Wikipedia:Featured article review/Californication (album)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC).

Californication (album)

 * Notified: Naerii, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers diff, WikiProject Alternative music, diff, WikiProject Albums, talk page notification 2021-05-04

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because... as outlined by User:Hog Farm here, this 2007 FA has seen better days and is certainly the Chili Peppers FA (out of five) in the worst state. Outside of sourcing concerns that Hog Farm mentioned, all of the article's single release dates are currently unsourced, the entire outtakes section is sourced by one source (unreliable at that), the critical reception section is a mess, and the article in its current state doesn't really justify what it to the band themselves (i.e. being a fan of the band, it essentially saved them after the comedown that was One Hot Minute and proved they would succeed after Blood Sugar Sex Magik).

I feel like I could do some things to help, but imo the entire article needs a major revamp, and I unfortunately do not have the sources to be able to do that. So here we are. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew this was gonna happen. All of the RHCP articles that got promoted to FA status are old, and most need some cleanup. I worked on Niandra Lades so I'll see what I can do for this article.


 * Side note, two RHCP albums (Californication and Blood Sex Sugar Magik) are in the Rolling Stone 500 project, and while realistically that project will never come close to being finished, I still think it's important to keep at the very least those two albums at FA status. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I could also help out as much as I can. I agree it'd be nice to at least keep this one and BSSM GA/FA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be slowly making my way through this article. Just cleaned up the background section, although I think I'll do another look over for copyediting. It seems the article doesn't make use of Jeff Apter's 2004 book about the RHCP, and fortunately that book just so happens to be on the Internet Archive. I'll keep you updated as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. I can look for critical reviews and other stuff in rock's backpages and newspapers.com. That should help out critical reception at least. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - My instinct is just to nuke the outtakes out of existence. I'd do it boldly myself, but it's been there since about 2014 or so, so I'd thought I'd check in first. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. I doubt the liner notes would say anything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Are there still plans to work on it? I see there hasn't been significant work since I removed the outtakes cruft on April 6. Hog Farm Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, I'll get back on this article. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's slow and steady progress. So far I've revamped the background and promotion/release section (this includes moving the tour paragraphs to the promotion release section). What still needs to be done is add a recording section (I don't think it'll be too long given the fact that there's only one article I could find on the subject), revamp the composition section, revamp the reception section, and revamp the lede. There is one problem regarding comprehensive research. In 2003 Rolling Stone put Californication on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but the 2003 version isn't available online (at least not from a reliable source). I've asked WT:ALBUM, and one user said they might be able to find the magazine and verify the information in a couple of weeks, but until then there's one piece of information that can't be sourced. Also the book Scar Tissue goes into significant detail about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and more than likely has some important information about this album. I finally found a copy of the book through some slightly legally ambiguous methods, but regardless it's fine. It's a reflowable text ebook so I'll use the same method I used for Neutral Milk Hotel (cite the chapter, and a searchable phrase). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * LMK if you need help with reception. I know I can be of assistance there. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Question: would this be considered reliable? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE the answer would be yes. The author appears to be a staff member. With that said, I'm not sure what the source would be used for? Is it used to further the claim that the album is derided for it's mixing? If that's the case, I think there are better sources out there. Also, thank you for the edits! I'm a slow editor if you couldn't tell, but I am working on a writing and recording section with the limited sources I've found for it. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah the masters issue, because a quick google search indicates that Californication is particularly notorious for having poor mastering. And no problem! Happy to help. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote a short paragraph about the mastering issues in the retrospective commentary section. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in this topic, so I probably glossed over some important information. In this book Perfecting Sound Forever (here) the author goes into detail about the specifics of the terrible mastering on Californication, then talks about some history not related to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, then goes back to Californication around page 280. Figured I should mention this. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that's definitely useful. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My observations:
 * 1) I think there are too many citations in the lead. The lead should summarize points verified elsewhere in the article, so having citations in the lead is redundant.
 * 2) Lots of overlinking. British Phonographic Industry is linked every time it comes up. Also lots of X's being used where times signs should be used.
 * 3) Ray Gun reference is missing a page number.
 * 4) Removed "prince.org" reference, which appeared to be a web forum. This is the only source I saw that didn't look reliable.
 * We're still in the process of expanding, the lead section basically hasn't changed but will when Famous Hobo and I finish the rest. And the linking issue will fix itself once likewise once the rest is good. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Hey guys, nice work on trying to keep the article at FA status. I have a few questions/comments about the article mainly pertaining to the Reception section. First off, for the "retrospective commentary," I think one addition that would be helpful would be to talk about Californication in comparison to the state of rock music during that time, specifically how it stood out amongst the nu metal and rap rock/rap metal albums and artists prevalent in the late 90s. RHCP in general has often been cited as the progenitors of the whole funk metal/rap rock movement which later inspired nu metal, and during the time the album came out, other bands both directly and indirectly inspired by them achieved mainstream success with their own albums, like Limp Bizkit's Significant Other, Korn's Follow the Leader/Issues, Incubus' Make Yourself and so on. I found a Washington Post source from the funk metal article that kind of touches upon this, mainly about how Korn and Limp Bizkit expanded on RHCP's style between OHM and Californication. But if you want, maybe you could find more sources/reviews as to how it has aged compared to the nu metal era/90s alt-rock scene as a whole, along with its influence on rock beyond it merely marking RHCP's musical shift? I think doing so would make its legacy a bit more comprehensive. Speaking of which, my other comment is if we could change it to a more general Legacy section instead, and maybe add some more music listicles where the album is featured. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in continuing to work on this article? Is this article ready for a review from new editors? Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had actually just remembered about this yesterday and was wondering the same thing. I'll ping to see where their progress is as I believe they were doing the majority of the work. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the late reply. I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in finishing this article. It's just not interesting enough to me to continue dedicating time to it. A good chunk of the article has gotten a facelift, so if someone else wants to step in and finish it, it won't be too much more work. What still needs fixing is the lede, the composition section (it needs more information about the music and lyrics, in addition to information about the individual songs), the reception section needs to include info about the Grammy nomination, and the legacy section still needs updating. Also it wouldn't hurt to look over the recording section since while I'm pretty sure it all makes sense, I am not an expert at studio recording and thus the vernacular might be slightly off at points. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist I think this is close to a save, but Famous Hobo outlined above what is missing and no steps have been taken to resolve these concerns. Hopefully, someone will step up to fix it, or improve it and renominate it for FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist – agree with above. I unfortunately have other things that are bigger priorities than to deal with this rn. I'm sure it could be a GA or even FA again in the future but for now I'm good with delisting. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist per Z and Z. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.