Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by GrahamColm 20:30, 2 October 2012 [1].

Pink Floyd[edit]

Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Pink Floyd for featured article because after almost three years of sporadic work on the article, and a thorough copyedit last month, I believe it now meets or exceeds the FA criteria. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. For the sake of disclosure, I will say that I've worked with Gabe quite a bit and did some minimal copyediting work on this article prior to the nomination. However, I absolutely think it is a superb article, and Gabe and everyone else who put the work into generating the prose and the content have done a fantastic job. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think everything has or will be said below. Gabe let me know if you need help with anything. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Quick comments after a brief glance-through:

  • Lead: needs rewriting. Excessive attention given to the Barrett era as well as the 2000s reunions (which barely merit a mention). I suggest the Radiohead model of giving every album (or group of similar albums) their due via a sentence or so. You'll also avoid list-y sentences like "The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Wish You Were Here (1975), Animals (1977), and The Wall (1979)", just for the sake mentioning every album by name. I also think the lead should mirror the article—their legacy should be the last paragraph, not the first.
I reworked the lead, trimming out the excess Barrett and reunion info, and rearranging the graphs as you suggested. I disagree with your suggestion: "giving every album their due via a sentence or so", and prefer to use the short list of five albums in one sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't those "Associated acts" just old names for the same band?
Yes they are, and it's my understanding that this is okay, i.e.: "A group from which this group has spun off". Maybe we need more clarification on this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These have been removed, issue resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album-cover images: Don't really meet our non-free use criteria and should be removed. (unless the images themselves are specifically discussed in the prose, which they shouldn't be, except maybe TDSOTM)
All the album covers included in the article are discussed in the prose. As Thorgerson and the band's cover art is a significant aspect of their artistic contribution, I tend to think they should be included. If others disagree with me, or if the covers do not pass the image review, I will certainly remove them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This FURs have been brought up to standards and several images have been removed. This issue has been resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No music samples to illustrate their different musical styles?
This is not a requirement to my knowledge, and I would rather not add them unless needed. IMO, the sound samples belong at the song and album pages if anywhere. Again, if others disagree with me here I will add some. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their influence on other artists is a surprisingly short two-sentences, one of which is an unattractive list of names. Check out R.E.M.#Legacy for a model section on how a band influenced others.
I disagree here also. The above linked section is really a mix of musical style, influence and album sales, which the Floyd article treats separately. I am certainly open to discussion on this though. Also, as a matter of sourcing, I'm not sure what could be done here other than a quote farm of people stating why they like Pink Floyd. Maybe this is a personal preference issue. I'll see how it plays out over the course of the FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of the "Main article:" tags. Wouldn't linking the album on first mention be enough?
Another personal preference issue. Some would say they are needed, others disgree. I see no harm in including them, and indeed they are easier to locate then to search a 10,000 word article for the first mention of an album. Again, if others complain about them I will consider removing the tags. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of "Main article:" tags for articles on individual albums where you have a short summary section on the album is perfectly appropriate and pretty much standard procedure. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are Musical style, lyrical themes and live performances part of a band's legacy? They should be their own section.
Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Band members: you don't really need a separate section for this for five people. And that "Timeline" is as ghastly as it is unnecessary. Delete the whole thing please?—indopug (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some bugs in citations

  • Shaffner 1991 (Shaffner or Shaffer?), Povey 2005 (no 2005 citation), Harris 2006 (2005?) have broken harv links. You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check articles for such problems. Make sure, that author's name and year are exactly identical in harv-template and citation.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fitch 2001 is listed as a source, but not used as an actual reference in the main text (==> "further reading"). GermanJoe (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are very problematic. We have a very large number of non-free album covers with useless template rationales. It's unusual that album covers are going to be needed in artist articles; unless the design of the cover is particularly notable (and, to demonstrate the significance, we're probably going to need explicit discussion in the article...) they are rarely going to be needed outside the article on the album. The lead image is also a little questionable when we have a free image of the band in later life lower down the article, but I seem to remember that this is a discussion that we've had before. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the album covers used in the article are explicity discussed in the prose. Floyd's album art is needed to convey that aspect of their artistic contribution. Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art, and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? What in particular is wrong with the current FUR for the infobox image? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has been concern raised a couple of times regarding the lead image. My involvement (I've been asked to comment) is that an earlier upload had been deleted because it had an inappropriate use rationale, and I uploaded it again with a more appropriate and descriptive rationale. As far as I am aware, it is one of the only three known images of the band with all the prominent members. The other two images were taken by the same photographer at the same photo shoot, and this is the best of the three. The concerns raised have been a) the use rationale (which is now OK), b) that it is a poor quality image, and there are better quality more attractive images available, and c) that it is a non-free image, and there are free use images available of the band in performance. The argument in favour is that this is an historic and encyclopaedic image which we are allowed to use because of its uniqueness and irreplaceability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe, if there is explicit discussion of each of these album covers, then perhaps they are a useful addition. However, it's impossible to judge that from the useless, copy-paste rationales that are currently used for the album covers. In response to your questions... Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art... I am not sure where you believe I have said this. Sometimes non-free sound files are a useful addition in the context of discussion of the music, but there's no kind of entitlement to use them. Equally, album covers may be useful in the context of the discussion of their artistry (or the controversy they caused or what have you). ...and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? There is a general consensus that the album art adds significantly to an article about the album, in the same way that there is a consensus about book covers on book articles, or corporate logos on company articles. This does not extend to related articles (such as author articles, or articles on the corporation's products. SilkTork, my objection is that we quite clearly have a free image of Pink Floyd. Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image, then you're going to have to accept that we have free images of Pink Floyd. If we have free images of Pink Floyd, we have no business leading the article on Pink Floyd with a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard before that templates should not be used for FURs, would it be better if I copy pasted each field separately? Are you saying that the album images are okay to use but the FURs need improvement? Re: "Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image", I don't have to pretend J Milburn, the file is a collage of post-Floyd images taken at least 10 years after any activity; none of the pics were taken when any of the members were in Pink Floyd. I will wait to see if others share your opinion that these images as objectionable enough to oppose. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates can be used, but copy-paste rationales (as are provided by templates) are useful only when incredibly generic usages are being made- album covers in articles about the album, for instace. The NFCC require that separate, specific rationales are required. We need you to provide specific rationales explaining what this particular cover is adding to this particular article. Not generic bumph, as is provided by a template. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the image meets Wikipedia:Non-free content because of its historical and iconic significance and because it cannot be replaced by a free image. That there are other free images in the article does not in itself impact on the image, as they are not of the same unique line-up. An argument could be made, however, that the article does not comment directly on the image. The relevant wording is: "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Does the image "aid in illustrating historical events"? That, I feel, is the pertinent argument. I feel it does, but that perhaps the caption could enlighten the reader to the situation - that this is a picture of the band at the point of transition and tension. Here is another image from the same shoot - [2]. It's not used as much as the image in the article. The image used in the article is quite iconic - perhaps because Barrett and Waters are looking in opposite directions. Be useful to get some sourced material which discuses the image SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the specific question if whether an album cover can be used in this article: The WP:NFCI non-free use guideline says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." That means that the article has to be analyzing the album, not the album's cover. As long as this article analyzes the albums, their covers can be used in this article. Of course, the rationales provided must be specific and detailed, and the album cover must be degraded, etc. --Noleander (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said, repeatedly by several people, this is wrong. 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Bingo! Get an idea - follow it up: "The expanded five-member group posed for photographs, though Barrett stood out from the pack, detached. With eyes fixed in the distance, arms crossed, Syd stood behind his bandmates, out of focus, and eclipsed." It's late here in the UK so I'm going to bed - I'll put something in the article about that picture tomorrow. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, based on the non-free content issues I have outlined above. If these are resolved, I am happy to withdraw my opposition. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are you saying you will oppose until the images are removed, or you will oppose until the FURs are improved? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose while there is still an issue. If you sort the rationales out, I would potentially be open to the album covers remaining- I would be willing to reassess. J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegates- I am discussing this issue with Gabe, and progress is being made. Hopefully the issues will be resolved soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the non-free content issues outlined above have now been resolved, J Milburn pinged 25 September. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Will add more comments later, but I'm a little surprised that Pink Floyd at Pompeii doesn't appear anywhere in the article at all outside a passing mention in a footnote, as it receives at least a sentence or two in most Floyd biographies. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already 9,500 words long, so there is little room for specifics without making the article too large. There are many things that could be mentioned but this is an overview article written in summary style. I'm not sure what level of detail you are suggesting, maybe you could clarify. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the relevant sentence - however, that does suggest that the article can't be considered comprehensive (because it would get too long) and can't qualify as FA. I know some GAs can't be FAs because they're too short - maybe this is the reverse? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Wording: "By 1967, Pink Floyd had begun to attract the attention ..." - That phrasing seems a bit too passive & I find it annoying. Can you just use the plain "In 1967 Pink Floyd began..." or "Pink Floyd began to ... in 1967" or similar?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange source description: "Doctor of philosophy and author Patrick Croskery ..." - Animals is a really famous album, so the only persons that should be quoted here are very notable music reviewers, say from the Rolling Stones or some major publication. I don't know who Croskery is, but if he is a major reviewer, that fact should be before his name, not his college degree. Even if this quote is for the "Themes" section (not the Animals section) I'd still expect 1st person quotes to be from a more notable person within the music industry or art community.
I used Croskery because he is one of the few good sources to intellectually analyse the philosophical nature of Floyd's lyrics. Do you know of a better source? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sure he is a fine source. My point is that the job description before his name is so vague. Is he noted for analyzing music? For being a Pink Floyd expert? Why should the reader care about Croskery's opinion?
He is an author who is also a Doctor of philosophy and professor. Should I just mention his name only and leave out his description? How about the other philosophers I cited in the section? I thought this was needed to help explain why he is being quoted as an expert on philosophy viv a vis Floyd lyrics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, for obscure persons named in the prose, a job description is needed. I was hoping he was some famous author, but he is not. The "Doctor of philosophy" is particularly confusing to me (US) because that means anyone with a PhD degree in any field, e.g. Chemistry. Maybe just change his description to "Scholar PC .." or "Author PC ..." .. that would remedy the issue. --Noleander (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section vs. paragraph: In the "Exploitation and oppression" section, there is a paragraph on the Animals album; then a 2nd paragraph follows starting with "The album's characters include the "Dogs",..." That reads as if the entire section is about the Animals album. If that is the intention of the section, maybe the section title should include "Animals". Or, better, discuss other albums/songs within this section.
Yeah, its all about the lyrics of Animals as they relate to exploitation and oppression. I will try to dig up some examples from other albums, but my feeling was that this sub-section is already detailed enough to convey the message. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "... and would be classified by some..." - use plainer words. If you are saying that during the 60s & 70s they were categorized that way, try "... and they were classified as ..."; or if that categorization is still applicable, try "... and they are categorized..". Or maybe "... and their work from that era is categorized ..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material from quote not in prose: "It's hard to see why we were cast as the first British psychedelic group. ..." - that is in a quote box, but the prose next to it doesn't have comparable material. If the band was categorized as "psychedelic" in the 1960s, that should be stated in the prose (which does already have "Pink Floyd began their career at the vanguard of London's underground psychedelic music scene ..." but that is not the same has saying they were the first.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes, citations, and sources look good.
Thank you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further reading" - Are there any documentaries or video interviews? You've got a good list of books, but there must be some video materials, no?
Added five docs. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More details: " .... Pink Floyd's first experience playing large stadiums, the size of which became an issue." - What exactly was the issue? The following sentences are rather vague, and could be a problem in any live venue. It sounds more like the band was just burned out, or ??? If there was not a specific problem with large venues, then that sentence should be reworded.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "The Wall concept also spawned an eponymous film,..." - To me, eponymous means that the film was named after the band, not the underlying album. I'd just remove "eponymous".
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plainer words: "The division of royalties became a difficult subject during production of the album...." - Better would be to say that "The division of royalties was a source of conflict between band members." if that indeed was the case. Is it possible to add a specific quote or incident to illustrate the point?
Fixed, and added quoted material to illustrate point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medical terminology: " ... staring off with a blunted affect and refusing to move his lips ...." - Either that was an official medical diagnosis, in which case that should be stated; or (2) that is just a description of his behavior, in which case that is a very obscure term and you should probably remove the blue link and just put in plain words (" ... he did not respond to questions from the hosts and stared off into space ..."). Maybe the blue link cold be put in a footnote?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "... it came time to mime "See Emily Play" ..." - "mime" confused me a bit ... I'm thinking Marcel Marceau. Would "lip sync" be better? or is mime the more common term in UK?
I think mime is more common in the UK as the sources specifically use that term. Also, it helps avoid the redundancy with "move his lips" earlier in the sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: " Barrett agreed to leave, and Pink Floyd agreed to Blackhill's legal entitlement to receive royalties in perpetuity from the band's previous recordings" - The 2nd half of that sentence doesnt seem too important: the managers were getting a cut of all proceeds from songs that were produced under their mgmt. Could that be eliminated from the article? Or is there more to the story?
Fixed, trimmed out as excess detail. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "Pink Floyd performed at the first free concert in Hyde Park..." - I have a hard time believing that there were no free concerts in that park before 1968. Do you mean PF's first free concert?
According to the sources it was the first ever free concert in the park. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date that Barret left: "Working with Barrett eventually proved too difficult, and matters came to a head en route to a performance in Southampton when a band member asked if they should collect Barrett. According to Gilmour, the answer was "Nah, let's not bother", signalling the end of Barrett's tenure with them." - Month of his departure is important. I see that March is mentioned in the next sentence as the date of legal separation, but when did the "lets not bother" event happen?
Clarified, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall it is a great article. Leaning to Support, once the above issues are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great review! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Noleander

  • File:Pink_Floyd_-_all_members.jpg - This appears to meet the WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8 " Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." I have updated the fair use rationale to specifically address those three essential criteria (no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance).
  • File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg - This appears to meet the WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8 " Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."
  • File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Roger waters leeds 1970.jpg - The photographer granted a CC-BY-SA license for this photo, so it is okay.
  • File:Dark Side of the Moon.png - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg - Copyright holder provided a CC-BY-SA license.
  • File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Pink floyd live 8 london.jpg - Photographer provided photo with a CC BY 2.0 license.
  • File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg - Photographer provided photo with a CC BY 3.0 license.
  • File:Pinkfloyd.png - This is a composite of four images: three have licenses. The fourth is a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license http://www.flickr.com/photos/edberman/500752312/. Need to check that more thoroughly because it limits use to noncommercial. Will investigate that further.
This image's description page contains the note "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 13 August 2008 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." That makes me think that the 4th image had a CC BY-SA 2.5 license (on Flickr) in 2008, but the Flicker owner has since changed the license to CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance at Wikipedia:CCPS says that the NC licenses are not acceptable for WP. So this is a tough call: should we rely on the assessment made in 2008 by Mattbuck, and assume that the photo owner changed their license within the past 4 years? --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Side conversation not directly related to this FAC but related to image usage in general

End Image Review by Noleander. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Noleander, some of this shows a severe lack of understanding of the non-free content criteria; I do not think you should be offering image reviews. "This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album." It is not true that any article with a section devoted to an album can support the cover art of the album. Cover art is added only when it adds significantly to the article, and the mere fact that there is a section discussing the album does not mean that the cover art would add to it. Instead, only if the album cover itself is in some way significant (through noted artistry, controversy or such) would it add significantly to an article other than the article on the album itself. (If you're not convinced, consider this: It is undeniable that there is considerable analysis of, for instance, the various Harry Potter books on J. K. Rowling. However, the article does not need the covers, as the covers themselves just are not significant. Do you feel we should be rushing into that article to add cover art?) J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't understand your point. Are you saying the PF article does not contain "critical commentary of that item [album]"? The sections on the albums are clearly making critical commentary on the albums, no? NFCI does not contain the requirement that the image "adds significantly to the article", but even if there were a requirement, it is clearly met in this article: the album covers are a critical component of the band's history. The Rowling examples are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are scores of examples where copyrighted book covers are in the author's article. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article obviously does contain critical commentary on the album. It's just the case that critical commentary on an album does not automatically justify the use of a cover. Here we have yet another catastrophic failure to understand our non-free content policy on your part. "NFCI does not contain the requirement that the image "adds significantly to the article"..." Nobody cares what the NFCI say. They're not important. What's important is the non-free content criteria, and they most certainly do require that. Again, for the good of everyone here, please step away from this issue until you are more acquainted with it. (And "The Rowling examples are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are scores of examples where copyrighted book covers are in the author's article." Really? Go on. Give me two decent author articles which contain non-free cover images.) J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This issue (putting a book/album cover in the author's article) has come up many times before, but the WP community has never created the rule that "book and album covers can only be included in the article devoted to the book/album". That is because there are times when it is appropriate to include the book/album in the author's article. Why don't we see what some other editors say? --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCI #1 nearly universally is only applied to articles devoted to albums (not discographies) where, because of the notability of the stand-alone article, there will be commentary and ergo allowance to use the image per NFCC#8 (as part of the album's branding). All of PF's albums are pretty much notable, so the album use covers there are fine. But this article is about the band; while it is likely necessary to include some commentary about each album to flesh out the band's career, the full commentary should be at each album separately. But the album covers here would be excess use since they will exist at the individual pages; perhaps the only album cover with a likely chance of staying is the Dark Side of the Moon one given my impression of how iconic that is for the band, but you have to have sources to show that iconic-ness. As an example, Rush (band) (an FAC) includes the back album cover of 2112 primarily because the Starman imagery became associated with the band, as described in that article. I would imagine that with some work, the same could be said about Dark Side's prism image. But any of the other covers would fail NFCC, specifcally NFCC#3 for minimal use when they have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I note that The Beatles article includes one album cover. I guess I'm a little unclear where this "icon-ness" litmus test is coming from. The various WP pages on non-free imagery (such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) do not say that a non-free image can only be used in one article (to the contrary, it says: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article"). NFCC #3 says "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" which means that we should not use 2 images of the same album cover (not that the album cover cannot be used in 2 articles). Can you help me out by pointing to the WP policy/guideline that is the basis for the litmus test that a highly iconic album cover is permissible, but not-so-iconc album covers are not (given that all the albums are critically analyzed in the article)? --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy. The first thing to remember is that NFCC#3a (minimal use of NFC) is the easiest one that dissaudes the reuse of album covers on band pages; if there's an article for the album, the album cover will certainly be there, so it's not like we're depraving the reader of that at all. The threshold to allow the use needs to tie the album cover to the band moreso than the album itself. Again, the Starman image from Rush does this because it ties that image to reuse throughout the band's career. I'm not 100% convinced that the Sgt Pepper cover at Beatles is as well a reason, but I can accept that the cover being one of the most recognizable and recreated covers to be a good reason to include it. (That page also gets away with the White Album having a free-media cover but that's not the point here). So I can by the same logic argue for the inclusion of the Dark Side cover here, working on the assumption (haven't checked for sources) that the iconic-ness of that album cover to immediately identify it with Pink Floyd would be an acceptable use. Any of their other album covers, except perhaps The Wall, simply don't have that iconicness, so would fail this rough test. But I can't give a checklist of items to look for to confirm any other use, just that once you're past use #1 on the album page where there would be no dispute, every subsequent reuse needs a very strong reason to include. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoying the idea that we must be careful not to "deprave" our readers. :-) Jheald (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but it sounds like you and Milburn are adhering to the unwritten rule "Album/book covers can only go in the album/book article, unless they are super iconic, in which case they can also go in the author article." If that is the rule, cool. I'm trying to figure out if it is WP policy, or just a gut feeling that some editors have. This issue has come up hundreds of times in WP, so why hasn't this rule been written down yet? --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that's not 100% true. There are cases of movies and video games and other media where there is a soundtrack but the soundtrack is itself non-notable or just barely enough info to justify an article, so we do include the album art + infobox there. The point that's being made here is that we're starting that we already have one justifiable use of the album art on the album page per NFCI#1. Any other use immediately highlights NFCC#3a, so all other NFCC factors have to show enough acceptable use to override that; this is a point alluded to in the cautions above NFCI that all other NFCC requirements still have to be met. So when we're discussion an album in the context of the band's history, most of the time the cover gives no added information to the reader beyond visual identification, which is already there on the album page. The examples where it does give the reader visual info - Rush, Beatles, and the Dark Side here - are cases where in context its not so much about the album but about the album artwork, necessitating the visual aspect. So that gives a very strong cause for NFCC#8 that NFCC#3a would allow.--MASEM (t) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Noleander, your summary is a bit strong; but it's worth recognising (as Milburn reminds above) that the fundamental policy rules here are the NFCC criteria. NFCI #1 is essentially a community assessment of the NFCC #8 rule where the album is the topic of the whole article. In that case, the community has come to the view that showing the cover does add significantly to the understanding gained of the topic of the article. But the calculation is different when the album itself is not the topic of the whole article. Then you can't just rely on NFCI #1 album-article general-case scenario, you really need to argue why in this specific case the image is adding something important to reader comprehension, that they wouldn't otherwise gain. Another thing to bear in mind is that the community has expressed a specific antipathy to illustrated discographies, or anything that looks like them. So a sequence of cover after cover is should be avoided if at all possible. That's not to say that no album covers can be used. The Dark Side of the Moon prism has become iconic. Also, the Division Bell head is (in my view) a particularly good way to illustrate the lengths the band allowed Storm Thorgerson to go to in creating spectacular images for the band. Specific cases for some other cover images might be found as well. But, at the very least, it makes the article more interesting if other images can be found rather than an uninterrupted run of familiar album covers which can also be seen on the album article. So, say, a free image of the inflatable pig at Battersea power station (as restaged recently) might actually be more effective as an image for Animals than just another album cover. Above all, what we're trying to get away from is the idea that we might carelessly be using other people's images just as decorative wallpaper for our articles. A parade of album covers can give just that feel. So instead, are there more interesting images that could be found? And if non-free images must be used, do they genuinely earn the cost of admission by being truly informative and really contributing something to reader understanding, that genuinely could not be achieved in any other way? From someone who strongly believes in the appropriate use of non-free content when it really does add something to reader understanding, those are the kind of questions you need to be working from. Jheald (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the polite and rational comments :-) Yes, the key question is which albums meet the requirement of NFCC #8. Including all album covers would be verging on the prohibited discography; so we should limit it only to albums that were especially significant in the band's history, and whose illustration helps the reader get a better feel for the group. Based on a review of the sources, it seems like Dark Side, Animals, The Wall, and Division Bell may meet that threshold. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on Jheald's comment, if you use the balloon pig for Animals, you could use something like File:Roger Waters The Wall Live Kansas City 30 October 2010.jpeg (a shot from The Wall Live tour) which is free and shows off The Wall's motive. There's no question (well , 99.9999% assuredity) that Dark Side's cover can meet NFCC for the band's page easily because of its iconic nature. I'm not 100% of Jheald's suggestion Division Bell - but at least the rationale he suggests has some credence to work towards. That gives you two non-free album images with free images for other facets. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we continue the policy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Album_covers_in_artist_articles? That is a new RfC that was just created to try to get clarity on the WP-wide policy. Once that is resolved, we can then apply the consensus to the images in this PF article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is going to change, and it's seemingly only you who needs clarification that, yes, images can be used if and only if they meet the non-free content criteria. Please, it's not difficult. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More sensible image review from J Milburn

Let it be known, in case it isn't already, that I consider Noleander's understanding of the non-free content guidelines and policies, and consequently his image review, to be severely lacking. I am not, as some may have been led to believe, a rabid deletionist, and, considering the subject matter, a lot of these non-free images are probably justified.

  • The lead image I'd prefer to see gone. We have a free image of the band, even if one of the members is not in it. I am willing to let this drop if I am a lonely voice.
Which free image of the band are you referring to? The one you suggested, File:Pinkfloyd.png, is not in fact an image of Pink Floyd at all, but a collage of images of former members of Pink Floyd from a decade after they became inactive. Also, per Noleander, the image of Nick Mason in the collage has no copyright info whatsoever. So it seems the image you prefer is the least justified of them all. Again, which free image of Pink Floyd are you suggesting we use? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the collage. (The perceived copyright issue is not a problem- this is why we have that "this image has been checked" template. Once the image has been freely released, it cannot be revoked.) However, we also have File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg- I'm not sure you could really deny that this image is of Pink Floyd; they're even performing, which some may call preferable. No, it's perhaps not as interesting as the non-free image, but that is a necessary sacrifice that has to be made in the name of using free content. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg should probably go. Yes, it's a significant time in the career, but this does not mean that it needs to be illustrated. The claim that it illustrates the psychadelic nature of the music is a solid one, but, in that regard, it seems to be redundant to the next image, which also does that.
  • File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg is justified, but its rationale needs to be tightened up. The cover itself is clearly significant, as evidenced by the discussion of its design and purpose. The rationale needs to tie this image to this article, explaining what it illustrates, what it adds and so forth. It would also be useful if the caption tied it to the text of the article.
  • File:Dark Side of the Moon.png is justified, as above, but improvements are needed, as above.
  • File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg seems to be one which could go if you were looking to cut down; however, again, there is solid, sourced discussion. I am not opposed to it staying in the article, provided the rationale is cleaned up (and perhaps the caption is tweaked) as above.
  • File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg is as above- OK, but perhaps not absolutely essential. Again, rationale cleanup definitely required if it's staying.
  • File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg is justified. Again, rationale cleanup definitely required if it's staying. Also, it should probably be reduced a little- 300 by 300 px is the general requirement for album covers.
  • The free images are all absolutely fine.

And, with that, I am done. No sweeping changes, and no demands for urgent deletion. Just addressing what is needed with closer attention to what our policies actually are. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's lost in the discussion below, I'm happy, after edits, meets our various image policies. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on the above, there's a few points I'd add.
  • File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg and File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg - the discussion on the album art makes it more than justified for inclusion on the album article, but I still question why it helps the reader to understand about the band (As I read it: "What point is there in my understanding about the band Pink Floyd that the Division Bell cover was inspired by Moai statues?"). That said, if there was a section to describe the band's use of Storm Thorgerson and Hipgnosis as go-to for the cover arts, these two images would be justified in there. This may be part of JM's recommended rational cleanup.
  • File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg I have a harder time justifying because "imposing a flying pig over a picture of Battersea Power Station" is really not that hard to envision compared to the above two abstract covers. Yes, there's discussion, but again,like above, how does that make me understand the band immediately? It's perfect on the album page, but not here.
  • I would argue in favor of using the current lead (non-free) image of the band over File:Pinkfloyd.png, because of the fact that at its height of popularity, the band was composed of those five members, and we can never get another free image of that group. The free image is perfectly fine to discuss the later years, but I think it would be doing our readers a disservice if we used the free 4-image collage as the infobox image. Again, the balance in using non-free here. (As a comment, when comparing this to the Beatles lead, which happens to be in the PD due to its publication date, is perhaps the non-free band image possibly free?)
I agree with all other statements JM's made for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Masem. The album covers are suggested as meeting NFCC because the article text itself discusses the album covers. However, I don't think the album covers, barring a few iconic exceptions (like DSOTM), need to even be discussed in this article; they are only tangentially related to the story of the band as a whole. For example, remove the Thorgerson sentence from The Division Bell paragraph, and the reader's understanding of Pink Floyd doesn't diminish at all.
To compare with an exist FA: every Beatles album-cover was iconic, but the article uses only two images of them, one of which they've managed to freely recreate.
I think the infobox band pic should stay.—indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice the mention about the lack of sound files above, and repeat the same "concern". What I've seen of FA band/musician pages is nearly always one or two critically discussed sound files to show the style of the band or its progression in its history, which may or may not duplicate a sound file already used in the album or the song page. Again, like the cover artwork, outright repetition is not called for but I would think this article has the possibility of including a few samples simply because of the band's career. That said, unlike other bands, its very difficult to nail down its sound, and so I can accept the argument that it may be hard to nail down a truly representative sample, though at some point, if we have the choice of numerous representative samples all that could be used equally well with sourcing to back them up, we select one that we think is best represents that band. The "Money" clip is a good one, for example to consider and avoids adding a new NFC audio file. I wouldn't consider the lack of a non-free audio file as stopping this being FA, but it is conspicuously absent. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to not add them and as far as I know they are 100% optional. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I don't think it's ever come to this yet, but this is just discussion right now - not having NFC sound files when its possible to make and include them could be seen as a violation of FACR#3 about media use. This is just my thoughts and I'm just throwing the idea out because of consistency with previous artist FA, but if every other reviewer cares not that no audio files are present and all FA requirements are met, there you go. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my third FAC on a musical subject and I have never once added a sound file; it was never a problem before. You seem to be saying: "you cant use album images" but "you must use sound files" confusing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have improved the FURs for the album images used in the article and I believe they are now up to standard. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Primarily criterion #3. Strange and lop-sided use of non-free media. While the visual aspect of Pink Floyd is overrepresented, the article fails to illustrate what they sounded like (which is arguably the first thing you should know about a band).—indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If ever there was a band which you could not do justice to their sound with samples this is it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Clarification from Delegate Are non-free sound files a requirement of FAC to the extent that an oppose based on their exclusion is indeed objectionable? I need some guideance here as this was never an issue before. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is clear on this. It says, "It has images and other media where appropriate...non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labelled accordingly." The nominator and reviewers should reach a consensus regarding the appropriateness of sound files and to justify the use of non-free content. Graham Colm (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the nominator is getting thrashed unfairly. One reviewer Opposed based on too many non-free images; another reviewer is now opposing based on too few non-free sounds. The FA criteria are a bit vague on this, but my understanding is that The absence of images/sounds from an article should not be a bar to FA status if no free images/sounds are availble. The FA criteria shouldn't require editors to include non-free media in music articles, because that conflicts with WP's goal of providing a free encyclopedia. Non-free media are acceptable, but should not be required. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Opposition based solely on the absence of non-free content will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push too much on this - I'm trying to throw out food for thought here - but one thing to consider about NFC is NFCC#8 which has two parts: whether the reader benefits from the inclusion of non-free within the article, and if the omission harms the reader. When we are talking articles on musical groups, there is certainly no doubt that any non-free sample will meet the first part, but often the second is not really the case; a group can be popular without its musical style itself being fairly significant, and thus barring anything else, most sound samples for that band would fail the second half of NFCC#8. Here, however we are talking about Pink Floyd, one of the premiere names in psychedelic/progressive rock, which has a very unique sound. Arguably the section "Musical style" almost begs for a sound sample in that the lack of one to demonstrate their style is failing NFCC#8. Almost. I agree it is not 100% required, and normally I would be "let's avoid adding NFC just because its a musical artist", but that said, we are talking a band that had a distinctive sound.
And to address the above point about penalizing on too many non-free images and not enough non-free audio files, when you consider both together, we're describing what NFC to include to best have the reader understand this article on the band. Some album covers (like Dark Side) certainly help but not all that were originally present. Similarly there is the possibility that some audio may help but they're not there yet to really evaluate. We'd normally work by judging all the non-free content (images and audio and video) as a whole, and, at least as submitted to this FAC, the article was heavily overall with NFC use and possibly unbalanced towards images. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, but I reiterate that opposition based on the absence of non-free content will not be considered. I am concerned that this would set a precedent that goes against the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. With regard to the "distinctive sound", this can be argued. I recall no unique sound or style that unites say "Corporal Clegg", "Grantchester Meadows", "See Emily play", "Us and Them", or "Another Brick in the Wall" and most of "The Final Cut". What many recall, and regard as distinctive is David Gilmour's guitar style. And he wasn't even in the band when I first saw them perform. Having said this – and as a delegate I have probably exceeded my remit – I don't want to see this escalate into a test case. This would be unfair on the nominator. Graham Colm (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, I'm quite surprised by this selective interpretation of WP:FA?. It clearly states "It has images and other media where appropriate" (not necessarily free media only), yet you feel that opposition based on the non-fulfillment of this criterion is not actionable. As you know Pink Floyd has had several musical styles through their history; I think this is all the more reason to have 10-20 second clips from each distinct eras—"See Emily Play" for Syd's psychedilia; something from the proggy DSOTM; one from much later on (3 or so samples in total). This is necessary for somebody to get a very basic understanding of this band and their musical evolution. I can't imagine how an FA about a musician (or group) can be complete without an indication of what they sound like.
In any case, I also strongly oppose the excessive use of images, none (barring the DSOTM cover) of which add anything to the article, as they have little to do Pink Floyd as a whole (the band didn't even design them themselves). Also, if you see the July version of the page, you'll find that not only is it not worse for the lack of album-covers, but that free replacements (see Animals) were used to good effect. I hope at least this part of my opposition is actionable and valid.—indopug (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and never mind about the sound files: not an easily excerptable band. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Arb break Further to my opposition above about images and media, I'm concerned about whether the article is comprehensive enough.[reply]

  • As I noted above, I think Recognition and influence doesn't deal enough with how they influenced other bands and were a seminal influences on many genres. What we have now is only a handful of artists' names.
I don't see the need for a quote farm from artists explaining why they like Pink Floyd. Seems like fancruft to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily from artists, but from critics, explaining how they changed the way people approached music.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll dig up a quote farm from critics for you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this issue is now resolved by my addition of material to the Musicianship section, specifically under Genres, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for the great comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical style appears inadequate too, halfway of it being an unrelated digression about the fact that they composed soundtracks. Many important things about the relevant topic are missed: what was the songwriting dynamic like, what about their hugely influential production techniques, how did the members' individual musicianship contribute (esp. Gilmour's guitar playing), how did their music evolve (esp after Syd's quitting) etc etc.
You are expecting way too much detail for an overview summary article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why doesn't this logic apply to the Lyrical themes section?
And how are the soundtracks relevant to their musical style?—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting I delete the soundtrack material? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the songwriting dynamic" is made clear in the article body, there is no need to rehash here, nor should the article be redundant in this regard.
  • "individual musicianship" - covered.
  • "how did their music evolve" - covered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyrical themes: on the other hand, this section goes on for a couple of paragraphs too long; a lot of stuff can be moved to individual song and album articles. We should be summarising on themes found throughout their career, so focusing on those found in only a couple of individual songs and albums. (and it reads like "Us and Them" is from The Final Cut)
I like it as it is but thanks for your helpful advice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Lyrics section is three times as long as the Music section. —indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are several topical articles that already deal with prog rock, art rock, acid rock, space rock, etcetera. There are no articles that detail Floyd's lyrics. Which graphs would you remove and why? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which paragraphs would you trim out and why? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: World War II → Second World War in BritEng. Discography needn't have the live albums and definitely not low-importance compilations.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the discography.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't include the live albums and compilations, indeed I did so for the recently promoted Paul McCartney, no one complained. This is yet another arbitrary demand and if I thought for one minute that you would actually strike your oppose I would consider your comments more seriously but IME, once an oppose has been cast it typically stays no matter how much effort I put into pleasing the reviewer. Is your goal to block promotion at all costs or to help the nom/article? Because at this point I really cannot tell. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Assume good faith. I want to see this on the main page as much as you but I cannot support if I feel the article doesn't meet WP:FA?.
Anyway, the reason you don't include the compilations and live records is that there is a link to their discog article right there; you thus only need to list their major recordings, i.e. their studio albums. Including the other stuff begs the question about where to stop; "why not add the EPs and singles as well?"—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be another "random spheres of influence" issue, as I have never heard this before. Can you please point me to the relevant guideline? Also, while I would love to AGF, you have already cast your oppose, so really, IMO, you are approaching this backwards by opposing then making comments. Like I said, I seriously doubt you will strike your oppose no matter what I do at this point, so while I will be happy to resolve any reasonable comments you make for the sake of the article, I am not going to bend over backwards to please an oppose. Would you? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go.—indopug (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I've now trimmed out the live and compilation albums. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the July version of the article (before your final push for FAC), I wonder if you haven't trimmed too much of the band's history. For eg: why has essential info like the names of the musicians the band get its name from been shunted to the Notes (which have become really huge)? Also, now there's nothing about how they were viewed as dinosaurs during punk. It also loses a lot in terms of narrative; A Momentary Lapse of Reason now isn't as explicit as before about the fighting between Gilmour and Waters.
The article was over 11,000 words so I cut it to around 9,500-10,000 per FAC requirements. All the info is retained in the notes. I promoted material to do with the origin of the band's name. I don't see the need for more detail on Roger and David fighting, the sources are scant and its not that relevent. The article makes clear the dynamic IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll accept the infighting trim. But are you sure the punk thing shouldn't be there at all?—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the punk thing is not notable. Most bands, if not all bands from the 1960s were dinosaurs in the late 1970s. This was not at all unique to the Floyd. Should I also mention that their relative popularity waned in the wake of hip-hop? Its an undue issue IMO, as I don't think the sentiment was widespread or significant, afterall, Animals sold millions of copies in 1977 and The Wall was a massive commercial success in 1980. So, how outdated could the commercial market have really considered them during the brief punk phase? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, I don't think descriptions of the album cover should be in prose, unless the cover is important in the context of the band's career overall. That happened only once.—indopug (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A personal opinion which I do not share. Why isn't WYWH or The Wall iconic? This is a matter of opinion and you stated that you think evey Beatles album is iconic but really, what's iconic about the Please Please Me cover, With the Beatles or Beatles For Sale? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But those two covers aren't in The Beatles, are they? FWIW, I do think Pink Floyd's album art is quite iconic; but we have a commitment to minimum non-free use, and their absence from the article doesn't significantly hamper readers' understanding of Pink Floyd (NFCC #8).—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's iconic about the "White Album" cover? The art is needed to convey that the Floyd were groundbreaking and influential in terms of their album art. There are also elements of the absract and the absurd in their art, which tie in well to the lyrical themes. Waters helped design Animals and DSOTM, and the Division Bell cover was inspired by Barrett and Waters absence, another lyrical theme that ties in well with the art. WYWH also ties in with "lyrical themes" and SFOS demostrates the psychedelic era of the band, something that is difficult to convey without visuals. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The White Album cover, due to its simplicity, and therefore a free image, so the metric for inclusion is much much lower. Were all the PF album covers free images, one could conceivably include them all, but then there's taste and aesthetics for the overall article that have to be considered, but that's outside NFC's realm at that point. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember that we have album articles to go into detail on the album art. Those non-free covers that have a less direct connection between the band's career and the cover art (eg: Animals and WYWH) are probably best left to the album pages, while those where the link between the band's career and the art are inseparable, such as DSOTM, should be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm convinced. I removed the Animals and WYWH album images per Masem, Indopug and J Milburn and the Hapash poster per J Milburn. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok- per the long discussion and careful edits, I'm happy that the non-free content use in this article passes the bar. While there is a lot of non-free content compared to other FAs of its type, it is adding a lot to the article. I'd recommend tying the captions to the text (so, for instance, mentioning the psychadelic nature of the A Saucerful of Secrets cover) as this helps clarify why the covers are actually there. It probably help avoid issues like this in the future from others concerned about NFC issues. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support J Milburn has been trying for years to get that 5-person image removed from the infobox and in every case, the discussions have resulted in the consensus that the existing image is the most appropriate. I'm not going to rehash, again, why that is but the image is not replaceable regardless of what J Milburn wants. If his response to me is to ask "but aren't there free live photos of Pink Floyd" my response is to go back and look at what people said in the several talk threads you started on this topic. In any case, he's clearly biased in this case, as anyone who views the talk archives can see, and his comments regarding that image should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not think it appropriate for him to dismiss Noleander's commentary based on his own personal extremist interpretation of NFCC. I have no comment regarding the album covers, they can go or stay. Otherwise, the article looks good to me. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is bang out of order. I acknowledged when I entered this FAC that previous discussions about this has ended in a different way, and said all along that I would be willing to let that issue drop, as I appreciated that the consensus was against me. I have made my view on the matter clear, but I was never opposing based on that issue- it would be wrong of me to do so. I am very experienced with non-free content issues, and have been performing image reviews here for a long time- my views are most certainly not a "personal extremist interpretation of NFCC", and my comments should not "be taken with a grain of salt". On the other hand, as has been repeatedly demonstrated that Noleander's understanding of the NFC guidelines and policies are severely lacking, not only by myself, but by other editors highly experienced with non-free content issues. Further, a support backed up only with an attack on someone opposing is going to be ignored by any FAC director worth their salt. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that you've tried repeatedly to get that image removed and you tried again in this FAC, though qualifying your statement by mentioning previous consensus. Consensus has been clear for some time, but you still brought it up hoping someone would change their mind. There is a history there that people need to know about and yes, it means your comment regarding that image should be considered taking this history into consideration. I think it's time to stop beating that particular dead horse, please, instead of waiting a few months and then quietly bringing it up again, repeatedly. Thank you. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I am personally content with the presence of the images and the absence of ogg files, the discussion of both of which seems to have swamped this nomination of a particularly fine article. Oculi (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a dense, detailed article, and there's a few issues for me to bring up once I can set aside time to detail them, but chief among them is the paltry focus on the band's music itself. It's not like this is a topic not frequently covered by secondary sources--pick up a guitar magazine and you're bound to find in-depth articles about the guitarwork of Pink Floyd. As is stands, half of the brief Musical style section is focused on what genres Pink Floyd is labeled and the other half is rattling off soundtrack work they did. There's a little bit more sprinkled throughout the biography portion, but overall there's little detail about what Pink Floyd sounds like, and that is a major failing. The refusal to include soundclips mentioned elsewhere in this FAC doesn't help that aspect of the article. For examples of fully fleshed-out musical style sections in FA-level band articles, I offer the sections I've written for R.E.M., Joy Division, and Nirvana as reference points to guide you. There's a few other issues that stand out (inconsistent coverage of commercial and chart success, notes that veer between trivia and details that really should be in the article body, the still not-completely warranted non-free image of the A Saucerful of Secrets cover), but this is the one that requires the most attention from the article's primary authors at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds, thanks for taking the time to comment. I will start work resolving your concerns now and as I see these as easy fixes, I should finish in the next couple of hours. I'll post an update when I do. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical style - I've now expanded the section to include some detail on Gilmour's guitar playing per your suggestion. At this point any more about Gilmour there would likely be excessive and more appropriate for David Gilmour.
  • Clarify. As far as what Pink Floyd sounds like, are you suggesting I describe art rock, space rock, acid rock, psychedelic rock etcetera? Can you please be more specific with your suggestion? As a musician of 25+ years I think genres are a fine way to express the sonic qualities of a band that also allows a writer to avoid drifting into fancruft. I think the expanded Musical style section resolves this issue, I am, of course, certainly open to specific suggestions.
  • Per "inconsistent coverage of commercial and chart success", this issue is now resolved.
  • The SFOS art passed two independent image reviews, so I don't think its an actionable objection at this point.
  • As far as your complaint about notes, could you please tell me which you think are trivial and which should be restored to the article body? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - To the best of my knowledge, all actionable objections have now been fully resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mine are not fully resolved yet; I'll add details soon. My objections will be resolved when I list them as such. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've struck my oppose on account of a number of my suggestions being incorporated. A few final suggestions:

  • the new Musicianship section: Film scores has little relevance there; why not just mention chronologically in the appropriate historical section?
I really think the sub-section belongs with their Musicianship, as an aspect of their sonic variety, and not in the timeline. Several points are brought out in regard to the soundtrack material yielding music for their studio albums, so it seemed awkward in the timeline. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sub-sections Gilmour needs an introductory sentence like "Gilmour's guitar-playing was a key component of the Pink Floyd sound". I also renaming the section to something more specific like "Gilmour's guitar-playing".
Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic experimentation too needs a "Throughout their career, Pink Floyd have experimented with their sound" sentence. This section needs a little more "glue" combining disparate instances of their experimentation.
Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: Discography (Album (year)) and Tour (Year: Tour name) are formatted differently. Change the latter to "Tour (year)" for consistency?
Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: Shouldn't the first-level history-related sections (eg: "1978–85: Waters-led era") need to come under a overarching History section? It doesn't semantically seem right that "1978–85: Waters-led era" and "Further reading" be at the same level.—indopug (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit redundant. From 1963-present is clearly a historical bio, and I don't think there is a need for a redundant header for something that should be self-explanatory to readers. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking your oppose Indopug, and for these comments. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - This has been a long, and at times contentious FAC. But I have decided to promote this candidate. I am mindful of the unresolved issues and I would like to see your discussions continued on the article's talk page. I thank the nominator and all the reviewers for their time, effort and constructive criticism. Graham Colm (talk) 20:28, 2 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pink_Floyd/archive2&oldid=1140114011"