Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nirvana (band)/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 kept by Dana boomer 15:34, 27 February 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: ChrisB, WesleyDodds, Wikiproject Alternative music, Wikiproject musicians

I feel the duty to nominate this article for review, and generally open it up to discussion. Featured five, nearly six years ago, I believe that it no longer meets criteria. Here are my concerns:


 * Problems with sources, sometimes dubious and completely lacking, as well as broken links.
 * The article's overall prose is in my honest opinion, hollow and insufficient. While I that respect Nirvana only had a short career (compared to say The Beatles or Frank Zappa), featured articles on bands such as Joy Division and the Sex Pistols, who had even shorter careers, document and describe what Nirvana's article lacks entirely, namely in their contemporary regard and legacy, musical influences and style. My primary concern is uninformativeness. At this point, I believe the article should be delisted, and would at best be considered a good article when its reference problems are dealt with. I'm happy to work in improving it. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the referencing. Reference numbers are as of this revision:
 * Number 28 - dead link.
 * 44: This does not appear to be a RS.
 * 46: This does not appear to be a RS.
 * 47: This is a mirror of Allmusic; just use the Allmusic link instead.
 * 48: This does not appear to be a RS.
 * 56: This is definitely not a RS, as it's the same website (Rock on the Net) that hosted that dubious ARC Weekly Top 40 chart.
 * 57: Another link from Rock on the Net, same as above.
 * Also, many footnotes are missing work and/or author credits.
 * I agree that there is very little on the band's legacy and musical styles, both of which are crucial bits of information for a FA. Comprehensiveness seems the most lacking in this regard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually have "musical style" and "Legacy" sections I've have on the back-burner on my user page for a while now. If you give me some time, I should be able to bring the article to modern FA standards with no problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Time will of course be given. Articles are at FAR/FARC for a minimum of one month, and this can be extended if work is progressing on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

References: These have now been all brought up to date with reliable sources and they have been correctly formatted. The only issue still surrounds the iloveindia reference for Cobain's bronchitis and laryngitis. I've been unable to find an alternative source for this yet. --JD554 (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall it being mentioned anyway, although if anywhere it might be in either the Rolling Stone or New York Times obituaries. Still, it's not essential to include. I'll dive into Come As You Are for more references sometime this week to beef up what's already in the article. The "musical style" and "legacy" sections will take longer to craft. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are prose, referencing, comprehensiveness  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been any work for two weeks, but no need to panic unduly  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist for FA criteria concerns. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep The article has been improved, and no issues to addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 18:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist, per concerns over unsourced chunks, and quality of referencing with regard to WP:RS on an FA, and unaddressed issues. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist per my concerns over references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Keep since all major concerns appear to be addressed. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold Sorry, I haven't had time to contribute lately. I'll get on it starting this week. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. We'll hold as long as you need. I was actually about to ping you when I saw this message :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial progress - I've cited and expanded the "early years" section, and will move forward as I can get around to it. The Azerrad book is hazy on dates sometimes, but I can probably use Cross' Cobain bio Heavier Than Heaven to plug in any gaps and clarify anything that people might ask about later. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Update I got roped into working on another Nirvana article at the moment, but I plan to do further work this weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is work on this coming? We haven't had an update from you in a while! Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm working slowly but surely. When I do get the time to work, I get a lot done. Now I'm at a point where I can just pull material I've already cited elsewhere (mainly in Nevermind and In Utero (album). Question: does anyone else think the 1992 MTV VMA performance gets undue weight here? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Another user has said he'll help with the article so I can focus on crafting the missing musical style and legacy sections. Meanwhile, as for what's in the article that still needs to be cleaned up, I should be able to source the rest of the "posthumous releases" section (mainly the material about the box set and "You Know You're Right") by mid-week. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - It has been over a month since I brought the article to review. Reference problems have been fully dealt with, but comprehensiveness otherwise remains lacking. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. I'm working slowly on it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wesley, pls ping me when you're done and I'll do a MOS check. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Update I hope to wrap this up by the end of the month. That's the goal I'll set for myself, and I aim to meet it. Aside from the addition of information about the band's musical style and legacy (and I know I need to add references for the paragraph about "You Know You're Right"--currently working on that), is there anything else people feel needs major attention in the article? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist — A regretful delist opinion by me. I feel that the major gap in the article, which should be a FA, is that it fails to produce any material regarding the influence of the band, their musical inspirations, their ambitions, their legacy. To me thats a big hole in the article. Hence, this fails as a FA. Further content addition is required, rather than make it a timelined bio. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I'm working on that in a user page before I add it to the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have struck the delist and would like to have this article keep its FA status. My main qualm with Nirvana was that the article lacked an analysis of their musical style, influences and a betterment of their legacy. This has been added, a fruitful one I must say. Wonderful work WesleyDodds. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Update I'm going to need another two weeks, due to a particular American holiday getting in the way. I have just finished citing the last of the unsourced statements in the article (in addition clarifying some post-dissolution legal wrangling about the band that was misinformed previously), and now I can focus on crafting the "Musical style" and "Legacy" sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Update Just going to take a little more time. I have the sources on hand to craft the missing sections, I just need to get through the next few days so I can have the free time to do it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Image The lead image is claimed to PD, but following on to the source it is copyrighted, thus the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's copyrighted now, but there is a template at the Wikimedia Commons page which says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on September 8, 2005 by the administrator or reviewer Flominator, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date". So I guess it is ok? (and the image is licensed as CC2.0, not PD)—indopug (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Media The audio track has a boiler plated invalid FU rationale, thus the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had a problem with this sort of fair use rationale before. Can you explain how to strengthen it? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell you how to strengthen it, however I can let you know what my concerns are
 * It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken.
 * The purpose of wp is to support the mission of the foundation, and creating content specific to one platform is not in support of this
 * FN, I think you got it in the opposite way. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is used to specifically illustrate the song's noted used of dynamic shifts, and is used to enhance commentary on its composition.
 * We do not use non-free content to enhance commentary or to illustrate articles, we use it to enhance understanding, and this the rationale should make direct reference to the content and WP:NFCC
 * WD, just mention how it increases thereader's understanding by helping them comprehend a basic use of dynamic shifts. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a short sample from a much longer recording, and could not be used as a substitute for the original commercial recording.
 * It needs stated what the criteria was to select the sound, what elements are included, and how the length was decided, and the sampling rate and sound quality
 * Mention that WP:SAMPLE guided you for the length etc. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value.
 * A reasonable statement
 * It is believed that this sample will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original recording
 * A reasonable statement
 * I hope this helps (I don't generally watch FAR, if you have follow up, drop a note on my talk page) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale seems to fit Non-free use rationale guideline and Non-free content criteria fine, which are the guidelines specifically mentioned in the FA criteria. Can you elaborate on where the rational fails to meet these guidelines? That would give me a clearer picture on how to tighten the rationale. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale indeed fits WP:NFCC and its guideline. See my inline responses. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Update The meat of the "Musical style" section is now present in the article. I should be able to polish it off on Christmas Day, with Legacy following soon after. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? Also, please feel free to ping all of the editors who have commented above once you feel that their concerns have been addressed. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Update I'm almost done. Can someone really knowledgeable about fair use review the media again? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was already being improved, and it seems like "Musical Style" is complete now. igordebraga ≠ 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article has vastly improved, and I believe that there are no issues here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Update The Legacy section is now complete, and thus the article now includes everything it was previously missing. I am in the process of redoing the lead section to better match the article, as well as performing some minor tweaks. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked User:Jappalang to take a look at the images, as he is one of the image experts who often works at FAC/FAR. If you wouldn't mind, can you ping Sir Richardson and SandyGeorgia to take another look? Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've contacted Sir Richardson already, and will contact Sandy shortly. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Media concern: The photograph is fine but I agree with Fasach that the music sample for "Smells Like a Teen Spirit" fails NFCC, mostly with criteria 8 (contextual significance) and 1 (free replacement &mdash; text). We have an article about the song (which is rightly so, considering the amount of press and analysis) and the music sample best fits there. The Nirvana article itself carries little if any critical commentary about the song in the main text (I do not consider the quoted description of the music in the caption as a significant analysis either). The impact and popularity of Nirvana's hit is not helped by the sample and can be described in words. Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of moving it to the Musical Style section, which I can restructure to reference the song explicitly. The main purpose of the clip in this article is to demonstrate how Nirvana as a band sounds (the dynamics part, mainly), which can be described in prose in a very basic way, but can only be properly conveyed via a sound sample. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, at this point, the sample is used only in an illustrative manner. The article states the song made Nirvana famous: "'Smells Like Teen Spirit' was almost omnipresent on radio and music television."  Those words are clear and do not need the sample to demonstrate what is said.  The caption's description is more apt in the article about the song or its genre than here, as it does not state what relevance those characteristics have to Nirvana.  The sample would have more contextual significance to the band's article if "Smells Like a Teen Spirit" is demonstrably (and explained in the article) the standard of Nirvana's works; i.e. the song is characteristic of most of the band's works (for a certain period or throughout their existence) and what makes them unique.  This (the characteristics and its significance to the band) is not explored in the article and thus the sample is not needed.  Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed this now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent changes somewhat addressed this; however, fair use rationales should be individually addressed for each article the media is used in and not "lumped" together per WP:NFCC #10 (c): "and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". Please write out a fair use rationale for Nirvana on the image page.  Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationales are to be specific on the use of the media to each article; thus I modified the rationale for this article. No one should just use a "blanket" rationale as there are now for the other 3 instances this sample is used on other articles; however, that is a concern on the media's use and the other articles and not for this article about the band, so I will not beleaguer the issue here.  Jappalang (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did try to to make the rationales as specific to each instance as possible, and attempted tweaking again. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep The article is comprehensive now.—indopug (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Good work, Wesley. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.