Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nightwish/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nightwish

[edit]

I've worked substantially on this article, to try and improve this article since September. Users like Sn0wflake and Leyasu have also had a big hand in improvements done to this article. I finally feel that this article has everything a FA needs, so I hereby nominate it.SoothingR 13:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support well written - quite interesting. --ComputerJoe 11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportI don't listen to this type of music at all, but I think the article is written well and has good layout. [User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC) I still stand by what I wrote, but after reading Tuf-Kat's comments, I have to agree with most of what he wrote. A little work on his comments and I'll change this back. Rlevse 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)I'm content now.Rlevse 16:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notes list should be numbered, not a bulleted. — Wackymacs 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)*:Good point, I've cleaned up the Notes-section. How does the article do now?SoothingR 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well thought out article that covers all the bases, on an up-and-coming but still relatively unknown band on a world scale. --Naha|(talk) 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, I remember hearing about these guys from MP3.com back in the day. Neat article - some paragraphs are a little short and I'd double check the fair use rationale... but so for it looks passable to me. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zach (Smack Back) 21:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object but it's close and I think it may be fixable. It needs a copyedit -- in the lead, for example, it's not clear whether "symphonic metal/power metal" means the terms are synonymous or the band does both, or why these genres are different from "opera metal" (i.e. why not "symphonic/power/opera metal"?). Also the quote seems to come too early in the lead, I suggest moving it down. "is currently recovering from a break with their former vocalist" makes it sound like a hiatus, when it appears to be a breakup (which is different) and the "currentness" of that fact should be referenced (e.g. as of 2005), and what does it mean to be "recovering" in this sense? Are they taking time off to heal the emotional wounds, or are they continuing to promote and/or record without the vocalist and/or write songs to produce later or what? The next few sentences seem to clarify, but don't really, and they need copyediting as well. A few other concerns:
  1. A few more sound samples might be nice, and they ought to be moved into their historical context (i.e. in the body of the article), with a caption that explains something notable about the recording (e.g. one of their more mellow songs, their biggest hit, a fan favorite, or something like that) -- this makes the fair use claim more logical, I think.
  2. I'd really like some sort of print reference. Are there any biographies of the band (or individual members)? Are they mentioned in any books that take a historical approach? I know this is a recent band, but I think it's important to have some sort of scholarly view on their place in music history
  3. This article is all a biography of the band. It needs more describing their musical style and influences, and, if verifiable, who has been influenced by them.
  • Object. I have to disagree with Tuf-Kat's opinion that it's 'close' to FA standard. It fails Criterion 2(a) by a long shot. Let's look at the opening:
Nightwish is a Finnish symphonic metal band, formed in 1996, although they're considered power metal by some. In other cases they have been called opera metal. Although they immediately acclaimed fame in their home country with the release of their first single, a broad worldwide support didn't come to be until their 2002 and 2004 releases of the albums Century Child and Once.
    • The first comma is probably better as 'that was'; in any case, inserting 'formed in 1996' just before the contrastive 'however' clause creates mayhem.
    • The contraction 'they're' should be spelt out in this register.
    • Who are 'some'? The elision creates an undesirable vagueness, especially right at the opening. What about 'although some commentators [or musicians, or critics] consider the band's style to be 'power metal'. The last item should be linked, and written up if non-existent or stubbish.
    • By 'In other cases' you really mean 'in other cases of classifying their style', which, again, is an unsatisfactory elision; it asks the reader to work far too hard to make sense of it. We also have 'considered' vs. 'called'.
    • 'acclaimed'—ungrammatical, and creates a jingle with 'fame'.
    • 'immediately'; well, maybe, but it's too precise for my liking; perhaps just remove?
    • 'a broad worldwide support didn't come to be'—remove 'a', and probably 'broad' too; spell out the contractive; 'come to be' is not idiomatic here.
    • 'until their 2002 and 2004 releases of the albums Century Child and Once'—the dates are jumbled; try: 'until the release of their albums Century Child (2002) and Once (2004)'.
    Now, I'd like to help, but I'm not interested enough in the topic, and it will be a long, intensive job to rewrite this text so that the prose is 'compelling, even brilliant'. Better to withdraw it and enlist the help of others. Tony 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice use of source material, the notes were appropriate and helped expand the article for a complete novice such as myself. If this alone qualified the article as an FA then I would support it. I feel rather at a loss to add to the suggested corrections above, as they seem pretty comprehensive and readily actionable for someone knowledgable in the subject matter. I look forward to being able to support presently. --HasBeen 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've rewritten the lead paragraph, rephrased a few bits throughout the rest of the article (as per Tony1) and added soundsamples to the history section of the article (as per TUF-KAT). SoothingR 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much more robust! Support --HasBeen 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Consider it a newbie question if you will, but doesn't this article violate criteria 2e for featured article candidates? It will be changing as the band makes new tours and release new albums. How should the policy be applied in this case? JoaoRicardotalk 13:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Response: I think that's OK where the changes reflect change in the real world; that's the advantage of WP over hard copy. Tony 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to Tony1; I don't think that that applies to this article. Nightwish doesn't release a new album on a weekly or daily basis. Their next album is scheduled for 2007, so I don't think that your concerns for violation of criteria 2e are accurate. SoothingR 13:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As other comments have noted, this article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit/rewrite; on the technical level, the prose is quite unwieldy. "The success of the album allowed them to do the Once World Tour, which enabled them to play at many different locations, many of which where new countries which they had never been to before." "The rest of the band considered it to not be working well with their vision of how they saw themselves in the future." "The three of them got around to record an acoustic demo-album from October until December 1996." Too many specific statements, which should be easily verifiable, lack any references. And the article includes virtually no discussion of the band's critical reception, even any review links or summaries. The article is overloaded with copyrighted images that don't have appropriate fair-use justifications. Monicasdude 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important notice: I have rewritten the article in an enhanced prose, an action which, I feel, is sufficient to address the concerns of those who found it to be of a poor nature previously. As such, I would like to ask for you ro review the article as it currently stands, and possibly to review your votes. Cheers, --Sn0wflake 21:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The prose has been cleaned up significantly, and that has greatly improved the article's readability. However, it still does not meet FA criteria:
Comment. In the process of making this article FAC compliable, its drifting further and further away from being truthfull, accurate, and NPOV. I suggest all concerned, editers and reviewers, step back and read the article as if they were someone who had NO KNOWLEDGE of the band, at all.
Mainly i say this because, with edits some editors are making to get this article to be FAC complient, its getting more POV, and less accurate. Its beginning to forget about what the band is, their place, what they do, what theyve accomplished, and sounds more like a fan rant pcking and chosing parts about the band that they want people to know, and emmiting parts they dont.
Go for it, get it FAC complient. In the process though, try keeping the article accurate and correct, and if someone doesnt understand something, they can quite easily clink a link to another article. Other than that, people need to read the article outside of their view of the band, and read it fairly as NPOV, which its beginning to seriously lack in. Leyasu 00:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's it getting POV? The article cites its sources. It's clearly not suggesting what readers should believe, it just indicates how Nightwish and their albums were received. There's a difference there.SoothingR 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leyasu, as much as I am trying to respect you as an editor, you are beginning to cross the line. Every valid edit you have made has been incorporated into the article, if only with a slight rephrasing to keep the language as encyclopedic as possible. You have just made a very long rant stating that we are ruining the article, but you didn't manage to point out a single passage which proves your point. While we are at it, I might as well go ahead and state that I am not a fan of Nightwish. So tell me, how can an article be fan-POV if one of its main editors is not a fan of the band? Either you take this discussion to the Talk page and tell us what passages you think are wrong, or you are might as well not disrupt the FAC proccess. I do not think that in a any level your complaints are reasonable. --Sn0wflake 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I've had another look, at the request of one of the contributors, and I'm afraid it's still nowhere near good enough in terms of Criterion 2a, although it has improved. I've copy-edited the lead, where I found things like:
'throughout the end of 2006 and beginning of 2007, being released later that year'

Further down, I see things like:

Can you find someone with fresh eyes who's good at editing? It really needs a thorough going through to be called 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. Sorry I can't be more positive at this stage; I'd like to be. Tony 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the things mentioned in the above list of suggestions, except for the number thing. --Naha|(talk) 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; they were, of course, only examples of a wider issue. Tony 10:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nightwish/archive1&oldid=1138467857"