Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Year Zero (album)


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008.

Year Zero (album)
previous FAC

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)

Third time's the charm? Since failing back-to-back FACs, I brought the article to Peer Review and it has since been tweaked here and there since. As far as I can tell, I have addressed all concerns from both previous FACs and the Peer review. So, I welcome any further comments and suggestions. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.gigwise.com/ a reliable source?
 * Took it out: it was a duplicate citation anyways, so it wasn't really necessary.
 * Still in the article at current ref 33 Jason Gregory and current ref 35 Jason Gregory
 * Wow, can't believe I missed that. Rearranged/redid the citations again: no more gigwise. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * http://blogs.courant.com/eric_danton_sound_check/2007/04/year_zero.html deadlinks with both clicking the link and the link checker
 * Found and added an archived version.


 * Current ref 58 http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?id=1008&name=Nine+Inch+Nails what makes this a reliable source? It is also lacking a publisher
 * It's from Robert Christgau, a much-discussed rock critic. It has not publisher because it's the same as the author (Robert Christgau).


 * Need to watch the all capitals in the references, they probably shouldn't be capitalized.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in the titles?
 * Yes, I did but it looks like you got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help as always. Drewcifer (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Reznor also speculated that he would release the next Nine Inch Nails album online in a similar fashion to The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!, which he produced - this should explain what that fashion is
 * I realize it could veer into OR if there's no sources clarifying it, but I'd like more of an explanation of what makes this a concept album. The spots where the term "concept album" is used only refer to the lyrics criticizing the US government as a recurring theme (which, though it may be a theme technically speaking, is not itself the kind of thing the term "concept album" is commonly used for). But if I had to guess based on the rest of the article, I'd think the "theme" would be the dystopian futurism. So... I'm not sure what exactly my point is, but there you go...
 * Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * In the lead, "Year Zero... Year Zero" &rarr; "Year Zero... It"?
 * Rearranged a little bit, but some of the sentences didn't really benefit from swapped Year Zero with it, for one reason or another. Hopefully it's a little more readable now though.


 * For the first three paragraphs, "Year Zero... The album... The album" &rarr; "Year Zero... The album... Year Zero"? Lots of "The album... The album" going on, at least in the lead.
 * See above. Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As i said in the previous FAC, if the Performance tour is merged with the Promotion and release section, the flow would be a lot better and you can avoid redundancy by not having to mention the USBs twice. You can get a bigger album cover too (300 x 300)indopug (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed both! Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I can't really support or oppose this as it stands now, though I would lean towards oppose. I see the prose and sourcing as a major weaknesses.
 * A number of the paragraphs throughout are stubby and could use fleshing out. (For example, the "Artwork" section.) Also, as another editor pointed out, there are few cases (especially in the lead) where there are repeated phrases and terms.
 * I combined the two short paragraphs in the Artwork section. As for the reptition in the lead, I think I addressed the concerns mentioned above, but if you have any more specific concerns, please let me know.


 * I'm also somewhat concerned about your sources' inherent neutrality (WP:NPOV). 23 of 78 (30%) references in the article are to Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, or an affiliated site. That percentage is worse when you exclude the references only used for chart positions and in the reviews section. You also allow Reznor to be the only speaker used for a good portion of the article. While I agree that those are fine sources, to have so much of the research devoted to them could be problematic. In the "Disputes" section, Reznor's point of view is given exclusively (saying that the music label didn't comment), but surely there were some secondary sources which gave a criticized him or at least provide an alternate perspective? Your passion for NIN comes out in the work, but possibly to the detriment of a neutral point of view.
 * Good points. I've done a bit of work to hopefully address this issue.  As it now stands only 8 sources are directly from NIN/Reznor (out of 79 total, which makes it 6.32%).  If you're looking at individual in-line citations, then there's 11 from NIN (out of an even 100, which makes it 11%).  As far as "Affiliated" sites, the only "Affiliated" sources are UMG (Citation #39) and Internet Archive (#32).  I presume you were referring to TheNINHotline, which isn't connected to NIN at all: they're an independent news-site which just happens to focus exclusively on NIN.  They've been mentioned as sources of information in numerous other 3rd party reports, so are therefore for considered "reliable".
 * Just did a bunch more work on the pov stuff. The new count is 77 sources, only 6 of which are from NIN.  (4.62% for those counting)  In-line citation wise, there are 9 in-lines from NIN out of 103 (9.27%).  And most of those are direct quotes or super specific facts (like the exact day it was finished being mixed).  Does that seem a little more reasonable? Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To the same point as above, does using band-published material move them into primary sources, rather than secondary sources?
 * I'm not completely sure what you meant here. Who's "them"?

That's a start anyway, I'll take another look at it later. JRP (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Again, should halo numbers (in lead) have italics?
 * Sigh, well I feel silly. Fixed.


 * "while touring for With Teeth." - context. What's With Teeth?
 * Fixed.


 * Wouldn't be a derivative of a copyrighted work?
 * Actually, it's derivative of a trademarked work, not a copyrighted one. Good catch, though.  I've updated the image page to reflect this.
 * So the entire poster design is trademarked, not copyrighted? giggy (O) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea. Basically, you can't copyright stuff that's basic geometry/text.  Hence why a photo like this is also trademarked (just a random example I found from this category).  I learned this just recently myself, which is why the NIN image's page didn't reflect that yet. Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware of those rules, just wasn't sure in this case if that could be considered textonly. But it's cool. giggy (O) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "— the parent company of the band's record label, Interscope Records —" - spaced em dashes. Oh noes! (WP:DASH)
 * Huh, I thought it was the other way around. Fixed.

giggy (O) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reception section is really short...
 * Really? Ok, I'll work on this. Drewcifer (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Expanded the section a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, giggy (O) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help and support. Drewcifer (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some issues I've run into while copyediting the article:
 * There's nothing about chart positions, sales, or even the proper release of the album in the Release section.
 * It's now in the renamed "Reception" section.
 * That quote by Reznor in the lead is unnecessary. Might be worth working into the article body.
 * Moved it.
 * The article mentions where the album ranked on Rolling Stone's year-end list, but the magazine's review of the record is not used in the prose.
 * Made a mention of the review in the Reception section.
 * Reznor is a huge gearhead who likes experimenting. Seems like there'd be more sources available about the recording process. Can more information be included in the Recording section? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the relative lack of tons of information is due to the fact that the vast majority of the album was made by one person on a laptop, thus limiting people to say stuff about it, and, I guess, stuff to say in the first place other then "I made it on a laptop". Nonetheless I added a little bit more to it, but seriously I think I'm at my rope's end with that stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead says "Disputes arose between Reznor and Universal Music Group, parent company of Interscope Records, over the overseas pricing of the album, ultimately resulting in the severing of ties between the two parties", but this is not apparent in the article body, which doesn't link the disputes over pricing with Reznor's leaving the label. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't specifically say so, but I'd say the last two paragraphs of the Release and reception make it clear. A bit of rewording should fix it, Drewcifer. giggy (O) 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it's as straightforward as you're making it. Reznor never said "YZ is too expensive in Australia, therefore I'm leaving."  That was obviously part of it, but he never made a specific connection between the two.  So, I reworded both to better reflect that. Drewcifer (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor comments
 * Any reason why Reznor is buried in the middle of the Personnel section?
 * Because it's in alphabetical order. I could go with who's most important, and so Reznor would obviously be first, but after that it gets a little fuzzy.  I think the most NPOV way to do it is alphabetically.  But I wouldn't be completely opposed to doing everyone alphabetical except Reznor. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, do that; put Reznor on top and leave the rest. indopug (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * is "also known as Halo 24" correct? Its a catalog number isn't it (its in the infobox next to Interscope too)?
 * Yea, it's not exactly a catalog number, not exactly a AKA. I guess it's a catalog number in relation to NIN, but not Interscope, since the Halo number thing extends past the Interscope years.  So I think I'm ok with the way it is now (treats it as if it's catalog number in the infobox, and as an AKA in the lead).  I think it straddles the gap alright.  But if you have some suggestions I've open to them. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we list the United World Chart after its deletion?
 * I'd say it's alright, since not every chart in the world has an article, but it's usually still worth mentioning in an article like this. For example, you could say the same thing about "Swiss Albums Charts", since it doesn't have an article either.  But then again, I don't know the circumstances of the UWC's article deletion. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops wrong link, Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Its quite an interesting discussion actually. I've been meaning to bringing it up at DISCOG. indopug (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff. I went ahead and took it off the article, since it seems it's on pretty shakey WP:V grounds. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "He further wrote that when he finishes a new album" confusing wording here; where did he write? He wasn't writing before, so why the "further"?
 * Good point, reworded. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "including the second half of the three-minute song"? Since you've mentioned that its ending. indopug (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the second half because of all the songs that have the outro thing, the Great Destroyer one is the longest and takes up the biggest percentage of it's song (50%). Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I've been doing some off-and-on copy-editing, mainly removing redundancies, and I've seen that Wes has done a thorough one too. This article has improved vastly since the last time, and is quite good now. indopug (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All of your edits have been rock-solid. Thanks a bunch for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Question Was the performance that featured the fake SWAT team part of the Performance 2007 tour, or was is a separate event? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking I suppose it wasn't a part of the tour itself, but the alternate reality game, but the fake SWAT-team performance occurred pretty much concurrently to both, so I guess it's in a bit of a gray area. Drewcifer (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite 22 mentions the "resistance meeting", but it doesn't mention the concert. Can we get a reference describing the impromptu concert? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Should be fixed now. Drewcifer (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards support I don't really listen to anything but classical music, but this article gave me a good idea of what this album was about and the kinds of music are on it. However, I think a few places need a bit more detail:
 * Reznor drew inspiration from his concern at the state of affairs in the United States and at what he envisioned as the country's political, spiritual, and social direction. - What was that state of affairs and what direction did he want the country to go in?
 * Added a little bit more context. Do you think that this addresses the next comment as well?  I mean, I don't want to repeat myself. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actully, if you are only going to include this information once, I would include it in the "Themes" section, which is supposed to explain in the detail the content of the album. Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, moved the explanation down to the Themes section. Drewcifer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It criticizes the American government's policies, and that the album "could be about the end of the world". - Again, what policies?
 * Reznor displayed displeasure at the extra $10 added to the CD's price in Australia for the thermo-coating, saying it only cost an extra 83¢ per CD and that he incurred the additional cost - A little confusing - what does "he incurred the additional cost" mean here?
 * Reworded a little bit. Hopefully that's clearer. Drewcifer (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if more shouldn't be included about the game, but I noticed that the game article itself is very patchy. Has not much been published on the game?
 * A fair amount has been published about the game, and I could definitely expand upon it, but my intention was to avoid getting into too many details and focus on parts of the game that relate back directly to the album and the promotion of it. I would also argue that too much detail about the game is going to loose the lay-reader, since it all gets a little crazy. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if there should be a separate subsection on the game and a bit more on what the game actually is. The promotional description is excellent, but I was left not quite knowing what the game was, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, pretty much the entire Promotional section talks only about the game, so I'm hesitant to expand it much more. However, you're probably right that the article doesn't give enough of an explanation of the game for the lay-person.  So, I added a bit of a quick-summary to hopeffuly clear up any confusion that might arise.  What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The new material explains the media of the game, but not really what the game was about. Can you explain the storyline of the game in another sentence or two? Awadewit (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Phew. Well, I couldn't manage to do it in just a few sentences, but an extra paragraph did the trick I think. Drewcifer (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is wonderful! I have a much better idea of the politics in the game and album because of this, by the way. Awadewit (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:USBM warning.jpg - I'm also not totally sure that this image is necessary, since it is described in the text and is itself almost entirely text. (The rest of the image licenses seem ok to me.)
 * I think it works, but if you're totally against it suppose I could take it out and the article wouldn't be terribly ruined. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering if it meets the high fair use standards we have, since it is basically just a copy of text. Is that really necessary? Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took it out. Drewcifer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can just reprint the information in one of those quote boxes. indopug (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine without. It's explained pretty clearly in the prose anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not checked any of the sources - I will leave that to others more versed in this area than myself. This was interesting article to read - I surprised myself by thinking "maybe I should go download some of these songs"! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, comprehensiveness concerns have been reasonably addressed; no sources could be found for the LP. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1b (comprehensiveness).  The article is well-written, but it is missing information from a lot of articles containing analysis and criticism of the album.  No mention of all album formats, either, which is a big miss for a featured article candidate.  Some minor items below, but further research is needed to make this comprehensive.  I will post some examples on FAC talk page.

Thanks a million for your help. I'll keep looking for a source about the LP. Drewcifer (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support — Article and sources look great. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks so much for the support and the kind words! Drewcifer (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel like some of the "Related Works" section may be irrelevant, especially the television/film information. I'm not sure how it really pertains to the album. Otherwise I'm pleased with the way the article has shaped up since the last two FACs. NSR 77  T C  07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. As for the related projects section, I think it's a pretty low-impact section, so I think it's cool as it is.  Besides has a television show or feature film ever been created around a concept album?  I think that's pretty notable stuff, even if nothing comes of it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.