is getting further and further from the version that was supported by eight others. I thought the article flowed well and expressed in vivid terms the character of the Title TK album. But I feel changes I've made based on Sarastro1's comments have chipped away many of the details that let the reader get a good sense of the feel and character of this album.

One development that has been positive was his suggestion to add a Songs section, and some interesting details have been added that otherwise wouldn't have. I wrote this section quickly for the FAC; the flow may not be as strong as (I feel) my original article was, but I could easily polish this more—for example, by adding more variety to the sentence structure, which was one of Sarastro1's recent suggestions. But Sarastro1 has indicated that even if I do a little polishing, in his eyes the article will still be a long way from FA, and that it won't be worthwhile within this FAC to give me any more feedback on other specific points keeping him from supporting. I can understand his point of view, and that's fine.

The way I see it, I have up to three possible options: Thank you in advance for your advice on this matter. Moisejp (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Archive the FAC now and take Sarastro1 up on his offer for help outside of the FAC (or try one of the other options below, and they don't work out, graciously fall back on this option). His vision for the article may be different from mine, but in this spirit of compromise, I could live with this as part of the longer-term process to eventually get the article to FA. But part of does wonder whether, when an earlier version of the article did already have eight Supports, I would not be giving up on my own vision of the article too easily.
 * Revert the article to the May 8 version and hope the eight Supports for that version would carry some weight. This option would mean giving up the Songs section, but I'd be willing to do that. But as I said above, I believe Sarastro1 has a fair amount of clout, so I suspect without his Support I might not get far. Can you tell me realistically whether this option would have any viability? (Of course, even if you did say that this option had the some viability, I wouldn't take this as any kind of promise that the article would pass. I know you would have to make the decision about failure or passing in due course.)
 * Revert the article to the May 8 version but add the Songs section and polish it some more. Again, I wouldn't have Sarastro1's Support, but in theory I would still have the other eight Supports. Would this option have any viability?
 * I appreciate you asking your feedback, but your question seems to boil down to "Can I safely disregard some or all of this user's feedback and still have my article promoted?" I'm sure you can understand that there are numerous reasons why we wouldn't want to get into the business of answering questions like that. We can provide guidance on whether reviewer comments are actionable or map back to WP:WIAFA if there is serious disagreement on such matters, but ultimately, nominators are expected to work with reviewers to resolve differences in opinion and make a good faith effort to resolve opposition. That said, many comments are subjective and coordinators are regularly placed in the position of considering whether an article should be promoted over someone's opposition, even though it is not an ideal situation. Try not to get too wrapped up in who the reviewer is, because the substance of the support or oppose is really the only thing that matters. Supports and opposes where the reviewer has evidently exercised care in examining the article against the FA criteria (either here or in some previous review) carry more weight. Hope this helps! -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification, . Please archive this FAC. I'll work on it some more outside of the FAC process. Moisejp (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

— Laser brain  (talk)  16:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.