Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Too Much Too Soon (album)/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015 [1].

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second album by American rock band the New York Dolls. A hard rock and proto-punk album, it was released to poor sales but predated punk rock, received critical acclaim, and became a popular cult rock record. I withdrew the first FAC nomination last August because I had opened another FAC at the same time ([2]). It has since been slightly expanded and copy-edited. Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Resolved comments from Cassianto (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Although it was praised by critics, the band was not satisfied" – were all the members dissatisfied? If so, the plural would be better here.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first subsequently here is redundant and clashes with the second subsequently (also a bit pointless) later on.

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK of NYC.

Unlinked in the body. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

"The New York Dolls recorded Too Much Too Soon with Morton at A&R Studios in New York City. The album was later mastered at Sterling Sound and Masterdisk. During the sessions, he had Johansen..." – whose he?

Morton. Added. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to here. I've been copy editing as I've gone, feel free to disagree with any of it. Cassianto ^Talk 07:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm fine with your changes, just "earlier records" because those were songs they either only demoed or played live, not put on record yet; I don't know if a demo would qualify as a "record", so I changed it to the general "earlier songs". Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

Looks good.

Critical reception

Looks good

Legacy and influence

Looks good

Support this to FA. It is well researched, nicely written and comprehensive. Cassianto ^Talk 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fru1tbat

Track listing

On my (wide) screen, the track listings for the two album sides render at very different widths (due to the rating box in the previous section overflowing into this section and limiting the width of the "side one" table). It looks untidy like this - the Writer and Length columns don't line up at all. Can something be done to address this (and maintain portability)?

Nothing else jumped out at me, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Fru1tbat:, I added the clear template. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Note: spotchecks not done.
Be consistent in how you format multi-page refs - FN12 has "p." and two digits omitted, FN53 has "pp." and one
Anon 1 has "(New York) (May 11)" but then Anon 4 has "(January 20) (New York)" - check for ordering consistency throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first issue. The second has to do with how the citation templates are formatted. For some reason, Template:Cite journal renders a different order than Template:Cite news. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's by-design, as the |issue= parameter expects an issue number, not a date, but you could ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thought occurs: putting the full date in the |date=parameter (instead of splitting it between |year= and |issue=) would resolve the formatting discrepancy - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Not all the sources have known month and days, only years, and all the references are author-year. I was kind of advised to do it this way in past FACs, like this one for Misterioso, utilizing the issue field for month/day. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The order of publisher location and dates are inconsistent – eg Anon. (1974b) has "(New York) (July 13)" while Anon. (1975) has "(January 20) (New York)"~~ noted above already - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some locations seem to be missing (e.g. Antonia, Nina (2006); Pilchak, Angela (2005); and more): is this because they are not shown in the source (or already indicated by publisher name/publication title)?
"U of Minnesota Press" should probably be expanded to the full name, University of Minnesota Press

No other issues that I can see - Evad37 [talk] 02:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added locations and expanded the publisher name. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

Resolved comments from Wikipedian Penguin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional oppose~~—I am finding basic grammatical errors in the prose. In addition, there is redundancy and awkward phrasing. With that said, I am willing to withdraw my oppose once all my concerns have been addressed.

Lead

"The group was dissatisfied with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album, which led frontman David Johansen to enlist veteran producer Shadow Morton for Too Much Too Soon."—awkward use of "which", which is strictly used to refer to the noun preceding the comma, but not here. Perhaps "The group's dissatisfaction with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album led frontman...".

That seems like a mouthful though. How about "so" instead of "which", as in "The group was dissatisfied with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album, so frontman David Johansen enlisted..." Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "enthused" is far too inaccessible to be considered plain, elegant English. How about "motivated"?

Sure. Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...as a personal challenge" is vague and unclear.

I disagree. The music industry wasn't satisfying him anymore, so he wanted to challenge himself. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing the word "personal" removes some of the vagueness as "personal challenge" can often mean illness, injury, etc. What do you think? Feel free to argue otherwise. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes sense. Done @Wikipedian Penguin:. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... while Morton incorporated a large amount of studio sound effects and female backing vocals in his production."—"amount" should be "number", but the entire phrase can be condensed to "many".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"acclaimed" comes off as too strong a word when there were a few noteworthy negative reviews of the album.

How about "Acclaimed by most critics"? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I would have used "praised" or "favoured", although they may be too mild for this album's reception in particular. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"He was also more familiar with New York City..."—I don't understand the importance of this point.

Understood. Removed it. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... and wanted to challenge himself with the band"—awkward, unprofessional wording.

Would this be better: "...wanted to challenge himself by producing the band's second album" Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

"... incorporated sounds effects such as gongs, gunshots, and feminine choruses to the songs."—should be "in the songs".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... journalist Lenny Kaye wrote ~~at the time~~ that "they~~'re~~ [were] taking more time [than they had on their debut album], bringing in occasional strings and horns"—removals are in strikes and additions are in italics

revised it to "...wrote that they were taking more time than they had on their first record, 'bringing in...'" Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... while Johansen was fond of Morton and the 'looser' feel he provided their music on Too Much Too Soon"—need "for" after "provided". And I don't think "on Too Much Too Soon" is necessary here.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... and had to record both cover songs and re-record some of the band's earlier songs in order to complete Too Much Too Soon"—the placement of "both" here indicates that it is modifying "record", so "re-record" is unneeded and incorrect.

Understood, removed. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They also recorded demos of two songs written by guitarist Sylvain Sylvain, 'Teenage News' and 'Too Much Too Soon', before working with Morton..."—since this was before their work with Morton, it should be "They had also recorded".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

"album of hard rock" -> "hard rock album"?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Music journalist Nina Antonia critiqued that because of the band's 'untamable wildness'..."—use of "critiqued" here is awkward. How about "wrote" or "commented"?

Sure. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...the songs still sounded eccentric in spite of attempts by Morton to 'polish' their sound..."—"in spite of" can be condensed down to "despite".

Okay. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...such as subduing their otherwise unrefined guitar playing."—missing "by" before "subduing".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...Archie Bell's 1969 hit 'There's Gonna Be a Showdown'..."—if it were a hit wouldn't it have a Wikipedia article. Was it really a "hit"?

It's a 50 year old single by a soul singer, so doubtful lol. According to the book by Gimarc cited here it was, as well as All Music Guide to Soul Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates ~~different~~ characters such as the high-stepper in 'Showdown' and Charlie Chan in 'Bad Detective', whose nonsensical narrative is set in China."—removal in strikes; furthermore, I'd say it's best to use the full song name for "Showdown" here, since it's the first instance the track is mentioned.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'Stranded in the Jungle' suggested a theme of 'clashing cultures and the dilemma of preserving one's uniqueness while reaching out to others'."—"suggested" should be present tense.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not link inside quotations, as per the Manual of Style. For the French quote, I suppose you can provide the English translation in parentheses instead.

MOS says to avoid doing so "as much as possible", not necessarily to avoid it always. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in a way similar to" -> "similarly to"?

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything on "Who Are the Mystery Girls" that could be discussed in this section so that we have a complete track-by-track overview? The Wikipedian Penguin 20:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added "On 'Who Are the Mystery Girls?', he scolds those who misuse love by wanting to 'kick it on the floor' and 'beat it like a scatter rug'. Other than that, not really. Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

The current caption of the music sample does not sufficiently explain why the snippet is useful for understanding the subject. Samples are meant to illustrate the sound of a song, so you should focus on that.

Understood. I've looked at Antonia's book and added more, particularly from this page, discussing how the singles were more polished studio version of previously unrefined live concert staples for the band. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, in the file page of the sound sample, Joe Gross's quote is described as referring to "Stranded in the Jungle", but in the article, it is used as a general quote to describe the album as a whole.

Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Jon Savage's quote can easily be paraphrased and as a result we can avoid linking inside the quotes.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For its front cover, the group eschewed the drag image of their first album in favor of a fake concert shot."—why is it noteworthy that they eschewed the drag image of their first album? It's obvious that they wouldn't reuse the cover of a previous album; who does?

They had a reputation in general for wearing drag on-stage. Clarified. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Too Much Too Soon was another commercial failure for the New York Dolls, as it only charted at number 167 on the Billboard 200."—I never brought this up when it appeared in the lead, but that seems like a very subjective assertion, because No. 167 on the Billboard 200 can be interpreted as a success as well.

I assume Gimarc took into consideration factors like the record label, money put into the Dolls by the label, and expectations. Other sources seemed to say the same ([3]), and I've never heard of that low position being interpreted as success tbh. I'll add the source from the link in this comment. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It ultimately sold less than 100,000 copies."—"ultimately" here is redundant, as is "of them" in "...but neither of them charted".

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They also embarked on their second tour of the United States, which was marred by cancelled shows, escalating drug and alcohol addictions, and internal strife."—(1) "drug" is inclusive of "alcohol"; (2) the sentence is vague overall (Whose addictions? Whose internal strife? What is meant by internal strife?) The Wikipedian Penguin 20:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added Hermes' source to clarify all the band members had drinking problems, and previous parts of the article make note of specific drug addictions (Kane and alcohol, Nolan and Thunders with heroin, etc.), so I think the reader will get the point. They all led to conflicts among band members. None of the sources specify what those conflicts were but it doesn't leave much to the imagination considering the problems they had. I specified "hard drugs" to avoid getting into whether alcohol is a drug or not. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol's classification as a soft drug is debatable. Why not simply "addictions to alcohol and other drugs"? The Wikipedian Penguin 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... accommodating radio audiences with toned-down studio versions of songs the band had performed live in more rowdier fashion."—I understand what you're trying to say, but "in more rowdier fashion" comes off as awkward sounding. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would "...songs the band had performed more rowdily in concert" be better? Dan56 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

"Too Much Too Soon was acclaimed by music critics upon its release."—(1) see above RE "acclaimed" (2) "music" is redundant, as what other kinds of critics would typically review a music album? (3) linking not needed (4) archaic use of the word "upon"; perhaps remove the "upon its release" expression altogether?

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Creem magazine's Robert Christgau said the polished sound reproduction retains their raw qualities..."—the use of "retains" here sounds strange for some reason. I would have used something like "maintains" or "preserves". Also, the use of "their" is ambiguous. Maybe "the band's"?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Christgau is already mentioned and linked above. Unlink here and remove first name.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert Hilburn, writing in the Los Angeles Times, argued it is a markedly better-produced album..."—ambiguous "it", and "markedly" is barely crossing POV boundaries.

Replaced with album title, removed "markedly". Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ron Ross from Phonograph Record magazine said the group's 'easy going ironic sensibility' is expressed 'far more amusingly and accessibly [here]' than on their debut."—debut what? Album I'm assuming.

Added "debut album". Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Some reviewers were critical of Too Much Too Soon for what they felt was an insufficient and overproduced sound."—what is an "insufficient ... sound"?

The source called it "underdone" to be exact. I replaced it with "poorly recorded". Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Richard Cromelin of the Los Angeles Times included Too Much Too Soon on his list of favorite records from the decade..."—awkward to use "on his list" with "included". I suggest "in his list".

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and influence

"Along with the New York Dolls' debut, Too Much Too Soon became among the most popular cult albums in rock music."—debut what?

"Debut" is also used as a noun, short for "Debut album". I'll add "self-titled debut" so "album" is repeated in this sentence. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't disambiguate the term because for all we know, it could be short for debut single, and their debut single was eponymous. I'd suggest just using the album title itself. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When it was reissued by Mercury in 1987, Don McLeese of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that Morton's production highlighted the New York Dolls' sense of humor and was rendered 'in vivid detail' by the CD reissue, but felt the album was still marred by inconsistent material and rated it lower than their first album."—awkward repetition of "reissue" and "album".

Replaced "reissue" with "remaster", split into two sentences. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is borderline WP:QUOTEFARM.

I reduced the quoted material. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep "instant classic", as paraphrasing that to "masterpiece" is a bit far. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He believed that, although Johansen's best original songs are on the debut"—also, first comma is not necessary.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That ~~same~~ year..."

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JM

This strikes me as a really well done article. Just a few smaller comments...

I think you're missing the mark a bit when you talk about recording demos. The band weren't recording demos, they were recording songs that they had originally produced as demos. The song exists independently of the demo.

I had originally worded it as "re-recorded demos" before one of the reviewers suggested changing it. I'll restore it. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean by Morton being "hasty"

In a rush; reworded it. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates characters such as the high-stepper in "(There's Gonna Be A) Showdown" and Charlie Chan in "Bad Detective", whose nonsensical narrative is set in China." I'm struggling to understand this sentence

Reworded to "which has lyrics describing a nonsensical narrative..." Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph of the "Music and lyrics" section, there seems to be a tense shift- do you want to talk about what the songs feature in the present tense or the past tense?

Corrected. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on your annotations in the see also section.

They were suggested by another reviewer. Would you prefer it if I removed them? Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand a little on "Anon. (1985). "All Time Top 100 Albums". Sounds (London)." ? Volume/issue/pages/url? "Willis, Ellen (1974). "Rock, Etc.". The New Yorker 50 (April 1)." is also a little light.

I have no other information on Sounds. I originally got the info from Acclaimed Music, so I've replaced it with that citation instead. The New Yorker article was found through GoogleBooks' archive/snippets and that was all I could muster up. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you've got the right issue for The New Yorker. See here, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks! I've changed it to "may 20" after typing some of the cited text. Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three small stylistic comments to have a think on- first, there are a lot of false titles (something I've only just learnt about!), second, there seems to be a tiny bit of inconsistency on whether you capitalise the "The" in band names (see: "The Olympics") and third, I think there is good reason to favour "s's" in the case of belongs-to-singular when the singular word ends in s (so, I would favour " Thunders's " over " Thunders' "). I certainty wouldn't oppose over any of these things, but these are some bits to think about.

I'm in favor of false titles since I'm an American speaker and saying "the" before "American hard rock band the New York Dolls" would sound funny to me lol. I have fixed "the Olympics". I revised it to "Thunders's" Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are very good. For me, this is an excellent article- a great example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other issues to resolve @J Milburn:, Dan56 (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm so sorry I forgot about this. An excellent example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

ref 1 (New York Dolls signed to Mercury and poor sales for debut album)–confirmed
ref 3 (session with Paul Nelson)–confirmed
ref 6–accurate statement
ref 14–according to the review
ref 19 (The New Yorker)–accurate cite
ref 21 (Spin alt guide)–accurate cite
ref 29 ("Human Being" lyrics)–confirmed
ref 31–accurate quote
ref 32 (number 167 on the charts)–correct
ref 36 (two festivals they played)–per source
ref 42 (Phonograph Record quote)–only found the Contemporary Musicians book (p.106), but it's there
ref 44 (Circus)-accurate quote
ref 50 (Christgau)–accurate quotes
ref 53 (cult album)–confirmed, first paragraph from Allmusic bio
ref 54–all in source, but it's slightly unusual how you combined the critic's various descriptions.
ref 55 ("instant classic")–confirmed

The article has plenty of quoted text, so I had no problems locating it on Google Books. I see no false sourcing here.--Retrohead (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 20 September 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.