Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive3


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2015.

Xx (album)

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The first FAC did not reach a consensus. The last FAC I withdrew because of a conflict with another editor. A few tweaks and additions since then. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero
Image review: File:Xx album cover.svg seems fine. File:The xx performing at Brighton Komedia in March 2010 11.jpg seems fine. File:The xx - Heart Skipped a Beat sample.ogg is a non-free sound with a good rationale. File:The xx Dec. 2 09.jpg seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Background: Are there no articles for the band members? "rehearsed quietly with Smith and Qureshi in their bedrooms so they would not disturb the rest of the household" seems like gossip or trivia. "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes...", did they work with several others as well? If not, mention them without the "such as". Cambalachero (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No articles for the band members except Jamie xx, who is linked in the article. Their rehearsal habit ties into the musical aesthetic mentioned throughout the rest of the article, IMO. Yes, the group worked with "a few others" also. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Recording and production: "chose to record" is wordy, just say that they recorded there. "...and were the first act to record there" should be in a new sentence, and have a reference. The "McDonald felt it was important for the singers..." sentence should end with a reference. "He occasionally processed the sampler through an effects unit such as a Roland RE-201", again, is the "such as" appropiate? "Overproduce" is a common word, and should be unlinked. The event of the burglars seems like trivia as well, as nothing came out of it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed "chose to record". I revised it, but a new sentence would be too short and inhibit the flow for readers IMO. Frost 2011 is cited at the end of the passage it supports, so there's no need to repeat citations. I reduced the "such as" throughout the article and unlinked "overproduce". I would not have added that line about the burglars if two notable sources on this article's topic hadn't discussed it, so I figured it was notable enough based on its third-party coverage. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Music and lyrics: "Music journalists" is a common term and should be unlinked, unless you talk about some specific journalist. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I unlinked it. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Promotion: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Touring: Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! Anything else needs attention, or do you feel now it should be promoted? Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ? Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no Quid pro quo. (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Dan56 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jacedc

 * I have a few comments. He used Logic 8 recording software on his Mac Pro and often worked in a nearby conference room while they recorded in the studio with drafts of his beats. Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday. He occasionally processed the sampler through a Roland RE-201 and other effects units. Firstly, I don't feel it's entirely necessary to mention exactly which products he used, as such things don't really contribute to the overall sound and atmosphere of the album (at least, not the Logic 8+Mac Pro mention, I'm not sure about the others). Also, I don't think it's entirely necessary to mention that the sampler was given to Smith on his birthday. It's not really relevant to the article. Just some thoughts so far. I haven't read the whole article, but I have read up to here, and other than that it's a pretty decent article. Either more comments or a support vote will come shortly. Jacedc (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO, specifying things like Logic 8 gives context to his producing on a laptop, which not every readers knows how that exactly works. With a link to Logic 8 in the article, it leads readers to more information on how a digital workstation works. As far as mentioning his birthday, I think an aside to some personal detail makes for a more interesting (if not vital) read. If you still feel it inhibits the read enough, however, I can remove it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct in that both parts provide interesting information, but the question is whether or not such information is appropriate for this article specifically. This article is about the album, so should we really sacrifice brevity and focus for the sake of further reading on an otherwise unrelated topic? Also, I'm not real sure I understand how mentioning the birthday thing is interesting/vital. Similar to the robbery comment; did the fact that it was for his birthday (specifically) effect the outcome of the album? If so, how? If not, I'd say remove it. But again, it's you're area of expertise so maybe I'm not seeing it in a way more involved editors see it. Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant "if not vital", so while it isn't vital, I just feels it adds some color to the text, like the second to last line in In Utero (album) about extracurricular activities for example; it intersperses prose that's very procedural as far as Smith's steps in producing the album. I would say it might be interesting because if Smith had not been given the sampler as a gift, perhaps it would not have been used on this album altogether. Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, but same argument applies. While it's valid information, sure, the question is whether or not it's appropriate information. In my opinion I don't think we should sacrifice focus and brevity for color (which I honestly don't see as color, I just see it as a sentence that doesn't need to be there). And I'm sure if a lot of things had not fallen into place correctly then the album wouldn't have been created, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should list them all in the article. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, cool. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's another one: On one of the many late nights Smith spent at the studio, he walked in on ski-masked burglars who had broken into the building; they were alarmed by his presence and immediately ran away. Is this really relevant? If nothing really happened as a result of the robbery, or if the production of the album didn't really suffer, then I'm not entirely sure this should be there. Then again, as with my last comment, I'm no expert on this so maybe I'm wrong, just my two cents. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began an exhaustive mixing process, which lasted two weeks and was done with Logic 8. I would just shorten this to "Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began mixing, which lasted two weeks." No need to mention it was "an exhaustive mixing process", and as with my first comment, no real need to mention it was done with Logic 8. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It being "exhaustive" ties into "how long" the production process took IMO, but I removed "done with Logic 8"; no need to mention it twice. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I read through the accompanying source and (as far as I could tell) it didn't say anything about it being "exhaustive", so couldn't that fall under original research? Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I gathered it was thorough and comprehensive from details in the article like "...solidly going through..." and "People have said to me before, 'Oh, it must've been a really easy thing to mix, right?' but actually there was a lot of attention to the details to make everything feel right, and it took a long time." Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh okay, as long as it's not OR. As it stands is fine, then. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For each song, they mixed one or two tracks of each instrument and used Waves Audio components to equalize the recordings. Similarly, I'm not really sure this is entirely relevant, but again, could be wrong. Just something to think about. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * More of a question than a comment, but I noticed that the dates are formatted like DD MO Year, which I suppose is how it's supposed to be considering they're an English band, but then the article goes on to read "realize", instead of "realise". My question is if this article is supposed to be written in British English? It would appear to be so. If so or if not, I believe it should be consistent either way. Jacedc (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is written in British English, apart from that word lol. Autotype/correction automatically changed it from "s" to "z" when I wrote it. Thanks for pointing it out. Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and was impressed by how poised and refined such a young group sounds. This is a POV sentence so I think it would be better off as a quoted sentence. Perhaps quote exactly what Phares said instead of parsing it as raw text? Jacedc (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the word "said", as in "...impeccable and said she was impressed by...", so everything after "said" is being attributed to her. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, that works just as well! :) Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support All issues that I raised have been addressed and I now believe this article would make a suitable FA. Good job! Jacedc (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Esprit15d
I was invited to comment:


 * In the lead, it says "they continued to play as a trio": "they" is a pronoun without an antecedent, so I would replace it with "the remaining members".
 * Would "the group" in "...dismissed from the group..." qualify as an antecedent since it's before "they", ? Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like that usage includes her, but I think it's debatable enough that I won't press the issue.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In "Background", it says "On late nights": This very well may be a UK turn of phrase, but it sounded odd on my ears. Could it read "During late nights"?
 * Sure, done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also in "Background", it reads, "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes to no success before": I would be inclined to put commas around "to no success", since it's an aside.
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Under "Recording and Production" it says, "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left": This is incorrect past perfect construction. It should be a single event in relation to another single event. So, it should read, "They would usually record at night when (I prefer "after", though "when" is not wrong) XL's staff had left."
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Under "Recording and production", it says "more expensive items he had borrowed": Take out "had".
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything else looks really solid and thorough. I'd be willing to give a support vote.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Support The prose quality is excellent and it covers all of the necessary subjects with fine sourcing. I think this article has been thoroughly reviewed at this point and meets all the requirements. Shii (tock) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support As per above. The prose quality is top-notch and the referencing is on-point. Yeah, seems good to me :) Soulbust (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with the two users above me. Great choice for an FA. Aria1561 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Prose reads well. Sources I can view check out. Right size of article too. It gets my support. Great work to all involved! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support As per above, The article is as intricate as possible, and it would make no sense for it not to be a featured article. (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I noticed you replaced the comma in the genre parameter with a "flatlist"/bullet. I've noticed this has become a trend lately in music articles, but Template:Infobox album still says to delineate with a comma. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It thoroughly contains proper images, tracks and charts are well cited and active references are neatly organized. I agree that it should be nominated a a featured article. Good job! Nemesis2473 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Strong article and a excellent FA candidate.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Coord comment
, I thought I saw this listed at WT:FAC for a review (sources or images) but it's not there any more -- looks like it does still need a formal source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review – I will do a source review for this article - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Footnotes (numbering as of this revision)
 * Most end with a period, but some do not. This should be consistent (either way).
 * Fixed. Thanks, I didn't even notice. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FN32 ("Phares n.d..") has a double period
 * Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The letters used after "Anon. n.d." don't seem to relate to the order in the bibliography – e.g. FN89 ("Anon. n.d.(y).") links to the JB Hi-Fi entry in the bibliography, which is the 11th "Anon. (n.d.)" in the list (as opposed to 25th as implied by y).
 * They're meant to refer to their order in the references list. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Christgau 2009a/b, Anon. 2009a/b/c, and Anon. 2010a/b/... are also listed out of order in the bibliography
 * Ditto... referring to their order in the references list; the bibliography isn't ordered based on when the footnote appears. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not suggesting that the bibliography be ordered based on the footnotes, but rather that the letter suffixes attached to the year or n.d. be in alphabetical order in the bibliography (so the first such entry listed in the bibliography is 'a', the second is 'b', etc). While linking footnotes to the bibliography entry is possible online, the references should still make sense in a printed version of the article. Also, with the letter suffixes out of order, it is not possible to "work backwards" from a source to see what it is supporting in the prose without looking at the wikitext source (also not possible when printed). Is there actually any advantage to the letters being alphabetical in the footnotes list (which is already in numerical order based on first usage in the article)? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not considered the printed version; the bibliography order and style (by author, which if the same then by date) was suggested to me at a previous FAC (Misterioso). I've revised and reordered it . Dan56 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bibliography
 * Title case or sentence case should be used consistently (at least for the same type of source, if not for the article overall). Some examples: "Top 30 Albums of the 2000s" (title case) vs "The 100 best pop albums of the Noughties" (not title case); and "Year End Charts – Independent Albums" (title case) vs "The xx – Chart history" (not title case).
 * Done, title case throughout. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "xx", "XX", and "Xx" are variously used – suggest harmonising with the article prose, which uses lowercase
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Search instructions for "British album certifications – The xx – xx" are out of date. There isn't a 'Search' field anymore (seems to have been replaced by 'Keywords:'), and at least 3 characters are required – it won't let you search for just "xx".
 * Modified slightly. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, should search instructions be in the middle of the citation (before the access date), rather than at the end? Perhaps the same format as "(subscription required)" could be used for such explanatory information?
 * Search instructions style is based on what would be rendered by the Certification table template if I had not made citations manually. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think the instructions should be at the end, rather than in the middle (as they currently are) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the same format as what the template would produce is fine... but digging through the template code, the refs there are generated by Template:Cite certification, which does put the instructions at the end, after the accessdate:
 * - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, cool. It rendered differently at the time of the previous FAs I worked on, which I've gotten used to... fixed. I used the postscript parameter to render the instructions last. Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some titles have hyphens (-) used as dashes instead of proper dashes (–)
 * Replaced. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliability – apart from the one issue below, the sources appear to be reliable in the context of what they are supporting, without obvious issues.
 * FN89 (JB Hi-Fi) has no mention of RIAA or Gold certification
 * It was mislabeled n.d.(y) instead of n.d.(x)... fixed. Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all that I can see - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrections made, Dan56 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dan56: Resolved issues struck out; see replies above - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrections . Dan56 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all good now - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source review requested and done Dan56 (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I notice you also have some harv errors -- use this script to detect them; you also have some long dashes surrounded by spaces -- either use long dashes with spaces or short dashes with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I notice you also have some harv errors -- use this script to detect them; you also have some long dashes surrounded by spaces -- either use long dashes with spaces or short dashes with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I fixed the harv errors . I don't understand what you mean about the long dashes surrounded by spaces. Where exactly, and what would be the problem, or what's the fix? Do you mean in the title field for the citations? Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , do you mean instances like this?: "...other producers before then that had — and no discredit to them — I guess..." If so, I should replace those long dashes surrounded by spaces with short dashes or keep the long dashes but without the spaces? Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked up MOS:DASH and I think I understood what you meant. Will this suffice, ? Dan56 (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not responding sooner, I was off the air for a while... I think MOS accepts long dashes without spaces or short dashes with, so long as it's consistent within the article, which it is now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem! I hope all this is enough now to determine consensus. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.