Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Too Much Too Soon (album)/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015.

Too Much Too Soon (album)

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the second album by American rock band the New York Dolls. A hard rock and proto-punk album, it was released to poor sales but predated punk rock, received critical acclaim, and became a popular cult rock record. I withdrew the first FAC nomination last August because I had opened another FAC at the same time. It has since been slightly expanded and copy-edited. Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
Support this to FA. It is well researched, nicely written and comprehensive.  Cassianto Talk   07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Fru1tbat
Nothing else jumped out at me, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Track listing
 * On my (wide) screen, the track listings for the two album sides render at very different widths (due to the rating box in the previous section overflowing into this section and limiting the width of the "side one" table). It looks untidy like this - the Writer and Length columns don't line up at all. Can something be done to address this (and maintain portability)?


 * Yes, I added the clear template. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review

 * Note: spotchecks not done.
 * Be consistent in how you format multi-page refs - FN12 has "p." and two digits omitted, FN53 has "pp." and one
 * Anon 1 has "(New York) (May 11)" but then Anon 4 has "(January 20) (New York)" - check for ordering consistency throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first issue. The second has to do with how the citation templates are formatted. For some reason, Template:Cite journal renders a different order than Template:Cite news. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's by-design, as the |issue= parameter expects an issue number, not a date, but you could ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A thought occurs: putting the full date in the |date=parameter (instead of splitting it between |year= and |issue=) would resolve the formatting discrepancy - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Not all the sources have known month and days, only years, and all the references are author-year. I was kind of advised to do it this way in past FACs, like this one for Misterioso, utilizing the issue field for month/day. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No other issues that I can see - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The order of publisher location and dates are inconsistent – eg Anon. (1974b) has "(New York) (July 13)" while Anon. (1975) has "(January 20) (New York)" noted above already - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some locations seem to be missing (e.g. Antonia, Nina (2006); Pilchak, Angela (2005); and more): is this because they are not shown in the source (or already indicated by publisher name/publication title)?
 * "U of Minnesota Press" should probably be expanded to the full name, University of Minnesota Press
 * I added locations and expanded the publisher name. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin
Support&mdash;a very well-presented, well-researched account of the album. I did not check sourcing, so a spotcheck should be in order. As for my review, you can leave it, collapse it, move it to the talk page, whatever the FAC coordinators allow. Good luck. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Driveby I think you should call the band just "the Dolls" every now and then. It's pretty much standard practice when writing about bands (as you can see from the various quotes in the article).—indopug (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems kind of informal though for an encyclopedic article. Dan56 (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's good enough for Encyclopaedia Britannica...—indopug (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from JM
This strikes me as a really well done article. Just a few smaller comments...
 * I think you're missing the mark a bit when you talk about recording demos. The band weren't recording demos, they were recording songs that they had originally produced as demos. The song exists independently of the demo.
 * I had originally worded it as "re-recorded demos" before one of the reviewers suggested changing it. I'll restore it. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you mean by Morton being "hasty"
 * In a rush; reworded it. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates characters such as the high-stepper in "(There's Gonna Be A) Showdown" and Charlie Chan in "Bad Detective", whose nonsensical narrative is set in China." I'm struggling to understand this sentence
 * Reworded to "which has lyrics describing a nonsensical narrative..." Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the last paragraph of the "Music and lyrics" section, there seems to be a tense shift- do you want to talk about what the songs feature in the present tense or the past tense?
 * Corrected. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on your annotations in the see also section.
 * They were suggested by another reviewer. Would you prefer it if I removed them? Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you expand a little on "Anon. (1985). "All Time Top 100 Albums". Sounds (London)." ? Volume/issue/pages/url? "Willis, Ellen (1974). "Rock, Etc.". The New Yorker 50 (April 1)." is also a little light.
 * I have no other information on Sounds. I originally got the info from Acclaimed Music, so I've replaced it with that citation instead. The New Yorker article was found through GoogleBooks' archive/snippets and that was all I could muster up. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you've got the right issue for The New Yorker. See here, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've changed it to "may 20" after typing some of the cited text. Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Three small stylistic comments to have a think on- first, there are a lot of false titles (something I've only just learnt about!), second, there seems to be a tiny bit of inconsistency on whether you capitalise the "The" in band names (see: "The Olympics") and third, I think there is good reason to favour "s's" in the case of belongs-to-singular when the singular word ends in s (so, I would favour " Thunders's " over " Thunders' "). I certainty wouldn't oppose over any of these things, but these are some bits to think about.


 * I'm in favor of false titles since I'm an American speaker and saying "the" before "American hard rock band the New York Dolls" would sound funny to me lol. I have fixed "the Olympics". I revised it to "Thunders's" Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are very good. For me, this is an excellent article- a great example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any other issues to resolve, Dan56 (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm so sorry I forgot about this. An excellent example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks

 * ref 1 (New York Dolls signed to Mercury and poor sales for debut album)–confirmed
 * ref 3 (session with Paul Nelson)–confirmed
 * ref 6–accurate statement
 * ref 14–according to the review
 * ref 19 (The New Yorker)–accurate cite
 * ref 21 (Spin alt guide)–accurate cite
 * ref 29 ("Human Being" lyrics)–confirmed
 * ref 31–accurate quote
 * ref 32 (number 167 on the charts)–correct
 * ref 36 (two festivals they played)–per source
 * ref 42 (Phonograph Record quote)–only found the Contemporary Musicians book (p.106), but it's there
 * ref 44 (Circus)-accurate quote
 * ref 50 (Christgau)–accurate quotes
 * ref 53 (cult album)–confirmed, first paragraph from Allmusic bio
 * ref 54–all in source, but it's slightly unusual how you combined the critic's various descriptions.
 * ref 55 ("instant classic")–confirmed
 * The article has plenty of quoted text, so I had no problems locating it on Google Books. I see no false sourcing here.--Retrohead (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.