Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)

Self-nomination (with much additional help). This article achieved good article status in June and has undergone considerable work since (see diff). Peer-reviewed in October, I and others have made improvements to the article using current song FAs as guides. I now feel it meets the FA criteria. McMillin24 contribstalk 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Most of the article was very good, but I'm concerned about the bottom third of it. For one thing, I wonder about comprehensiveness here; the "Covers" section of the article is basically two lines. Do we really have nothing at all to say about covers of this song? See Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) for an example. If we need the unreferenced "Cultural references" section, and I really hope that we don't, breaking it up by media means that the reader has two sentences per section break. The only thing I'd keep here is the The Party Party video, if we can find some third party reference for it, which could expand the "Covers" section. Incidentally, why are we linking to this random blog's hosting of the video? To sum up, I'm left with the feeling that a bunch of junk got moved to the end of the article, someone loosely organised it, and that thinly disguised trivia is, unfortunately, the impression that I come away with as a reader, rather than the good material from the body of the article. Jkelly 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick response and good points. I'm rather inclusionist, and I am probably responsible for the poor list-to-prose conversion of a trivia section that became "Cultural references." I've moved the Party Party parody up to the Covers section, and removed the rest of the section. As far as covers go, many of them are not very notable. Phil Coulter and Richard Cheese are probably the most interesting cover artists: Coulter has developed a decent following as an Irish songwriter and performer, and Richard Cheese's satire of the song probably merits inclusion. I can't even find a reference for the Alvin and the Chipmunks cover (excepting the unreferenced Wikipedia discography page and its mirrors), so I've removed mention of that as well. McMillin24 contribstalk 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: firstly nice work. This article used to be terrible!! It's come a long way in a short time.
  • Article is broad in scope.
  • Well laid out with logic.
  • Your referencing is excellent. It is thorough and has excellent formatting.
  • Musical structure and lyrics is particularly good. well done
  • Length in my opinion is perfect for subject which is afterall just a song - albeit one of the most important songs from one of the most important bands.
  • Suggestions:
  • Can you please confirm the citation for:U2 knew when they decided to record "Sunday Bloody Sunday" that its lyrics could easily be misinterpreted as rebellious, which could jeopardize their personal lives. Some of The Edge's original lyrics, which spoke out against violent rebels, were omitted in order to protect the group.? It says it is from U2 by U2 but I cannot see it in my copy. What page? Where on the page. It's a good quote, shame if we can't reference it.
  • I'm not clear on when the single was released in the UK. Perhaps I have missed this.
  • Would you want to swap the video and single sections around? This is only a minor thing, and is probably just my personal opinion.
  • You may need to find a really good word smith just to polish the words and phrasing but not to touch the actual content.
--Merbabu 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible I mis-referenced the bit about his original lyrics. I don't actually own U2 by U2 (yay for being a poor student!)--I borrowed it from my local library a few weeks ago and it's (unfortunately) checked out by another patron at the moment. I'm certain the information is true, but I'll have to do some more searching for the original reference.
  • I'm not sure the single was released in the UK at all, but radio airplay alone may have allowed it to chart at #7. I'm inclined to trust U2Wanderer.org, but the information seems to be conflicting.
  • I don't have any opinion one way or the other on the order of the video and single sections...I'd leave that to the discretion of other editors. Thanks for the suggestions! McMillin24 contribstalk 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - nice comprehensive article for a single song, but I still have minor objections:
  1. Remove the link to Google Video as a source. There are some concerns about copyright infringements in Google Video, because video licenses cannot be verified there and we must not advocate for that.
I've removed the ref, as well as the sentence since I can't think of another source that could verify the info. McMillin24 contribstalk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per WP:EL, remove the external links directly to a webpage that requires external media application (the video link). Or replace it with the official website that release the video.
— Indon (reply) — 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed this one. McMillin24 contribstalk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - (have copy edited this article over last two weeks) - The lead is not a sufficent overview of the main text, and the prose remains weak in areas. 'Live performances' should be merged into one heading. Would change my vote to support if these issues are resolved. + Ceoil 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
McMillin, have made an edit to correct some of the sentences I was thinking of. Here are a few others:
  • "After Bono had re-written the lyrics" - Unclear; was it a complete re-write, or was some of Edge's text retained?
  • "and the guitar parts are muted. This part of the song" - 'Part' apprears twice in two consecutive sentences. Maybe 'passage', but its a little high brow for the subject.
  • "Bono rewrote The Edges's initial lyrics...but he has said that the band was too inexperienced at the time to fully realise that goal" - Not sure what this means, was the whole band working on the lyrics, or was it just Bono who lacked experience?
  • "As the song progresses, the lyrics and guitar become more furious" - 'Furious' seems POV to me.
  • "while the band vamped three chords—A minor, C major, and F major. As the band vamped, Bono would sing "no more!" with the audience" - 'vamped' appears twice.
  • "because the song was "made real" with the performance in Denver" - Maybe I missed it, but the Denver concert is not previously detailed. I know its 'Bonospeak', but 'made real' is hopelessly vague.
  • "Following their original intent" - Unclear. 'This intent'?
  • "A memorable mid-song message" - Memorable according to whom?
  • "explain a headband" - He was explaining why he was wearing a headband.
  • "The Coexist symbol is trademarked in the United States by an LLP in Indiana,[26][27] and the original artwork was created in 2001 by a Polish artist" - This seams tacked on, and could be better integrated with the previous sentence.
  • "As with the 2001 shows, the Vertigo tour saw the song applied...During 2006 Australian shows" - 'Shows' appreas twice.
Just as a seperate point, it might serve the article to include a brief section on where the song appears in the band's timeline, and to further develop on how it helped in exposing U2 to the mainstream. + Ceoil 20:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? It needs to be discussed with your reasoning. By simply writing "strong support" your comment is just a vote and this is NOT a voting process. Merbabu 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo Merbabu's comments here. Why does the article merit strong support? McMillin24 contribstalk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was hard to oppose. I am a huge U2 fan, and U2 is one of only two main subject areas I spend my wiki time on. I think this article has come a long way after a lot of hard work, the eds involved should be proud of there efforts. After the main U2 article, it is almost certainly the best U2-related article on wikipedia and in my opinion certainly deserving of Good Article Status. But, I just don't see it as being an example of wikipedia's "very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." [1] Is it really the best of wikipedia? I think not. It is certainly very good though. The "bets of wikipedia" quote is enough not to support this FAC, but lets look at the individual criteria too:
(1a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
FailSorry, the pose is certainly not brilliant. THe prose is average, no glaring problems, but nothing that makes it stands out from the crowd. This was one of my comments from a week or so ago (see above).
(1b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
Fail. This one probably isn't that hard to fix. I think it could do with more on:
  • the inspiration for the song. Ie, the Troubles and the U2's reaction to them. Of course, not too much, as The Troubles have their own articles, but there should be enough hear for a holistic read to give the general idea - we should only have to click on wiki links for extra information - not a basic explanation.
  • U2's reaction to the above
  • the development of the song - this bit is already interesting, but more would be good
  • More interpretation of the lyrics - IF it can be referenced appropriately.
  • I'll be working to address the first three bullet points. It's hard to concretely reference any interpretations of the lyrics, because many of them differ. Ultimately, any conglomeration of viewpoints will likely have a bit of original research used to tie them together, which is certainly not what we want to see in the article. McMillin24 contribstalk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.
Weak pass I suspect that if editors were really diligent, they would turn up more material that would be very beneficial to the article. But references seem just OK for purpose - some are excellent too, no poor references though.
(1d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
  • Pass
(1e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  • Pass
(2) It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
  • Pass
(3)It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
  • Pass with comment - related to my comments on background info on the Troubles, if this section was flahed out, a picture depicting some aspects of events - if available - would be great.
  • (4)It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Weak pass As already mention - it could have a bit more in some areas - see 1 (b) above. To its credit, it doesn't go into boring detail listing which part of the concert it was played in and general set list trivia that is so common in other U2 song articles.

Sorry, to be a stick in the mud, but I think it is better to be honest that than just voting for the article along the lines of "i like it [2]" Merbabu 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries. Sorry i didn't put this forward earlier but it was a little hard. As for your comments about original research creeping in to tie things together, i certainly don't think it is inevitble and with other editors watching over I wouldn't be too concerned. The editing process is always better with collaboration anyway. See how you go and I can help out.Merbabu 15:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quick appraisal: Great song deserving a better article. Why?: Excessive referencing in the lead. While everything should be cited per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, etc., this is just too distracting and a well-written lead shouldn't need to have practically every sentence footnoted (see talk page for WP:LEAD and policies mentioned there). Too many sections/subsections with too short paragraphs/not enough substance...two sentence paragraphs/sections, etc. Writing is not brilliant or compelling per 1(a). Discussion of lyrics, impact, allusions, political situation that caused the song is not a comprehensive treatement of the subject required by 1(b). Images, o.k. but their placement (and with sample box) in the article jars left-to-right for an unaesthetic, unbalanced presentation. Image captions are not even barely passable, in my opinion. All thumbs should not have size parameters to accomodate user preferences. A 400px image (Sunday Bloody Sunday riff A.png) takes up 2/3rd of the text in a page layout constrained by a viewer who prefers 800x600 resolution. —ExplorerCDT 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sunday_Bloody_Sunday_(song)/archive1&oldid=1138472327"