Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U2/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

U2
I'm nominating this article once again because all of the problems found during the previous nomination (previous FAC) have been resolved -- namely, a longer and more substantial lead-in, 100+ citations with no "citations needed" left, fair use media files reorganized, and an overhauled "Campaigning" section that's been "de-listified". Wikipedia brown 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OBJECT External jumps within the text of the article need to be turned into references or removed. In references, why are some ISBNs linked and others not? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Needs a thorough copy edit. To take some examples from the second section:
 * "...Dave Evans (The Edge) and his brother Dik Evans on guitar, and Mullen's friends Ivan McCormick and Peter Martin" - 'as well as' Mullen's friends.
 * "Martin only came to the first practice," - 'attended', practice session.
 * "and McCormick was out of the group within a few weeks." - 'had left within'.
 * "performed a farewell show in the Presbyterian Church Hall in Howth where Dik ceremoniously walked offstage;" - 'during which', and a comma is missing.
 * "the remaining four members finished their performance as 'U2', playing original material". Not sure what this means - did they rename the band and switch from playing cover versions as he walked offstage. If so why, was Dik Evans objecting to these changes - the preceeding sentence only says that there were tension regarding line up.
 * Comment. Correct, according to the sources I quoted, that night they played as the 'Hype' with Dik and played covers. They then came nack on stage, without Dik, and played original song they had written. I will look into clarfify as necessary. As for the reasons, my sources are vague. Will look into it. Merbabu 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If your souces are vague, then they are not reliable, and should not be included. + Ceoil 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources from memory (hence my comment to look into it) on the specific issue of the reasons he left i remember are vague. On the whole, it is one of the most reliable sources on U2 have seen in over 20 years of following them (and I've seen and own many sources). I'm sorry, but a glib comment saying it is not reliable without (presuambly) being familiar with the book is, well, not 'reliable' opinion either. sorry. PLease don't take offence - i agree with almost all your other comments here on the article. Merbabu 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that you should not be here, in FAC, claiming sources are from memory; will back it up tommorow. Basic issues like this should be resolved before FAC. + Ceoil 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just responding to comments on edit I had made. I've already said several times i don't support either nomination. I didn't nominate the bloody article - i just passed comment for the point of clarification. thanks!Merbabu 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology, I misunderstood your 'from memory' comment + Ceoil 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "won a talent show...for which the prize money was £500 and a record deal to record a demo" - comma missing, 'as well as'. Record deals are usually for singles, EPs, and albums, not demos. Should it be 'oppurtunity to record'?
 * Comment My sources are vague as to what was actually on offer. Although, it wasn't much. I think it was essentially studio time to do a demo. I will check. The main point was that it was according to the band (who were aged 14 to 16), a milestone in terms of their self-confidence and an affirmation. Merbabu 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If your souces are vague, then they are not reliable, and should not be inlcuded. + Ceoil 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "according to one author" - author should be named.
 * "U2's first release came in September 1979; an Ireland-only EP entitled Three" - 1979, with an Ireland...
 * "1,000" should be 'one thousand' rather than digits, London should not be a blue link.
 * Clayton, Bono and the Edge are all wiki-linked in both the lead and the "Formation" paragraph - ideally only link once. Bono and the Edge's real names should be given in the lead, rather than in a later section.
 * The punctuation needs work throughout; lots of commas missing, and later on in the article: "The album was released on 22 November worldwide. debuting at #1 in 32 countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland...."
 * Per WP:CITE, all references should be expanded to include, where possible, the author & date of publication. The publication name should not be included within the article title hyperlink.+ Ceoil 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference formats such as 89-92 need to be cleaned up.
 * Ideally hyperlink to the original source rather than reproductions of the articles on U2.com or u2station.com.
 * "U2 by U2" is already mentioned in the "General references and further reading" section (which needs to be split into "Sources" and "Further reading") - as a footnote you only then need to cite "Bono, The Edge, Clayton, Mullen (2006), p. xx). + Ceoil 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose also for prose. Added to the above:
 * U2 have consistently remained - how could they have inconsistently remained?
 * "Beautiful Day," which also earned - "also" is redundant, and is used in the two following sentences to this one as well.
 * Further to that, do a search through the article for use of "also" and remove it where it's redundant, I can see a couple more cases straight-off.
 * re-invented doesn't need a hypen
 * critically acclaimed does (and perhaps boundary pushing, I'm not sure)

Also, is the "see also" section really needed? It's not a long way off, but it still need some work. Trebor 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Refs 31, 36 and 66 need more work, plus not all the online refs have retrieval dates (I'm surprised you're not using cite templates, but each to their own). Trebor 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, having done a rather thorough copy-editing. I've addressed all the comments above that I thought needed addressing.  The article is very thorough and well-sourced, and I'm not sure what more we could ask for.  Mango juice talk 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I oppose. The article does cover all the basic things, I think, but it's far enough from the quality prose we're capable of producing on Wikipedia that I don't think this should be a featured article.  This is a very interesting topic, but the article is somewhat dull.  It feels at times like facts are being jammed in without regard to their relative importance -- as an example, it's much more interesting how the whole Achtung Baby reinvention came about than all the record sales statistics, or continually noting the producers of the albums.  Mango juice talk 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict]. Nice copy editing Mango, but the text needs an awful lot more work. Wikipedia brown, the prose is dull throughout and often unclear; many sentences are awkward.
 * "While Adam and Larry preferred to keep a similar sound" - Similar to what?
 * "inspired by alternative and European dance music" - Not clear: alternative music, or alternative dance music?
 * "Weeks of slow progress, argument, and frustration ended when Edge came up with a chord progression that the band quickly worked up into the song "One"." - There is a much larger story here, and one well documented. The band were close to splitting, and "one" is the song that allowed the third phase of their career to develop. Should be expanded. I'd prefer if the sections were split as roughly "Early years", "The Unforgettable Fire - Rattle and Hum", "Achtung Baby - Popmart", "All That You Can't Leave Behind - present", as it maps their development and reflects the career about turns they made. "came up with" - wrote.
 * "The band often referred to the new sound as "four men chopping down the Joshua Tree" - needs to be qualified. The word 'irony' does not appear anywhere in the whole text, but in almost all articles on the band between Achtung Baby and Passengers. Why did they react against the Joshua Tree? Techno, Madchester, Indie-dance, Loveless, the Pixies. This kind of context needs to be included.
 * "Initially intended as an EP, Zooropa expanded into a full-fledged LP, and was released in July of 1993". Why did it expand into a LP? Teasing statments like this are littered throughout the article.
 * "Most of the songs were played at least once in the 1993 leg of the tour through Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, with half the album's tracks becoming fixtures in the set." at least once during...which extended accross.
 * Examples only. + Ceoil 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mango, you've summed exactly my thoughts on the article. Too many stats, at the expense of insight and context. + Ceoil 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Oppose: I've been one of the editors close to this article and I must admit I have been surprised at the two recent nominations for FA. The big problem for me is prose. It is dull and clunky and this is related to the complaints that it is big on facts and short on context and significance. It is the facts though that are easier to reference and addition of "context" and "significance" is far more useful BUT more difficult and easily leads to people claiming POV issues (albeit the POV of millions of fans), while the feeling I have got from all the editors (which has rubbed off on me) is to stick to the facts, and keep away from the significance. Anyway, i will start putting some time in to put some more context and less facts which can be moved off to the more song, album and tour specific articles. I think I will start with the Unforgettable Fire Period. Merbabu 00:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From your comment, a peer review rather than FAC is probably the next appropriate step. + Ceoil 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was peer review, and this very issue came up, but it all seemed too hard, and speaking for myself i was deeply involved in a completely un-related wikipedia article over the last month or so. (btw, i added some clarification to my comment above) Merbabu 01:39, 20 January 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.