Wikipedia:Featured article review/Radiohead/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 Joelr31 00:29, 25 February 2009 [1].

---

Radiohead

Review commentary

User:WesleyDodds, User:Pomte, User:Faithlessthewonderboy, User:Giggy, User:Mad Hatter, WP:ALTROCK notified.

One year ago our article was promoted to featured. Late last year the text took a sharp turn with several contentious editors making large changes and attempting to delete or spin off major portions of the article. They were ultimately overruled on the largest changes, but through creeping edits the text today is beginning to diverge significantly from what it was one year ago. I just submitted this again for FAR, with the hope that the article will be removed from featured status until it can be sufficiently improved to again merit the distinction. Following are the criteria for featured articles, along with my personal highlighting of areas where I feel this article now falls short.

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit) Thanks for the suggestion. I have done that.

comment: Featured articles can't be delisted until they have gone through a review. You may want to consider listing the article at WP:FARC and briefly summarise the issues there. I guess your concern seems to be that it no longer meets criteria 1a (well-written) 1b (comprehensive) or 1e (stable). I agree that it has changed dramatically since we pushed it to FA, and it could probably use some more sets of eyes. Papa November (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the article has changed that much. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to nominator: you need to notify the article's primary editors and the relevant WikiProjects. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see a list of users notified, but they haven't been contacted on their talk pages yet, and neither have ay WikiProjects. Why don't we start the nomination all over (especially since it should be the editor who wants the article to undergo review who should nominate it)? It's really the nominator's responsibility to handle these things. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a diff between the version which passed as a FA and the current version. Actually, Wesley I think you're right - I've struck out my previous comment about the dramatic changes. I guess there has been a large number of edits recently, but I'm not sure that anything major has changed here. The nominator should really state (briefly) why the article now fails the criteria rather than just highlighting them. Are there any specific examples? The only substantial changes seem to be in the Style and influence section, but I don't think the cuts have been significant enough for the article to fail WP:FACR#1b. Papa November (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo as it is. I support the changes which I made through the Style and Influences section as it was superfluous, overlong and ridiculous overkill. I don't think the article fails to meet the criteria for featured article, just because I cut some of the information, mentioned above. The article now is leaner, morce concise and stripped down than before. I support the article as it is and wouldn't want to see the all the superfluous information back on the article, because it just doesn't look good at all. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out and say that I prefer the old version. What we have now is their history and a short section on their influence. For a band of their prominence I find that a bit weak. However, I would suggest the best option would be to return the old, longer version as an separate article. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but it didn't pass out. I and number of other users including NSR77 and A Chain Of Flowers support this cut version. I also supported the bold edits I personally made when moving it into a seperate article, but it didn't pass out. I also think the best option is to move it to a seperate article, but it is up to the users, not only to me. I can make it right away. Just whistle :). Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the main objection at the time was having NOTHING in that section on the main article. Now there is something, so I don't think there would be any objection anymore. Zazaban (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is justified, but if you've seen other articles SUCCESSFULLY spun out this way and newly spun out section not being either rapidly filled with genuinely superflous fancruft material, or else rapidly deleted...or... both, in that case it might be a good option. It just seems that when this happens in Wikipedia it's always a prelude to that material being removed altogether, or else an invitation to edit and add way too freely to a pretty decent text which rapidly turns into an atrocity that would never be let back into the main article, or even allowed to stay in Wiki. It's also a dodge of the necessary edits which Mad Hatter talks about- which are necessary to ensure that a page remains concise- but which are also hard edits, something Mad Hatter does not seem to admit, because it's necessary also to make sure a page retains context and that EVEN if a decision is made that entire sections were "superfluous", the work of previous editors in choosing what to cover and finding good sources for it, is not carelessly discarded. To take one example, the influence (on Radiohead) section as it was before, went through and described the band's musical influences in each period of their career. If an editor found the section useless, he could cut the entire section, and if he found the section overlong he could cut down on the number of groups mentioned as influences for each period of their career. In contrast, one example of very bad, careless edits would be an editor who thought the section could be "leaner", and as a result simply chopped off one paragraph without paying too much attention to what was in it. In fact, this is what did happen with this section. It now describes, even in the same detail as always, the band's original influences, their influences in the mid '90s, and their influences on Hail to the Thief and on In Rainbows. Yet it conspicuously lacks ANY mention of their influences during KidA/Amnesiac- easily the most publicized musical influences the band has ever had (which are not mentioned in the history text either) and the real justification to even have that section on Radiohead's musical influences in the first place, since they kept mentioning the influences on those records since then, and their music since then sounds a lot different, doesn't it? At least, writers appear to think so. Anyway I say this not to say anything specific about what form I want the text of that section to take but to point out the careless edits that are infesting this page since late last year and which will go on infesting it unless changes in the article are brought to more people's notice than have been editing it lately. i.e. to the Wiki community which collectively designates a featured article as the best work possible. Re-evaluating the article is the best way to do that. I contacted all the main editors for this article who had done any edits in the past eight months. I attempted to follow the instructions to make a new FAR entry, but there was some complication and it seemed as if I would have to install some software or perhaps I wouldn't be able to do it anyway from an IP address. I understand if this is not the appropriate way to go about this, however, I really suggest the editors here take a closer look at WHAT changes have gone on in the article rather than how many changes, and see if you feel the level of quality has remained constant from September 2008 or more relevantly, from January of last year, when a big push was made to get the article up to featured quality.

I am not trying to single out any one editor such as Mad Hatter here for making bad edits. In fact my guess is Mad Hatter did not make the edit I mentioned, as it was extremely careless and was probably made by someone not familiar with the subject at all. Mad Hatter did however open the page up to "be bold" sort of edits, which frankly appear, sometimes, to be for their own sake, because people can't leave well enough alone. Mad Hatter's user page identifies him as a Darwikinist, and I agree that, over time, Wikipedia is supposed to evolve, and I don't believe that overall things necessarily get worse over time, time can improve many articles in the long run, and bad edits will be corrected, etc. etc. However, articles are always fluctuating in quality, and if you hit them at any moment and demand they justify their recent course of evolution, many of the articles are not changing for the better, and this I believe is one of them. There is no overall plan to the reductions in information, as there have been in some other pages where an allpowerful editor is exerting their vision and it takes a while for to play out in real improvements. I am just seeing information cut, not a lot so far, but in stupid ways. Why have even things like a PNG of Abingdon school (small, and free image, pretty sure) been removed, which gave character to that section of the text? Is it a good idea to cut large swathes of material without making sure citations in the other parts are not broken (as has happened here sometimes)? Is MORE context not actually required of this article than LESS context, even if the article could have said more with fewer words? Shouldn't this article maybe include the sorts of summarizing quotes from print sources that are found in individual album articles in under "response", as a way to characterize the band's musical style, themes, influence, etc.?

Disagree or skim all the above text, the #1 reason this needs to be up for a FAR is this: "does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." Even the relatively small (compared to initial demanded cut) edits by the exclusionists are already in violation of this principle. Even if this article truly was completely "superfluous", "overlong", "ridiculous", "overkill", and needed to be "leaner", "stripped down" (realize that all that is just RHETORIC? not examples!! the section cutters never justified themselves properly in the first place), the thing to do about it would have been to put the article up for FAR... except, see, it had just been up eight months prior, and the parts of it which these recent editors took offense to where actually the parts of the article that had changed the LEAST in 2008 and most resembled the sections at the time the article was resoundingly promoted to featured. But there was always the chance a different group of FAR reviewers would have seen the article differently and agreed that it needed massive cuts. In any case, the way to cut whole sections (however minor) out of a featured article is not just to "be bold" in doing it w/out consulting the featured article process. It would be to "be bold" in advocating a FAR review. IT IS NOT IN ANYONE'S INTEREST EXCEPT MAYBE A GLEEFUL EDITOR FOR ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO FEATURED, TO BE CHANGED IN STRUCTURE AND FOCUS WITHOUT WIDE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES BY A SIMILARLY REPRESENTATIVE GROUP AS THOSE WHO ORIGINALLY PROMOTED TO FEATURED.

Can anyone seriously say the article is "stable" today, even lacking any major edit wars? Whether or not I demand an FAR now no one here seems to agree on exactly what structure the article should be in, & there's no consensus on either the '08 text before the change in structure, or the current version. Anyone can see the article is in a state of flux and can go any way, up or down, very soon. And few people seem to have paid attention to the edits or commented on them. Personally I feel that, even with no knowledge of the subject I would not see the article as well written today; it's no longer at featured quality.

70.21.58.96 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew... OK, I'll try to address some of these points:

• Mad Hatter has now restored the style/influences text about Kid A/Amnesiac and I have replaced the lost images. Hopefully this addresses your concerns about criteria 1(b) and 2.
• I still don't see the issue you have with criterion 1(a). As you can see from the difference between the featured and current versions, little has changed between then and now in most of the article. The sections that have altered still seem to be well written. It seems that you are arguing that the quality of the text might degrade over time, but that's an issue common to all featured articles and I don't think it's happened here yet. If there are any specific sections that you see as being poorly written, (i.e. poor quality of prose, not poor content) then we can address those issues very easily.
• Finally, I agree that the stability criterion 1e is possibly an issue. However, I think the current version of the style/influences section is a nice compromise between the two camps and I hope that's the end of this saga! If people really aren't happy with it, then I guess we could temporarily delist the article while we sort it out, but that would be a great shame and hopefully it won't be necessary. Papa November (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, yeah I was being unnecessarily ranty there, and thanks very much to you and Mad Hatter for fixing those areas, especially the Kid A issue (with the images, maybe there is some legitimate reason they had to be removed, I guess we will find out soon enough. seems there are just certain people in Wikipedia who hate the presence of images, sometimes). I could have fixed it myself but I thought it might turn into another edit war. I've been re-reading the history section (and I made a couple of improvements- I hope- to the intro in particular). I guess I do think in general the article probably IS better than it was a year ago- overall. So I suppose item 1(a) isn't an issue at all- in fact I thought some of the sections removed lately could have been better written, even if I do feel some of that information should be in here, so in a way that did fix the writing, if we can prevent more lazy deletions. I still have a problem with the "places it in context" part of 1(b), plus the stability, 1(e). If you look at Brandt Luke Zorn's massive recent work in the OK Computer article as well as creating the new Radiohead tours article, you see where we might go with "context" in order to pack more kaleidoscopic information in less space. It's good that the influences part has stayed, this is VERY important for this band, as their wide range of influences is what's seen to set them apart stylistically, and it's good to have the brief description of band roles even if it's now reduced so one gets less sense of the stress the Kid A sessions put on the band members who played guitar, drums, etc. anyway that IS still hinted. What is absolutely missing is any larger discussion of the band's influence or indeed their aesthetic & STYLE and SONGWRITING, which is the subject of countless books and articles. We need no more than a paragraph on it yet right now we have a single sentence which makes a generalization about their influence on British rock music, neglecting to give an idea even of the specific British bands they have influenced or what about their music exactly was considered influential let alone the acts from other genres and nationalities who have mentioned their interest in the band, or covered their work. Text of this influence section has always been dated, though, focusing on early 2000s. So in a way it's good to have a clean slate to work with on that, and I will withdraw the FAR nomination if possible, but hopefully someone has some ideas on how to make this section better, even if those ideas require us adding back the same number of words we had before... so long as they are better ones, I hope there would be people who would argue those words were worth keeping and argue against "stripped down" as the guiding principle for every article (talk page comments operate on different principles, or don't require the same degree of care, of course, or I wouldn't dare to do anything on Wikipedia), if it means readers, who don't ALREADY know what we know as editors of the topic, get shortchanged. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the comments so far, I don't see any problems that couldn't have just been discussed and settled on the article talk page, and thus I feel the FAR should probably be closed. WesleyDodds (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested the FAR because I wanted to get some more distant opinions, people who haven't been directly involved in editing the article, nor even in watching it, and get their take on the changes it has undergone, particularly on the change in structure advocated by some editors, and whether they feel this would improve or worsen a featured article such as this. So maybe I misunderstood how FAR works, cause so far you're right, this is just a discussion of the same people who have been discussing these issues on the Radiohead article's talk page. If we can't get other opinions, I vote to stop the FAR. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If all you wanted was further opinions, you should've asked uninvolved editors. FAR should be the final resort. WesleyDodds (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's up to the featured article director to close these discussions. However, hopefully he'll agree that there's no need to discuss delisting the article and will draw the matter to a close fairly soon. Papa November (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was just offering a rationale for closing/withdrawing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple peer review would have made more sense, you're right, but I didn't realize that was possible while the article was featured.

I still say that my point about the correct process for rewriting the article stands. Major rewrites and reorganization which involves removing sections has to take into account the featured article process somehow, and being "bold" doesn't say that editors advocating change can totally ignore that article text already went through a semirigorous review. This is true regardless of how self-evident the need for revisions is among the editors advocating them. In particular, taking out things needs some wider consensus. Rules are not hard & fast, but it confuses collective standards when the process is ignored. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't hang around the article's talk page very often, but from what I saw, most every major change has been discussed before being implemented in the article. While the rewrite of the Musical style section was bold, it did gain consensus after it had been implemented. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that relatively few people have participated in the Radiohead talk page lately, so we were not getting the same range of opinions as the ones that originally judged the article fit to be featured in the first place. Even though there was a certain consensus that the changes initiated by Mad Hatter could stay, even on the talk page several commentators seemed unconvinced they were necessary, and it was more a lack of support for the current lengthy version that prompted the agreement than consensus over which changes should be made (note, even on this FAR page, some are advocating splitting the sections off completely, while others want to reduce them and keep them within the article and others still are saying the older version was better, or asking that the contextual sections remain yet be rewritten if possible- my personal preference). With this amount of uncertainty among the regular article editors, I think it would be helpful to get other opinions on those sections of the article and how they could best be improved either to meet, or meet more effectively, the featured article criteria.70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, FAR is not intended to settle edit disputes. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since me and my glorious edits are the spur of such a discussion I would love very much to say that I did what I consider best for the article with taking a criteria of my own: one of good, solid, referenced information that takes a stripped down approach. Approach of not going over-the-top of what is needed to conjure and enchant the usual reader of Wikipedia. So I did what I do the best. Taking down unnecessary information that isn't evidently needed in order to give the reader the best possible downview of the selected topic. So, this stripped version had to go, because we need some sort of resolution. Let's fucking face it: it is overkill for God's sake. It is unnecessary from journalistic point of view. We need bare stripped down approach to articles, otherwise Wikipedia is far from perfection. That's why I supported a stripped down approach to Britney Spears, but notability was against me and I had to back down. Nevertheless, the battle is far from over on other articles that need to space into different dimension of existence. It is necessary to keep unnecessary information away from them, i. e. in order to keep future direction into minimising the damage of the up and coming new info of the article. This info generally is fast enlargement and we need to keep it updated and minimal in order to efectively end the overkill. That's what I think of the entire situation. With all my regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and stability. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article hasn't changed much and still adheres to FA criteria. Really the only reason we're here is because the IP disagreed with discussions on the talk page. This was never really an issue to bring to FAR. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A compromise version of the disputed section has been written and the article appears to have stabilised again. Comparing the current and featured version shows that little has changed with respect to comprehensiveness. Papa November (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The article is heavly linked, and the first thing a sea of blue indicates to me is that the article might be listy and construced in a fact, fact & fact manner, with little overview or context. That seems to be the case in the current version, it reads like a CV. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the above cmt: "we need to keep it...minimal in order to efectively end the overkill". I couldn't agree less and I would suggestion giving this minority openion the attention it deserves, ignore it. Asking for a "stripped down approach" is just a total misunderstanding of what the encylopedia is capable of and why we are here. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please address the deadlinks: [2]. One of the deadlinks (therestisnoise) does not seem to match the details of the reference (New Yorker). DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article looks good to me; just some minor points:
  • In the lead, I would rephrase "2000's..." so as to avoid a number at the start of a sentence.
  • I was expecting the section "Influence on others" to be about their influence on other musicians, but it doesn't seem to be. I would probably merge this section with the section above it by simply removing the section heading.
  • I find the sentences "Since their formation Radiohead have, lyrically and musically, been spearheaded by Yorke. An exception to this dynamic is songwriting. Although Yorke is responsible for writing nearly all the lyrics, songwriting is a collaborative effort." contradictory. I would probably just remove "An exception to this dynamic is songwriting."
  • According to the Manual of Style, punctuation should be outside quotation marks if not part of the quote and ellipses should be preceded by a non-breaking space. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As a former contributor, I can see that the article has really devolved, especially in the intro and the presentation of info in the In Rainbows section. Particularly, I'd single out Mad Hatter's edits as the primary cause of this. Monitor his edits more closely! 71.97.74.50 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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