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 not promoted by GrahamColm 18:21, 28 May 2012 [1].

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today[edit]

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been through FA three times, had a peer review, been a GA for years, and I've put a lot of effort into it. Whatever adjustments need to be made, I can do them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the work that must have gone into citing this, but sometimes it is too much, for example:

Suggest you review WP:BUNDLING and read the essay WP:OVERCITE, and then work on reducing problem areas like this (13 citations in two sentences). ClayClayClay 21:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Duly noted. So if I can spread out these references and remove any that are extraneous, do you see any other immediate problems that keep it from being FA quality? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really done a full review before, so bear with me. From this revision of the article.

Spotchecks (done while trying to discern the meaning of some portions of text): 19b, 21ab, 31b, 38, 41, 65, 66a, 109, 110, 111, 114 check out.

Will continue from "Themes""Reception""Promotion" tomorrow.Done, this is a pretty solid article but still needs some changes for clarity. No comment on the finer points of grammar and all that, that isn't my area. ClayClayClay Part 1 - 07:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Part 2 - 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Part 3 - 17:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Part 4 - 19:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Clay
  • Citing is too bundled. I gave this a shot by fleshing out the section and removing one reference that wasn't strictly necessary.
  • "Byrne and Eno worked on the tracks with collaborators in their home studios throughout 2007 and early 2008 over e-mail." ??? this sentence is trying to say too much.
  • Per WP:SEASON, no "autumn 2007" or similar.
  • "until 14 songs were recorded prior to June 2008." Suggest "and by June 2008 14 songs had been recorded."
  • "and Chris Martin of Coldplay wrote a song to the instrumental track for "One Fine Day",[21] but acquiesced when he heard Byrne's lyrics[34]" Two problems: the first cite covers both pieces of information and should be used for both, and some context (given in the cite) should be given for the entire statement so that the next ("Once that song was finished") can logically follow.
  • "with two of the tracks were finished at the end of the sessions." Grammar, and suggest incorporating this into a sentence with context from source (often one or two tracks are finished at the end of any sessions, or the sessions wouldn't have ended).
  • "with all collaborations being carried on via e-mail." With who? Rochford or Byrne/Eno?
  • "as well as Eno's solo work and production of Talking Heads' Remain in Light and Little Creatures, which was produced by the band" Who produced what? Awkwardly worded. Also suggest listing Eno's solo works by name.
  • "Steve Matteo of Crawdaddy! wrote that Eno's production dominates the album, wheres Filter's Ken Scrudato considers the album primarily a David Byrne venture, while The Village Voice has declared this album "more expansive and adventurous" than anything else Byrne has released in decades and Greg Kot of The Chicago Tribune wrote that the album features "one of the strongest vocal performances of Byrne's career."" Split this into at least 2 sentences.
  • "the album was also placed on two individual writers' lists for No Ripcord." What type of lists?
*"One of the motivations for creating this album over the Internet was that very article Byrne wrote for Wired as well as Eno's belief that music fans want more than just the music on an album and prefer collectible deluxe editions of albums as well as the live performances that promote them." First, these are two motivations. Second, consider introducing mention of Byrne's article in the previous sentence (I thought the statement was from an interview at first) and fixing this sentence accordingly.
  • " "...the Topspin platform helped us generate Direct-to-Fan revenue at the very least the equivalent to what we would have expected from a label advance." Topspin's platform resulted in directs profits equivalent to the advance of a record label that went directly to Byrne and Eno." - The second sentence is mostly redundant, and what is left could probably be tacked to the end of the first sentence. That was pretty egregious--yeesh.
  • "Byrne initially considered only promoting this album but decided to assemble songs from this album as well as his previous collaborations with Brian Eno" Suggest (if source supports) "but decided to include songs from his previous collaborations with Brian Eno as well".
Spotchecks (done while trying to discern the meaning of some portions of text): 19b, 21ab, 31b, 38, 41, 65, 66a, 109, 110, 111, 114 check out.
  • 21c. Source doesn't specify locations of recordings. The more interesting fact in the source is ignored (Byrne and Eno played all the instruments besides drums and percussion (and some guitar parts, obviously))
  • 24. Source doesn't mention vocal sketches and talks about adding verses, not an extra chorus.
*64. Source doesn't mention any of the details in the article. Some information goes with citation 65, but not all.
  • Another comment, please review Checklinks, I went through and fixed some but some may be unfixable.--the Magnet links works fine in my browser and the Uncut reference was also printed in their January 2009 issue.
Done (for now?) Please provide further feedback if you think this can pass. Also, any other reviewers, please give your feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look Can someone else please review this and leave feedback? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I see a hundred minor issues and that's probably too many to work through at this venue. Justin, should this nomination fail I'd be happy to give a full peer review. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can this FA be put on hold for a reasonable duration to do the review and then amend it? I've already had three other FACs and another peer review. I'd honestly just like to finally be done with this as I've put in hundreds of hours of work without the pay-off of that gold star yet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Noleander' - I appreciate all the citations in the article, but - as mentioned above - WP:BUNDLING suggests that footnotes in the middle of a sentence are a bit off-putting. I suggest that that be remedied first before bring to FAC. --14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Response WP:BUNDLING doesn't apply here as there are no instances "when there are multiple sources for a given sentence, and each source applies to the entire sentence." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should have kept reading after the first sentence :-) WP:BUNDLING continues: "Bundling is useful if the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text, or if the sources all support the same text.". (emphasis mine). The bottom line is: footnotes in the middle of sentences are considered really annoying by many readers. FA holds articles to really high standards, and many FAC reviewers will not look favorably at the mid-sentence footnotes. On the other hand, the article looks really well researched, and has great cites! --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response I find this a little troubling--are you saying that other reviewers may take it for granted that this is a well-researched and well-written article, but it has a somewhat irritating layout and then not pass FA? (And thank you for the compliment.) When a source refers to a single clause within a sentence or a parenthetical aside, it seems reasonable to use that ref just for that phrase or fact. Having "...text.[1][2][3][4][5]" is far more confusing and irritating to me as a reader (hence I never do it.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should not speak for other reviewers ... maybe I'm the only one that finds mid-sentence footnotes annoying. BTW: you may have mis-read WP:BUNDLING: to provide multiple citations for a single sentence, it suggests a single footnote at the end, like this.[1] Within that single footnote, you may have 2 or more citations. If each citation applies to only a portion of the sentence, comments should be included in the footnote explaining that correspondence. That is all covered, with examples, in WP:BUNDLING. --Noleander (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources WP:BUNDLING suggests that one may use citations like in that manner (emphasis added) "they can be bundled into one footnote at the end of the sentence or paragraph" but doesn't mandate it. If I have text like, "...won his first Grammy in 1991[1] and his second in 1993.[2]" it seems obvious to me what is being cited here, but a citation like "...won his first Grammy in 1991 and his second in 1993.[1][2]" is more confusing and requires me to check more sources and read more contextual information to figure out what is being cited and how. In an article with 200 citations, that's laborious. Unless I don't understand (and it's entirely possible that I don't!) this is requiring significant effort on my part as well as the readers' (at least, readers like me) for what is essentially an aesthetic preference. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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