I am nominating No Line on the Horizon for featured article because I believe it meets all of the current FA criteria. A lot of work has been put into this article and I think that shows in the present result. It's been copyedited several times by other users and undergone a peer review which is now archived; all of the concerns raised by the PR, the GA review, and other users have, I believe, been addressed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U2Gigs is the most reliable and reputable source when it comes to data on U2 performances; the only other that exists is U2tours.com. Neither of these are affiliated with or run by the people who run U2.com. As far as I'm aware there has never been any questions or concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the U2Gigs database, and I think just about every active member of the U2 WikiProject has used it in articles at some point in time. It's always been an invaluable resource when building U2 articles. If you're referring to this source, the reason it was used is that I am unsure of how to source radio broadcasts (or even if Wikipedia allows them to be used a source, given that once they've been heard once they will almost never be heard again). It was the only source I could find containing that information with the exception of U2France which hosted the broadcast on their webpage. U2France is another fansite, and given that French is not my first language I thought that the U2Gigs page, which contained the same information, was a better selection given that it's never been questioned as a reliable source before.
ExploreMusic also tends to be a very reliable source when it comes to breaking music news. The host of the program, Alan Cross, is one of the most prominant Canadian musical journalists, and the actual ExploreMusic radio program, syndicated across Canada, often contains newly released information regarding upcoming releases, etc. Their articles contain essentially the same information as in the broadcasts.
Though I know blogs are not usually accepted as a reliable source, there are some exceptions (per WP:SPS: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert...) I remember of a time when a New York Times blog was accepted as a reliable source, and I think that Mojo, a forefront musical publication, is as well (especially given that both instances are exclusive interviews with band members, containing information on the album sessions that is unavailable from any other source).
Checking the MOG ref, I see that the information was originally taken from an article by The Independent. I've therefore updated the reference in question (#27) to the original article. I don't use Consequence of Sound often as a source, but I've found them to be accurate; normally I would prefer to use a source such as Rolling Stone, but as with the U2Gigs article it is the only reference I have found for this piece of information; the only alternative I can see to using this is removing the information from the article, which is something I would prefer not to do. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in regards to how U2Gigs gets their information, all performances since at least 2004 have been through live streaming or their own attendance. Performances from actual tour concerts are also posted up on U2.com and the two are always identical; the difference between them being that over time, the U2.com entries are removed while the U2Gigs entries are archived. Older information is taken directly from archived newspaper reports when it is added. In the case of articles, the operators state where there informaton is from (as in the linked entry above). Most of the content is generated by the operators, but there is a submission form for others to use here. I don't know that they have been mentioned in the press before, but I do know that one of the operators is also a Wikipedian. He has had no involvement in the creation of this article, so he may be able to demonstrate their fact-checking process better than I can. I'll try to contact him.
Mojo is a very well-known and prominant music magazine. I'm not really sure how I can demonstrate that the online version has any differences in reliability from the printed version. I don't think it's too far behind Rolling Stone in terms of quality, and I've never seen any doubts about their reliability. If it helps, Mojo is backed and distributed by the Bauer Media Group. If I can find the entries from the printed version, would that be preferable? Consequence of Sound I can't find much on, but on their "About" page here, they list some of the publications they or their articles have been in, including BBC.co.uk, MTV.com, USA Today, Pitchfork, and the Chicago-Sun Times. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axver from U2gigs here. I haven't been around Wikipedia much at all the last few months (funnily enough, I was in Europe to see U2), but User:MelicansMatkin brought this discussion to my attention so I hope I can help. I've been a Wikipedian for quite some time and am familiar with verifiability requirements, though I rarely touch the U2 articles to avoid any questions about conflict of interest (I focus on New Zealand topics for the most part). On the U2gigs FAQ, we have an answer that details our sources which I hope clears up any problems. Any of our information can be independently verified. For news articles, I cite my sources; for live U2 appearances, we have either attended in person (at which we take notes by hand or produce our own recording) or listened to it - live for contemporaneous concerts and interviews, or to recordings for older shows. As far as I know, I have listened to every single live U2 appearance for which a recording exists. I am a professional historian, and I apply the same standards to my work on U2gigs - if I do not believe information is verifiable and could be defended in peer review, I do not publish it. We've been cited by Billboard and other publications; I think the highest affirmation of the reliability of U2gigs is that we were referenced as a reliable source in "U2 & NL", an official publication that came with the Dutch edition of No Line On The Horizon (we were the only web-based source; the rest were from the media and from Propaganda, U2's now defunct official magazine). Hope this clears things up and I'm happy to answer any further questions. - Axver (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems.
It contains several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and should be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include almost all proper names such as "U2" (most people don't know what U2 or its members look like), "Riad", "New York City" etc. Proper names that are in the image itself are OK (e.g., "U2 Way") since they can be verified from the image. Other phrases such as "hotel" should also be removed: one cannot tell simply by looking at the image that it's a hotel.
The alt text entries, by and large, are too long. (The alt text for the album cover is particularly long; that simple image should be summarizable in two dozen words tops.) Please make them briefer, about the length of a caption. I suggest moving the current alt text entries into the description field of the image pages, as they do contain useful info.
I've changed the alt text entries per your suggestion; they're now shorter, more concise in their description, and both proper nouns and information unverifiable from the image alone has been removed. Alt text entries have also all been moved into the appropriate description sections on the image pages. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks pretty good, and I'm leaning towards supporting. I'd suggest moving the sections on the tour and Linear though, as both seem out of place. I think the section on Linear would be better off as a subset of "Recording and production", and the section on the tour would be better off as part of "Promotion". Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I agree that Linear looks better where it is (makes more sense too given the location of Songs of Ascent), but I'm not sure about the tour information. Though that's undoubtedly where it belongs, it seems a little... "off" (for lack of a better word) as a subsection of Promotion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at it again, it still doesn't look right. Maybe if Promotion was split into a seperate section from Release? That way Release would include the release date, the cover art, and the format, while Promotion would include the brief appearances on TV and radio, and the tour. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks a bit odd as is, and I'd be fine with either your solution or just getting rid of the section header for the tour and making it the third paragraph of the promotion section. There's not a whole lot there, after all, and according to the article, the tour is entirely based around promoting the album. But since I'm fine with either solution, I'll go ahead and Support. Good work! Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. User Axver from U2Gigs has said, plus showed the guidelines of how content makes their website. Personally, I think that is fine.
2. About the site "ConsequenceofSound being reliable, here is the link to the "about us" page; About Most sources that have covered it are notable and reliable, which in turn should make CoS reliable(?) If not, this source, which has the same content cited, can be used. Will it be fine? this one
3. Mojo seems reputed. It also has an article on wiki, which can be found here.
Use the Times Online source. Otherwise, I'll leave the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I'm not persuaded that they are reliable. Personally, I'd replace the other two sites. Ealdgyth - Talk14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mojo should be considered reliable. The nominator has mentioned its a "big" reputed magazine in the UK, as the Rolling Stone is in the US. They print the physical magazine, and additionally have an online version. The print version carries a CD every month. Bands like U2 and Red Hot Chili Peppers have compiled CD content in the past (linklinklink) Additionally, if you scrolldown on the MOJO website, you'll know it's owned by "Bauer Media" (example). There's an "About" page on their website here;『...is a division of the Bauer Publishing Group, Europe’s largest privately owned publishing Group. The Bauer Publishing Group is a worldwide media empire offering over 230 magazines in 15 countries, as well as online, TV and radio stations.』I'd say notable! Also, here's more; the magazine had a radio station (which was shut down some time ago, and had many listeners) link; "...The station is one of the most high-profile digital radio closures to date..." provides notability. Will that do? Suede67 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consequence of Sound reference replaced by The Times (good catch Suede67), all but one U2Gigs reference replaced (to the best of my ability) by ones for the French Radio and TV shows, Rolling Stone, and the BBC. Two of the Mojo references have been changed, but the exclusive interviews (thus the only source for the information) have been kept, though I still feel Mojo in general is a reliable source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MelicansMatkin just took care of the refs using U2gigs as a source. I have struck it out above (also CoS as it has also been replaced). Suede67 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Should only be struck out by the original commenter. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Oh, sorry. Suede67 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will not have internet access beginning 3 September 2009 as I am moving into a new apartment for the forthcoming school year. Since I won't be able to respond to any queries or concerns that arise within the next week or so (hopefully less), I would appreciate any editor responding to them in the interim. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image comments
I don't think there's a strong enough rationale for the inclusion of File:U2NoLineRecording.jpg. The only real commentary in the article is about how it was a makeshift, open air recording environment, but you can't even tell that from the above shot. It's eye candy. Doing...
File:U2nloth.ogg and File:U2whiteassnow.ogg need more than just boilerplate rationales; why do these clips significantly increase understanding in compliance with NFCC? How much has the quality been decreased from the source? Just how much of the song has been used?
Doing...
