Failed FAC once (it wasn't anywhere near ready yet), but there are a lot more well-cited references now, albeit no print sources despite my efforts to find some. All in all, it's come a very long way from failed GA status. I think the sections dealing with the most media-friendly period of the band's history (ie. the mid-90's) are, sadly, a little anemic - but the most recent era is well-covered. I've practically exhausted all my efforts just cleaning up what is already there, but I suppose there could be a little more added. Suggestions? BotleySmith 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

From what I can tell, most of the concerns below have been addressed. Unless there are any more pressing suggestions, I will continue scouring the article for copy-edits and put it back on the FAC list within the next week or so. BotleySmith 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Here are my thoughts - don't take any as gospel, as my own project ( Isis) just failed a GA also, miserably so.
  • In the lead, you go into great detail about Trent Reznor's influence and so forth; how the band are two seperate entities. WP:LEAD states it should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". I think you go into too much analysis too quickly, without familiarising the reader with the context. Such information should be moved elsewhere - into "History and influences", perhaps.
  • "Early ambitions for NIN were slight" - I don't think 'slight' is the right word here.
  • "After spending some years relegated to underground status, Nine Inch Nails shot to international fame" - bear in mind WP:NPOV, and ensure not to use an unencyclopaedic tone.
  • "it has become cliché in journalistic descriptions" - there's something a little NPOV about cliché - maybe "common" instead?
  • "a remarkable versatility in sonic design and composition" - again, watch for NPOV.
  • ""it was only a few hours of wear on my tape heads; what could that hurt?"" - needs citation.
  • From this point on, the article seems a lot more neutral. However, in the court cases, ensure that both sides of the argument are stated.

Hope some of this helped! Seegoon 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I'll get started on those right away. BotleySmith 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ  _t 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much. I'll look at working on those tomorrow... do you have any specific suggestions for the lead? BotleySmith 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Some suggestions about the general set-up of the article:
  • Severly shorten the " Discography" section and expand the " History" section, c.f. Nirvana, Duran Duran, Pink Floyd. (The same suggestion was made in the previous FAC.) A lot of content could be moved from the former section to the latter without too much work. Almost all the " Corporate entanglements" section could be merged into "History," too. In general, the main article should provide salient information about the band itself (which will necessarily contain references to its musical output), but detailed information about specific releases should be collected in their respecitive articles.
  • Also, the " Trademarks" section is poorly titled—it sounds like it should talk about the official NIN logo instead of the band's musical hallmarks. Expand the section to include the last two paragraphs of the "History" section and call it "Musical style" or similar.

Incidentally, great job with the clean-up so far; the article looks quite nice. -- Rynne 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, dude! That's quite a helpful push in the right direction, I was starting to lose perspective on the bigger picture. I'll try to get as many of these suggestions as possible taken care of today. BotleySmith 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm going to take another crack at re-writing/re-organization tonight. Thanks again for all the help, folks! BotleySmith 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Additional comments - I've had another look and decided it would be a good idea to compare it to FA-class band articles.
  • Structure - 'History' should really be the first main paragraph. Beyond that, give some thought to what order the sections should go in. Take into account how the article should flow. It may make sense to include 'Future releases' in the 'History' section, too. My personal choice would be this: Lead, History, Musical characteristics, Popular culture, Discography, Band members (the last two are probably interchangeable).
  • In addition, the article might be easier to follow if each subheading in 'History' included dates. It'd help the reader establish context a little better.

I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 18:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It does! Thanks. BotleySmith 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I forgot to log in, but this edit is mine and I put the History section back to third in the TOC again. Why, you ask? I feel that even though it is traditional to put this first, it makes more sense after the setup of "Discography" and even some "Musical characteristics." Perhaps a longer lead is in order, but for now, that just reads better IMO. BotleySmith 06:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and any info there should be found in the body of the article - this is where info should be cited, and not in the lead. LuciferMorgan 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Alright, I'll try that then. Thanks for the tip! BotleySmith 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, the Musical Characteristics section needs more citations - some editors may accuse it of being original research. LuciferMorgan 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This is true, particularly for the passage on "instrumental ostinatos". I've been looking for more encyclopedic citations to back up the rest of this section, but so far the only analyses that have turned up are on fan sites. Without using these, then, actual song excerpts (which I have provided, using the Collected DVD as a source) are currently the only references available. BotleySmith 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

"Reznor has stated that these songs were outtakes from the With Teeth sessions, and studio recordings may see future release."

Stated? Where? With the word "stated" in the sentence, I'd like to see an inline cite. LuciferMorgan 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

"The band's popularity has not waned, however: Reznor's appearance in Time magazine as one of 1997's twenty-five most influential people solidified the band's status at the forefront of mainstream American music."

Solidified? Says who? The cited article doesn't. Original research this seems. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

"On the heels of NIN's previous successes, a generous amount of media hype surrounded The Fragile before its release."

From what media? From where? And why was the amount "generous" in comparison to other major new releases? Is this original research? LuciferMorgan 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

"They offered the album as part of an overall biddable package that also included the rights to the Television's Greatest Hits compilations and the Mortal Kombat movie soundtracks."

Why's the word "biddable" present? The previous sentence said the album rights were up for auction, so the word "biddable" isn't needed. LuciferMorgan 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

"Ezrin suggested an arrangement of songs that would strengthen their "final continuity and flow," which he is credited for providing in the Fragile liner notes."

Ezrin has been quoted here. All direct quotes need inline citations. LuciferMorgan 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

"On May 26, 2005, Reznor wrote "apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me" on the NIN website."

The above quote is externally linked, which should be changed to an inline citation. LuciferMorgan 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow... nice catches. These can be easily fixed, I just need a little time. BotleySmith 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, I'd really like this article to go somewhere. Some pointless things like "Auction" are wikilinked too; any reason? A lot of the wikilinks are pointless - most'll know what an auction is, and if they don't they can do a Wikipedia search. LuciferMorgan 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I know. It's been pretty taxing just delinking the dates and fixing the citations, but next time I review the whole article I'll keep an eye out for that sort of redundancy. Thanks again for the help. BotleySmith 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Since you've mentioned heading to FAC soon, I'll try to be as detailed as possible - these are samples only, not an exhaustive list:

• Too much reliance on a fansite for references, which further can be considered self-published because of the band's involvement with the site (NIN Hotline). Worse, many of the footnotes are links to articles on that fan site which violate the original writer's copyright - per WP:EL, Wiki should not link to sites which violate copyright, and NIN Hotline contains copies of articles which appear to be copyrighted by others. For example, does NIN Hotline own rights or have permission from the original copyright holders to reprint these? [1] [2] [3] (I seriously doubt they have permission to repint an AP story)

Granted. I wasn't aware that there was a problem with citing a free web archive (which has never, to my knowledge, been found in violation of copyright and carefully distinguishes between media articles, press interviews, reviews, press releases and general information). Would it be alright to remove everything from these citations but the original source, making no reference to the fan site and leaving everything else as-is? BotleySmith 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Don't think a fan club (Spiral) should be in External links - review WP:EL and WP:NOT
• This is a blog - not likely to be a reliable source: Reznor Issues Cease and Desist (2006-10-25). Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
• These (as example only) don't look like a reliable sources: [4] [5] [6]
• Problem on this ref: a b c d e Error on call to Template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified. Retrieved on 2006-12-24.
• Author missing on this reference - these are samples only, starting from the bottom, so pls double check all refs: Smaller Bands: Web Propels Music Sales. NPR.org (2005-05-01). Retrieved on 2006-10-22.
• You may have too many Fair Use images - I don't speak Fair Use fluently, so you might want to check with someone before approaching FAC - Jkelly ( talk · contribs) is knowledgeable.
• WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS look good; I fixed the ref placement and punctuation per WP:FN, where to place ref tags.
• The "circa 1988' is screaming for a reference: since the reader can't determine the date, it becomes noticeable that the supporting text isn't referenced.
• Screaming for a ref (weasly): At that time, Reznor was employed as a programmer (and janitor, as some sources have it) - what sources?
• Repeated parenthetical "sees" disrupt the article flow and speak to problems with article organization (for example, Several labels responded favorably to Reznor's material, and in what would prove a poor decision, he chose to sign with TVT Records (see: Corporate entanglements).) Try to work these parenthetical sees into the text to avoid making the reader bounce around between sections.
• Next paragraph gives more unreferenced material, and another parenthetical see: While recording the earliest NIN tracks, Reznor was unable to find a band that could articulate his songs as he wanted and instead decided to play all the instruments himself. For the band's studio recordings, this role largely remains Reznor's, though he has involved other musicians and assistants (see: Band members).
• In general, the writing is not bad, but I'd like to see more work on developing independent reliable sources, and better referencing throughout. Good luck! Sandy ( Talk) 22:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much - I had noticed some of these before, they are definitely the most significant barriers to this becoming a FAC (except the template error - that was just a typo on my part). BotleySmith 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply