Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nine Inch Nails/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 Maralia via FACBot (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nine Inch Nails[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Industrial

Some parts of the article no longer look like a featured article. The last part of the History section in particular reads more like a list of facts than prose.

Also a big part missing is an "Influences" section (as is done on The Beatles article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#Influences ), i.e. by which bands were Nine Inch Nails influenced. I'm suprised this is missing as it is a rather important section for a band.

The end of the "Disputes with other corporations" section also read like a list of random facts added over time. Laurent (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at FAR 3 February. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this unraveled a bit once Drewcifer3000 left the project. Everything that happened after 2011 probably hasn't been documented very well (hence the haphazard list of facts). I recall having an exchange with Drewcifer about "Influences" section and he believed good sources didn't exist because Reznor didn't discuss them. So, we'd need to look for sources to see if that's actually true. I'm curious to know if anyone else is interested in working on saving this. --Laser brain (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for saving this. For influences, AllMusic lists plenty and artists that followed NIN. The biography cites influences of Ministry and Skinny Puppy in the early days, along with David Bowie and Pink Floyd on The Downward Spiral. None of this is coming from Reznor's mouth but AllMusic is generally considered a reliable source, so it's something. I'm not the best at prose but I will try to draft something for an Influences section. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this programme might reveal many influences, if we can find a copy. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment - Since there doesn't appear to have been any talk-page notification prior to this FAR (please point it out if I've missed it!), I'm going to place this on hold to give interested parties a bit of extra time to consider potential improvements. If after a week or two insufficient progress has been made, this review can be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did bring the issue of missing Influences section in the talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nine_Inch_Nails#Influence_and_legacy_section ) but got no reply. In fact the talk page seemed a bit dead, which is why I didn't bother posting more questions. Laurent (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLaurent, we (well, mostly MusikAnimal) are addressing your concerns on the article talk page. Please follow up there and we'll all make sure it is up to standard. --Laser brain (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the updated article and that looks good to me, so I think the FAR can be closed. Laurent (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been several weeks, and I still see WP:MSH issues at least; enough time has elapsed to bring this FAR back off hold so others can opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: Could we get this taken off hold for more eyes to evaluate status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia the nominator has stated the FAR can be closed. Please be more specific and we can fix whatever issues you see. Many thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has now fixed the WP:MSH issues, but page numbers are needed. I haven't had time to check further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to address the "page needed" tags? I would accept that the page numbers are not necessary to meet criterion 1c (verifiability) but the tags are placing the article in a cleanup category. DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we could not find those page numbers, so if they indeed are not necessary I'd say it's safe to remove the tags. For me, a trip to the library is pretty unlikely, however I can try to find alternate internet sources if deemed necessary. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're taken from the online transcriptions at http://www.theninhotline.net/archives/articles/manager/list_articles.php?category=1 rather than the original magazines. But that's probably not considered a reliable source. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment: I'm taking this off hold and listing it at WP:FAR now. There are currently 16 citations (15 plus one reused) with 'page needed' tags. Most of these are citations of magazine articles, which are typically short enough that not having a specified page number is not a huge barrier to verifiability, but some are citations of direct quotations, and two are citations to a 200+ page book, so further consideration may be warranted. Maralia (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Maralia for listing this for more eyes (it will be beneficial five years from now to have a record in articlehistory, and to track FAR saves). I have no issue with pages on magazine articles, but books and direct quotations need to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain, Maralia, and SandyGeorgia: I've gone through and improved the sources to the best of my ability. There is now only one {{page needed}} maintenance tag. That source is indeed a book, and supports two small portions of the article. Both are very detailed so it may be difficult to find alternative sources to support the exact same information. If we can't locate the print source itself to identify page numbers I'm happy to rewrite the content based on whatever I can find for online sources. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Self Destruct book coming through the library. --Laser brain (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found the page numbers using the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon and searching for the terms mentioned. Since it displays only snippets, I will verify when I receive the physical book. In the mean time, there are no remaining "page needed" tags. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news! Once Laser brain is satisfied, I'm good with Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here; fine to close. Thanks for all the work done! DrKiernan (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I got the book and verified the page numbers I found through "Look inside". I'm satisfied that the page numbers are accurate and that this book as been properly cited. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: Two weeks, unanimous to close; is there anything pending? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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