Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2021

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2021 [1].

For the Night edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song by Pop Smoke, featuring DaBaby and Lil Baby. The single debuted and peaked at number six on the US Billboard Hot 100, giving Pop Smoke his first top-10 hit in the United States. Today marks one year since Pop Smoke was shot and killed. I thought I would honor him by nominating one of his most popular songs. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Buidhe edit

  • No media is used. (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    buidhe is it bad if there are no pictures in the article? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's better than adding unnecessary media to the article. I am just putting it here so that coords know that an image review has been done. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro edit

Strong Oppose. RIP to Pop, but this is not a memorial service; this is a place to nominate articles based on their quality.

There are so many prose issues and citation inconsistencies I don't know where to start. The composition and reception sections in particular have problems with needless sentences that don't establish anything new, and amount to unorganized quote farms:

  • Lie in the lead section: "Many critics praised the track as one of Pop Smoke's best songs." Where?! I don't see any opinion of that kind in the reception section. Speaking of which, the reviews look more mixed than what that sentence is trying to imply.
    • To add, I'm seeing the song in lists of the best songs of the year 2020, but that's not the same as saying it's one of the rapper's best. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CashMoneyAP got help to rework the song with Palaze, Daniel Mxras, Jess Jackson, and Mike Dean." Awkward sentence. Are you saying he contacted those other producers to work on the rework with him? I think it's simplier if you just say "he reworked the song with".
  • "but CashMoneyAP later changed his mind because he felt the timing was not right." Clarify. Timing with what? Would it be a bad time to record? Was releasing a Pop Smoke song featuring him gonna happen at a bad time? And when was "later"? Or by "timing" are you describing YoungBoy's performance?
  • Most of the first two sentences are unneeeded. Every making-of feature of anything involves those in the project mindless praising other people in that project. This should be common knowledge. The only thing I would keep is about Pop wanting to work with DaBaby for a while.
  • "... and added additional production" Did the Department of Redundancy Department™ write this?
  • "The song originally had an original sample, but it was not clearable." Another confusing sentence, plus its repetitive as you use "original" twice. By "original sample," do you mean they made the samples themselves? Because I don't think someone would have to worry about purchasing ccpyright permission of material they own.
  • The Paste, Billboard, LA Times and NPR quotes in the writing and composition section state the exact same thing; tribute, elegy, and eulogy are the most synonymous set of words ever. Additionally, people can tell the line is a tribute to the dead rapper, so presenting it as attribution to only those sources is pointless; I could use all the cites and simplify this right now: "DaBaby provides a eulogy line for Pop Smoke, "Rest in peace to the Pop, make me smoke ya.""
  • Independent Tribune and HipHopDX quotes in the reception aren't good/bad opinions and only state the obvious. Yes, it "featured other acts leading the new class of rap," we can see that in the infobox, and yes, it's a "social media-ready hit," he's a pop artist so duh. This is just more needless fluff.
  • ""recklessness of a summer party or the languid flirtation of stoop-side conversations"" More fluff not showing any thoughts of the song's quality. Lots of electronic, pop, and rap songs could be said by any random a-hole to evoke party reckleness; I'm not denying the reputation of anyone who has an article for a high-quality news publication in their portfolio (The Atlantic), but what makes this one insignificant statement so special and necessary? Additionally, the album review cited described the entirety of said album as being the soundtrack to the summer, making this statement less unique towards the track.
  • "Okon labeled the track as sinister" and "Mark Richardson noted the song was "more welcoming" than Pop Smoke's earlier songs" seem like pointless tone descriptions instead of good/bad opinion that introduce more important parts to the song's critical reception.
  • You only indicate one quoted review being unfavorable, but the Pitchfork and Independent reviews are incorrectly implied to be positive, as they're in the same section as positive statements from Variety and the LATimes; Pitchfork's album review criticized the use of guest rappers and used that track as an example (hence the description of "forced Rap Caviar-bound marathon) and Independent panned the instrumental as "passe," meaning out-of-date.
  • ""For the Night" was released on Pop Smoke's posthumous debut studio album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, as the third track on July 3, 2020.[23] The song was later released as the album's fourth single on October 3, 2020, by Victor Victor Worldwide and Republic Records.[24]" Just say it's the fourth single from the album and that it was released as such on October 3, 2020. We already have the tracklisting and album release on the article about the album.
  • This is one of the far less problems with this article, but "top 10" ---> "top ten," as numbers ten or below must be present in word form.
  • Gonna describe the ref problems briefly cause I'm not going to bother with any more of this since the nominator clearly didn't bother himself to pay enough attention to this article. Why do AllHipHop and Uproxx have their names formatted as publishers when they're works like Billboard and the LATimes? Furthermore, why is a non-work (ref #69) presented in italics instead of as a publisher without anything on it? And why is "hitparade.ch" presented in url form when all the other cites (even the ones with only publishers) present only the names themselves? Additionally, foreign-language chart sources (mostly the year-end ones) are missing "language=" information.

Simply put, the article fails 1a, 3c and 4 of the criteria, 1a drastically so. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose early withdrawal The article doesn't look in bad shape to me. A couple references need to be tidied and the prose maybe could be tweaked in a couple places but it's not worse than my last FAC which now has multiple supports. I suggest that if Humanx comments can be actioned promptly where appropriate (I disagree that things like "Okon labeled the track as sinister" or "recklessness of a summer party or the languid flirtation of stoop-side conversations" should be removed, the reception is more than a binary good/bad) this can go forward. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand how strict the process is, then. The featured article criteria indicates that the prose can't just look okay; it needs to be high quality, understandable and engaging. It wouldn't be in bad shape for a GAN (apart from that hideous error in the lead), but we're not nominating for a good article, are we? HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • HumanxAnthro: Man you are such a fucking asshole! Yep, I said it! I am so sick and tired of people like you ruining this site. I'm sorry if you find the article "hideous" but take your attitude somewhere else. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @The Ultimate Boss: Whoa, watch it with the personal attacks! My apologies if I came off dick-ish; that wasn't my intention. While I may have been a little rudely humorous in spots, I'm generally being this strict and precise with text and sourcing not to be a dick; it's because the criteria is that way since featured articles are to recognize the best of the online encyclopedia. If you don't agree with any of the comments, please respond to them properly. HumanxAnthro (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I'm seeing nothing here about the Tyga remix and its accompanying visual, which was all covered by Revolt. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ultimate Boss edit

Shit nvm. @FAC coordinators: close this plz. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2021 [2].

Don't Start Now edit

Nominator(s): LOVI33 22:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the lead single from Dua Lipa's sophomore studio album, Future Nostalgia. Credited for kicking starting a revival of disco music in 2020, the song made Lipa a household name. It was met with both critical and commercial success and is still charting to this day in some countries, over a year following its release. This song was brought to GA status back in April by CoolMarc, who has since retired. I nominated it once before and got no opposes so I hope this one gets a bit more attention. Nevertheless, I still got a peer review and have been making improvements of my own. Any comments will be very helpful. LOVI33 22:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by The Ultimate Boss edit

The article looks amazing LOVI; there are just some minor issues. I've been told some sources like Teen Vogue and Vice are not really FA material. I would ask someone who is experienced at FA to see what sources should be replaced or removed from the article. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSP Vogue is considered reliable, though I'm unsure if this extends to Teen Vogue. Vice is of questionable reliability, but consensus seems to be that it is OK for entertainment and celebrity news (not so much politics or science though). I think the use of Vice here (describing the song's composition) is acceptable. Some Teen Vogue references, though, should be replaced if possible IMO. AviationFreak💬 04:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input AviationFreak and The Ultimate Boss! I have kept the Vice source and removed/replaced two of the Teen Vogue ones. I have left one Teen Vogue one that I have not been able to replace but personally, I think it is okay as it is simply for one claim and Teen Vogue is considered a "sister" publication to Vogue which is considered reliable. LOVI33 20:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Another source that I saw in the article that you should remove is Insider. When I put "Cups" up for FAC, I had the same source and someone mentioned that it wasn't FA material. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The Ultimate Boss. Per WP:RSP, there is currently no consensus on Insider. I think it is okay to include since it is only used as a ranking in the year-end lists section. Do you think I should remove it? LOVI33 21:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33, you should ask someone who has more experience at FA. Other than that, I support. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K. Peake edit

Hello LOVI33, very good to help you out with this FAC. The article is definitely of good quality after the proper review it went through in the past, but there are still a number of things not meeting the FA criteria. First of all, "it" is used inappropriately in the lead: "Lipa wrote it with" being the second sentence doesn't specify whether she wrote the song with the following personnel or the album, plus "It spent a" should be "The former spent a" since it comes after a mention of another song by Lipa. Also, regarding the credits and personnel section, you should move the music video credits to the video section as a sub-section and I think it looks a little repetitive having all of the article's media aligned to the right. I would further suggested to retitle accolades to industry awards since the entire section consists of them and ref 187 needs numerous citations, as one Amazon retailer does not back up a "various" release. --K. Peake 08:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kyle Peake! I have invoked your prose suggestions. For me it is kind of hard to address the song without repetition so thanks for that. I have also split up the credits and personnel subsections, aligned the Times Square photo in "Release and promotion" to the left, retitled the Accolades section and I replaced the Amazon ref with Tidal. I hope it looks good now. LOVI33 21:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOVI33 Maybe you should just not refer to it as "the single" at all in the lead to be more consistent. --K. Peake 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, reworded. How does it look now? LOVI33 21:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOVI33 Amazing, I am going to put my support behind this nom now! --K. Peake 21:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan edit

  • The footnote about Don't Start Now's release date should be linked in the infobox as well.
  • "Numerous 1980s and disco tropes are used in the production" -- I don't believe the word "numerous" adds anything to the reader's understanding here.
  • If possible, try to eliminate the repetition of "1980s and disco" twice in the lead.
  • "The song peaked at number two on both the UK Singles Chart and the US Billboard Hot 100, surpassing 2017's "New Rules" to become her highest-charting single in the US" -- Replacing "in the US" with "on the latter" might be more effective.
  • It spending 20 weeks in the US top 10 doesn't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article.
  • Removed. It's funny I could have sworn I had it in the prose. Also it's probably not notable since It didn't break any records or anything. LOVI33 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Internationally, the song charted in the top 10 on charts in over 40 countries, including number-one peaks in nine countries. The single is certified multiplatinum in 14 countries" -- This will need a direct source. If there isn't one then remove it.
  • Is there a reason only the Live in LA Remix has been mentioned in the lead? Might be worth mentioning one of the other remixes too if they are notable.
  • There's quite a lengthy Impact and legacy section. As the lead is a summary of the whole article, it should mention the key points from it.
  • Why is the chorus included out of context in the Music and lyrics section? The placing is a bit weird. I would suggest working it into the prose or removing it altogether.
  • I've tried to re-word it. LOVI33 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stray chorus lyrics are still there and are creating white space to their right. You could try wording it like: "She celebrates her independence, and uses bullet point instructions to address a needy former lover directly; with lyrics including, "Don't show up, don't come out / Don't start caring about me now / Walk away, you know how / Don't start caring about me now"." to fix this.--NØ 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my mistake. I thought you were talking about the part mentioning the chorus composition. I have re-worded it. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyrighted images should only be used if absolutely necessary. The image of DSN billboards doesn't really enhance the reader's understanding of the article enough to justify use here.
  • This is optional but I prefer when year-end lists are worked into prose instead of tabulated.
  • The awards table is discouraged, as it is considered a WP:CFORK of the artist's awards article. Remove it and mention the noteworthy ones in prose.
  • Remove the music video credits. They would be fine in an article dedicated to the music video but are taking up undue space here.
  • Removed. Incorporated the producer and production company into the prose. LOVI33 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links are way too excessive! Let's get rid of them all except MetroLyrics.
  • I would argue that the Lyric video and Live in L.A. music video are also notable for it. Removed all the rest though. LOVI33 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think the official music video being linked in the infobox makes those two redundant too, but I will leave this up to your choice.--NØ 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have removed them. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The article is definitely detailed and well-written. I will give it another look after these are addressed.--NØ 15:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan thanks for the comments. I have addressed them all. LOVI33 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second sentence of the Writing and production section, use "The former song" instead of just "The song" since two songs are mentioned in the preceding sentence.
  • "The song came about after the A&R head at Lipa's record label" -- Maybe it should be mentioned that Warner is the record label being talked about.
  • Link disco in "disco night" instead of the following sentence.
  • "The song was eventually written with Lipa in January 2019" -- The writers credited on the final version should be mentioned here again, just so it's clear that J Kash wasn't involved in it. Something like "Ailin, Warren and Kirkpatrick eventually co-wrote the song with Lipa in January 2019".
  • The word "by" is repeated twice in several sentences here. Try to eliminate this. E.g. "extra drums inspired by the Weeknd's song "Can't Feel My Face"," (and "the" should be lowercased mid-sentence).
  • Make sure there is a source directly after every quote.
  • "For this section, he went through 25 different sounds and incorporated them into four." -- four what? This is a bit confusing.
  • "while a cowbell in appears in the anthemic, string-backed, 1980s synth-pop chorus." -- There is some grammatical error here, probably to do with the repetition of the word "in".
  • The Music and lyrics section is well-written, but I will reiterate my suggestion about the stray paragraph at the end.
  • "The song was made available to pre-save on Spotify on 25 October 2019, in conjunction with a competition to win signed polaroids of the singer." -- This sentence should be removed if Lipa's twitter account is the only source. It's nothing out of the ordinary.
  • Try to look for reliable secondary sources for the vertical and lyric videos too. Primary sources are fine but not preferrable.
  • I haven't been able to find any. Before I nominated I tried to replace all the primary sources but I was unable to. I hop that is okay. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source Idolator has caused trouble at some other FACs due to questions about its reliability. Though I personally consider it okay, you could remove it to be on the safer side.
  • I also see no problem with it. If someone else mentions it I will remove it. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a grammatical error in the GQ sentence, again having to do with repetition of the word "in". Also, one usage of the word "version" could be substituted with "edition" (or something similar) here to reduce repetition.
  • Change "1 billions spins" to "one billion spins".
  • "On their singles chart, the song song debuted at number eight" -- There's a typo here.
  • I re-phrased that per HĐ's suggestion on trimming it down. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you could find a better source for the music video premiere date. It's not necessary to include the exact time it premiered.
  • Added time into a note like what was done for the actual song's premiere. I also added The Fader and ET Canada sources for the music video release. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about ThisSongIsSick.com as a source. The About Us page calls it a blog. I definitely don't think it's fit for an FA.
  • Regarding the discourse with HĐ below, I believe it might help to rename the "Impact and legacy" section to "In popular culture", since the latter is less controversial. Impact isn't really a suitable title if the section doesn't mention any particular songs that were directly inspired by DSN.--NØ 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MaranoFan! I hope everything looks okay now. LOVI33 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now comfortable offering my support for promotion. Good job on the co-operation and swift responses, LOVI33.--NØ 05:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

I have not examined the whole article, but I am a little bit dubious about the detailed "Impact and legacy" section. Not sure if the TicToker bit is notable, but I consider it a potential case of WP:FANCRUFT. The first paragraph can be pretty much summed up into 3-4 sentences, focusing on the song's relevance in the pandemic and a summary on its influence on a new disco trend. Have not gone through all the refs, but this one, as cited in the article, actually focused on the album rather than this song, thus making it questionable whether claims in these sources have been cherry-picked to give it an undue weight. Inclusions in soundtracks are pretty normal for a hit, so I'd recommend trimming down (see WP:SONGTRIVIA). The "commercial performance" can also be cut down (WP:CHARTTRAJ) to give it a flow rather than reading like an indiscriminate collection of information. HĐ (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HĐ, thanks for the comments! I have trimmed down the "Impact and legacy" section to only include the disco trend, relevance during the pandemic, notable covers which have changed the song from its original composition and soundtrack inclusions that have been mentioned in an article. The Vulture article you are referring to actually covers the song "Future Nostalgia" from the album, but I was citing it for the part in the lead where it says: "We knew nothing of COVID-19 when Dua Lipa's 'Don’t Start Now' and Jessie Ware's 'Mirage (Don’t Stop)' came out in fall 2019, but they set the tone that would become pervasive throughout the unexpected year of solitude that followed". I have also trimmed down the commercial performance section. I hope it looks okay now. LOVI33 20:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Alexismata7 edit

@LOVI33: I totally agree that this article becomes FA, it is well written as one user said above, good grammar and punctuation. I think it's not okay to mention the song title twice in the lead. I think the "release and promotion" section deserves to be expanded slightly. In the "popular culture" section, the term "cha cha" is used mostly in the United States and therefore I think you should change it to cha-cha-cha. You must also link Fortnite to its respective article about the video game. Then I think there is nothing more to repair and the article is in its final version. Alexismata7 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexismata7, thanks for the comments. I have linked Fortnite and changed cha cha to cha-cha-cha. Usually in the lead and through out the article, it is okay to use the song title once per paragraph and unfortunately, the release and promotion section bas been expanded to its fullest extent. There aren't really any more notable items to put in that part. I hope it looks okay now. LOVI33 20:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

  • LOVI33 Any progress on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm planning to get it done by this weekend. My apologies I have been very busy lately. LOVI33 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta edit

I haven't heard the song, and have never heard of the singer, so will be reviewing prose and understandability, and maybe a bit of WP:MOS compliance. Based on a first reading, it seems the supports above may be premature, as there's a lot (linking, spelling, grammar, diction) that needs tweaking: Esculenta (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”… it features a percolating funk bassline …” To percolate: “filter gradually through a porous surface or substance”; also “be or become full of lively activity or excitement”, which I suppose is the meaning intended here, but this is more of a US usage, so am not sure if it’s appropriate for an article, in British English, on an English artist. Also, “funk” is jargon.
    • I have removed it from the lead but I would argue it has significance in the "Music and lyrics" section. There doesn't seem to be a good synonym for it. Also, funk is a musical genre. I wouldn't say it is jargon but if you were confused there I added the wikilink. I didn't have it there before per MOS:SOB. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The lyrics find Lipa” I don’t think personification is a good writing technique for an international encyclopaedia.
  • ”"Don't Start Now" received highly positive reviews upon its release; with many reviewers noting significant growth in Lipa's sound and vocals.” grammar problem (semicolon is used incorrectly)
    • Replaced semicolon with comma. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”At the upcoming 63rd Annual Grammy Awards, the song is” has no other reviewer noticed that this event has passed?
    • The event is scheduled to take place on 14 March 2021. It was re-scheduled due to a surge of COVID-19 cases in Los Angeles. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The song peaked at number two on both the UK Singles Chart and the US Billboard Hot 100, surpassing 2017's "New Rules”” Sounds like the band “2017” released this song.
    • Rephrased.
  • words that could/should be linked: downtempo, dive bar, pre-chorus, rhythm guitar, lens filter, double platinum, disco ball, Versace, platforms, remix, meme, emote, cover, Spotify, Spotify Singles
    • Linked all accept Versace as it was already linked. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”For this section, he went through 25 different sounds” going through a sound sounds a bit idiomatic, perhaps rephrase
    • Rephrased to "ideas". LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”His final rough mix included nearly 100 tracks.” elsewhere, the word “track” is used as a synonym for song (I think); is there a link to explain the way track is being used here?
    • I just used it here to avoid the over usage of "song". LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Several 1980s and disco tropes are included in the French bloghouse production” this is the only time a “French bloghouse” is mentioned; what does this mean?
    • French bloghouse is a mid-2000s electronic music genre. Do you think a should link it to Electronic music? LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”a percolating funk bassline which interchanges” which->that (which is generally used after a comma)
  • ”Lipa's vocals eschew modulation” again personification … perhaps “Lipa eschews modulation in her vocals” (although “eschew” is used thrice in the article, and anything more than once seems a bit much)
  • ”During the final chorus, chordal devices from the breakdown reappear” what is a chordal device?
    • Chordal devices are several machines used when recording music. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Various contemporary critics viewed the song” It is a 2019 release; how could the critics be anything but contemporary?
    • Removed "contemporary". LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”whereas "Don't Start Now" proves that the rules created in order to get over an ex in the former track actually work.” Needs some context; what “rules” did Lipa propose in "New Rules”?
    • I don't think that the rules actually need to be said as Lipa never mentions them in the lyrics. The line "in order to get over an ex" summarizes the rules. However, I have added "in a breakup" for more context. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”She celebrates her independence, and uses bullet point instructions to address a needy former lover directly;[32][33][34] with lyrics including, "Don't show up, don't come out / Don't start caring about me now / Walk away, you know how / Don't start caring about me now".[35]” grammar issue, as a semicolon shouldn’t be used to connect these clauses
    • Replaced with a comma. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Gigwise's Jordan Emery complemented its "satisfyingly catchy hooks” -> complimented
  • ”Brad Garcia regarded "Don't Start Now" as a homage instead of an obvious attempt to replicate past success.” an homage to what?
    • To past success. Also added the link to homage. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I can chime in - adding a wikilink doesn't make this any clearer to me. I think the problem is the reference to 'homage' doesn't work outside of the context of the original article, as the writer spends a couple of paragraphs making references and comparisons before making the homage statement. Maybe look for a different quote to pull out of the article instead, that can stand by itself? H. Carver (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”It was awarded an iHeartRadio Titanium Award for receiving one billions spins on the station in the United States.” what is “the station”?
    • iHeartRadio. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The song is currently nominated for Record of the Year, Song of the Year and Best Pop Solo Performance at the upcoming 63rd Annual Grammy Awards” not “current anymore
    • Per above, hasn't happened yet. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”marking Lipa's first nod in all three categories.” the use of the word “nod” here confuses me; is it being used as a synonym for “nomination”?
    • It was used for meaning "acknowledgment" or something along those lines. I changed it to acknowledgment. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”first-week sales of 49,334 units” is there an appropriate link for “unit” the way it is used here?
  • ”the longest top 10 stay" needs hyphen
  • The article has “double platinum” and “triple platinum”, but “4-times platinum”. Don’t the music-business types use the word quadruple?
    • Yes, I have rephrased it. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”10.2 million radio impressions.” what is a “radio impression”?
    • Its a term used for the total radio audience a song has reached. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The performance ended with a festival of silver, cushion-shaped balloons falling from the ceiling.” A ‘’festival’’?
  • In the section “Live performances”, variations of the word “perform” are used 25 times, and it’s rather noticeable. Got thesaurus?
    • Reduced repetition of the word. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Dom Dolla found his remix difficult to create because the song is written in a major key”. In “Music and lyrics”, it states that the song is in B minor.
  • ”It was proceeded by the release” um … preceded?
  • ”Yaeji intended to have different sonics than the original” sounds colloqiual (remember that people with English not as first language will read this and may be confused)
  • ”dance created by Filipino TikTok creator” created … creator
  • ”converting it into a country ballad with an upbeat production.” don’t know what “upbeat production” means in this context
  • ”"Don't Start Now" was apart of the jellyfish (Chloe Kim)'s setlists.” eh? Need context, or leave the jellyfish out of it
  • ”In Dancing with the Stars and Strictly Come Dancing, actress Anne Heche and television presenter Clara Amfo both respectively performed a cha cha dance to the song.” I don’t think “respectively” should be used in this way

Thanks for the comments Esculenta! I have addressed all your comments. LOVI33 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Guerillero edit

  • I am very uncomfortable with the use of tweets. We use secondary sources
    • Yes I believe it is okay to use in this context per WP:TWITTER as I was unable to find secondary sources to back up this information. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pardon my chiming it, but the info backed by Twitter are not noteworthy imo. For instance, "Don't Start Now" premiered at 23:00 UTC on 31 October 2019 does this really matter the exact time the song premiered? Sounds like this belongs to a fanwiki rather than an encyclopedia. In November 2019, a vertical video was released on Spotify and a lyric video was released on YouTube. I believe this can be supported by third-party sources; otherwise it would cause no harm removing it. HĐ (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The music video has received over 450 million views on YouTube" why does this matter if it isn't discussed in the secondary sources
  • Is this a reliable source? https://www.songwriteruniverse.com/ian-kirkpatrick-songwriter-2020.htm
    • This is in the sourcing concerns above. I am trying to finish my analysis in the next few days. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lipa recorded most of her vocals with a Shure SM7 microphone." probably needs to be cited
    • It is sourced. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are citing the sheet music via the vendor, but the source creator is the artist https://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0203029
    • Do you want me to remove it? Usually this source is reputable. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did fans get the lyrics to the song?
    • Source does not say. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the sourcing concerns above
    • Will respond to them in the next few days. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Guerillero. I have responded to them all. LOVI33 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Guerillero. Were you intending to support or oppose this nomination? If so, do you feel that toy have enough information? Or are there more comments to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm waiting on the replies to Ealdgyth, above -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: I would like this nomination to be closed. I think the source review is too much and this is not ready for FA yet. Thanks. LOVI33 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 February 2021 [6].

Edict of Torda edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early example of religious tolerance in Europe. Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thank you for your source review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Only texts from the Bible are quoted from Erdő's article. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not in English, but the quotes are in English. Are the quotes an original translation of the article, or based on a particular Bible edition? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Yes, they are from a Bible edition, but I do not remember from which. Should I add the source? Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a useful source for Aftermath
  • Thank you for your proposal. I will check it. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Ritchie a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan J. Ritchie is Associate Professor of Unitarian Universalist History and Ministry at Starr King School. She holds a doctorate in cultural/religious studies from Ohio State University ([7]). None of the sentences in the article are verified exclusively by a reference to her book, save one sentence that presents her PoV. The text of the Edict of Torda in the article is also her translation. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Codex_of_munchen_-_bible_in_hungarian.jpg needs a US PD tag, and the uploader is not the author of the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has attracted little attention. Unless it sees considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for four weeks and has seen little interest. I am regretfully going to archive it. Feel free to bring it back after the usual two week wait, but putting it through PR first may be helpful. As might attempting to line up an experienced reviewer or two in advance. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2021 [8].

The Heart of Thomas edit

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Moto Hagio's seminal manga series The Heart of Thomas, noted as one of the earliest manga in the shōnen-ai (male-male romance) genre. Much of this article is sourced from User:Lady freyja's excellent article written for the French Wikipedia (fr:Le Cœur de Thomas), which itself is a featured article. I improved this article after avoiding The Heart of Thomas for many years; though I write primarily about manga and LGBT topics on Wikipedia and recognized the series' influence in the medium, I falsely assumed it was merely another dated schoolboy romance narrative. Only upon reading it for the first time last year did I realize how incorrect my assumption was, and was able to appreciate what a truly compelling narrative The Heart of Thomas is. The Heart of Thomas is currently a good article (review here), and is queued to appear on DYK on January 13 (nomination here). This is my second featured article nomination, following Stucky (fandom). Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 edit

Tintor2 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. I hope it becomes FA considering the project doesn't have that many. I'll try to find any issue before giving the support:

List
  • comments solved
  • *Try giving "alt" descriptions to the images. They seem quite important for the FAs based on my experience.
      • Done.
    • "yaoi
    • same-sex romance" doesn't seem valid. I thought yaoi referred tomale homosexuality exclusively focused on male.
      • Clarified.
    • In synopsis try avoiding short paragraphs. Kinda like a formal letter.
      • Done.
    • Something similar with "Sequels and related works" Unless you can expand these sections I would suggest merging them.
      • Done.
    • "integrated shingeki elements into its productions" Try making a brief explanation of what is a shingeki. Same with tanbi.
      • Clarified.
    • How come there is no romanization for "Neverland (ネバーランド)"?
      • Done.
    Remind me if any of these issues are solved through a ping and I'll try
Leaving my Support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Heart_of_Thomas_Moto_Hagio.jpg: source link is dead, missing info on copyright holder, and FUR needs improvement
    • Updated source, added copyright holder, improved rationale.
  • File:Demian_Erstausgabe.jpg is incorrectly tagged and missing information on the original source
    • I corrected the source information, can you clarify how it is tagged incorrectly?
      • Under US law creating a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright, so the uploader would not be able to release the work under a free license in the US. (Depending on where they are the tag may be valid for that country). This needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tag added.
  • File:Birch_Little_Lord_Fauntleroy_add_Titre.png: if this is to be hosted on Commons, it needs to include copyright information for the source country as well as US
  • File:Emil_Wolff-Eros-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg needs a US tag for the sculpture.
    • I have added a US tag.

Would also suggest cleaning up citation formatting before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nikkimaria: I have attempted to address the issues raised. Image usage tagging is not my area of expertise, so specific guidance on what is needed to make these images admissible would be appreciated. Can you also clarify what you mean by cleaning up the citation formatting? Morgan695 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently a lot of inconsistencies in how sources are being formatted - some books have locations while others don't, some short citations don't link correctly to the full source, some journals include publishers and others don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Figureskatingfan edit

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By request; I reviewed this article for DYK, and suggested that Morgan695 bring it here. I'm glad you're going to be working on standardizing the refs. I have a general comment: as per WP:PARAGRAPH, many of your paragraphs are too short. I think you could combine many of them, with better transitions. I think you could combine the first two paragraphs in the subsection "Production", since both are about Hagio's friendship with Takemiya, and how it affected Hagio's choice of genres. I'd also combine the two paragraphs in the subsection "Editions", making it into one longer paragraph, like this: Upon its conclusion, Shogakukan collected The Heart of Thomas into three tankōbon published in January, April and June 1975; they are respectively numbers 41, 42 and 43 of the Flower Comics collection. The series has been regularly re-printed by Shogakukan. In the West, The Heart of Thomas was not published until the 2010s. On September 14, 2011, Fantagraphics Books announced that it had acquired the license to The Heart of Thomas for release in North America. The single-volume hardcover omnibus, translated into English by Rachel Thorn, was released on January 18, 2013. I think these are things you could do throughout the article, to make the prose tighter and more encyclopedic. Other than that, which is easily fixable, this is a beautiful article, with lots of potential. It could be the rare Wikipedia article that could make an impact, and serve as an example of other articles like it. Ganbatte! (Hope that's correct.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the recent changes and improvements made to this article, I gladly give it my SUPPORT. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by-comments from LM150 edit

  • I recommend using a full stop after this sentence: The series was originally developed by Hagio as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published;
  • "It inspired multiple subsequent works" - don't need "subsequent" here
  • "with a total of 33 weekly chapters" - don't need "a total of" here
  • "The film was subsequently adapted into a novel" - don't need "subsequently"
  • "but as a sacrifice in order to free Juli’s repressed emotions" - don't need "in order to"
  • "Hagio initially relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school; she ultimately decided the environment was too restrictive" - might sound simpler as: Hagio relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school, but decided the environment was too restrictive.. Thanks LM150 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coments by Gabriel Yuji edit

It seems a very good work. The most eye-catching aspect of it is the shorteness of "Reception and legacy". Surprisingly, there's only one review of the 2013 release (done by Welker—and in regards to citing him, there are two different "Walker 2015", the Mechamedia article and the University Press of Mississippi book, so you should distinguish them by naming them diferently [like Walker 2015a and Walker 2015b]). Did you take a look at other reviews by Anime News Network [10] (one of them by famous Jason Thompson [11]), ComicsAlliance [12], Comics Worth Reading [13], Fantasy Book Review [14] (seems like a blog, but reviewer Sandra Scholes used to write for ActiveAnime, which is fine, according to our WikiProject), Hooded Utilitarian [15] (reviewer Ng Suat Tong is contributor of The Comics Journal), Manga Bookshelf [16], and Publishers Weekly [17]. I don't know if you have already consulted these sources; if yes, you can ignore my commentary (but at least it will be registered here). If no, although I know scholars are preferred over common reviewers, maybe they can be useful to write at least a paragraph with an overall assessment by English-language critics. Last but no least, since you translated parts of it from the French FA counterpart (as you say), according to WP:TFOLWP, the inclusion of this template in the talkpage for atributtion would be nice. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've distinguished the Welker sources and added the translation attribution page. Thank you for gathering the reviews; I'll ping you when I've expanded the section. Morgan695 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gabriel Yuji: I've expanded the article with some reviews. I intentionally didn't include the Ng Suat Tong review; while I think it would be valuable to include a dissenting review, Tong is something of an Armond White-style professional contrarian, so I'm generally not convinced his analysis is valuable. Morgan695 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Link20XX edit

After reading through the article and making some small grammatical adjustments, mostly regarding commas, I have decided to give this nomination my Support. Great job with the article! Link20XX (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde edit

I see this hasn't received much attention; I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll try leaving a useful review. Please feel free to revert or discuss any copyedits I make as I read. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • On what basis is the selection of secondary characters listed here made?
  • The four primary characters are central to the series' narrative, form the bulk of the series' focus, and each are the subject of a narrative arc in the story. (Though Thomas is dead for the majority of the series, he is the titular character, and his death is the inciting incident for the plot of the book.) The secondary characters have comparably incidental appearances and/or primarily exist to develop the character arc of one of the primary characters.
  • I think perhaps my question wasn't clear; the choice of primary characters seems fine, based on the synopsis; but how did you choose which secondary characters to list, and which to leave out completely? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The secondary characters listed make multiple appearances or impact the primary characters in a major way; there are more secondary characters in the series (the Japanese article has a fairly exhaustive list that includes every single character, even those that make one-off or inconsequential appearances), but I personally think to list every single character in the series would err on the side of WP:NOTDIR).
  • "shojo manga" needs a link and an explanation where first mentioned in the body.
  • Done.
  • It would also be helpful to know how Hagio's work deviated from the norm in style.
  • Added a brief section about the traits of typical shojo manga of the era. The subsequent text explains how her style differed, e.g. narratively complex stories that focused on social issues and sexuality, further genres, male protagonists, etc.
  • I'm curious why the term "homoeroticism" isn't used for "same-sex romance" and it's equivalents; there's an article for it, too...
  • Swapped.
  • I think "one-shot" could use a gloss; it's something of a technical term.
  • Done.
  • The content about The November Gymnasium is somewhat repetitive; I think it's best confined to the production subsection, with the later section reserved for sequels.
  • I think it's helpful to reiterate its existence in that section, as it is a work that is distinct from the main series, but that is still a "related work".
  • Here, I disagree. I think mentioning it multiple times, but as it is there's almost a short paragraph that's essentially duplicated. Given that you have no other "related works" besides sequels, you could retitle that section, and omit The November Gymnasium; but at the very least you should be summarizing that material into a short sentence rather than two long ones. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever reviewers/commentators are introduced, a gloss would be helpful; are they scholars, reviewers, authors, publishers?
  • I think I've glossed them all now.
  • "Juli's ability to overcome this trauma through his friendship with Oskar is Erich" grammatically something is off here
  • Fixed.
  • "Midori Matsui interprets Hagio's decision in terms of Freudian psychoanalysis" can you elaborate on this at all? It doesn't seem especially related to the second half of that sentence.
  • "free herself from the constraints of patriarchy, Hagio rejects all forms of sexual difference" it isn't clear how the story actually is constrained by gender in any way; do the sources elaborate on this?
  • This was an AGF translation from the French Wikipedia; as it isn't necessarily clear to me either and this is the only place in the article the Matsui source is cited, I've just removed it.
  • The influence of the Bildungsroman is mentioned in the production section, but coming of age, and/or the resolution of trauma, isn't discussed much in the themes section, which surprised me.
  • I suppose this is because coming of age and the resolution of trauma is less thematic and more just direct plot, e.g. the story focuses on these characters resolving their traumas and maturing into young men. To restate it here would effectively just be repeating plot.
  • I disagree somewhat. The plot does not discuss how their trauma is resolved; indeed, saying that they are in the plot, without further detail, is verging on squeezing analysis into the plot. If the sources don't analyze this in further detail, that's fine, but we shouldn't be omitting it just because it's implied in the plot. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Heart of Thomas heavily influenced Hagio's 1992 manga series" I think this is an odd way of expressing the idea; Hagio can't really influence her own work. I would suggest rewording; perhaps "of The Heart of Thomas are also present in..."
  • Done.
  • The reviews cited all seem to be contemporary; are there no reviews available from when the series was first released, including in Japanese? I recognize that accessing these might be difficult, but relying entirely on English-language commentary when the series was made popular in Japan doesn't seem quite right...
  • I added some contemporary Japanese reviews but yes, I was unable to find reviews of the series from the 1970s. Hopefully the details given throughout the article regarding its production and release – that it was poorly received upon its initial serialization, that the success of Hagio's The Poe Clan led to a critical re-assessment of the series, that it concluded its serialization as one of the most popular series in Shūkan Shōjo Comic – provide enough context to give a sense of how the series was assessed upon its initial release.
  • This might be my own OR leaking in, but one of the things Thorn talks about in her discussion of how The Heart of Thomas was among the first manga to be released as a tankōbon (collected edition) was that prior to the ubiquity of tankōbon releases for manga, manga was largely seen as disposable – e.g., you would read a serialized chapter of a manga in a manga magazine, then dispose of the magazine. The serious study of manga as an art form wasn't really institutionalized until the founding of Comiket in 1975, so it may very well be that there is limited/no critical analysis of the series at the time it was released. Morgan695 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviews by Fasulo and Pigeat aren't used; if they're good sources, I'd suggest using them; otherwise, you should drop them altogether.
  • Removed.
  • In isolation, these removals are okay, but along with Matsui above, these are now three a priori decent sources that aren't used; is there no material in them that is worthwhile? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to acess the Matsui source, but I found a source citing Matsui that I believe captures her central point. The Pigeat source is a brief review that mostly just discusses plot and Hagio's art style. Fausto is an offline source, so I am unable to verify its notability; I will note that both Pigeat and Fausto are included because they were listed in the French Wikipedia article, but that article similarly also merely lists these sources and does not actually cite them.

That's it from me; most of the comments are prose fixes, but the comments about the themes and Japanese sources are important, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting response, will ping you when I'm done. Morgan695 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Your linking of publishers throughout the references is all over the place; it doesn't what approach you take, it just has to be consistent. E.g. link all publishers every time, link the first time, or link none at all. Example of error: Fantagraphics Books is linked (almost) every time but National Diet Library is only linked the first time
    • Standardized.

References

  • Okay, so, when we have multiple pages, we generally use "pp." instead of "p."—I would adjust this on refs 15 & 49
    • Done.
  • For page ranges (ref 13), use – not a dash (-)
    • Done.
  • optional: suggest adding a translated title parameter for the titles of Japanese sources "|trans-title="
    • Done.
  • missing retrieval dates for ref 11 & 20
    • Added.

Bibliography

  • I see that you're putting two refs next to each other from the same book, I see the intent here, but I'm not sure it necessary. I suggest either alphabetizing them correctly or having something like this:
  • McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James (eds.). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi
    • Suzuki, Kazuko (2015). "What Can We Learn from Japanese Professional BL Writers?: A Sociological Analysis of Yaoi/BL Terminology and Classifications". In McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James (eds.). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. pp. 93–118.
    • Welker, James (2015a). "A Brief History of Shōnen'ai, Yaoi and Boys Love". In McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James (eds.). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. pp. 42–75.
    • Done.
Reliability
  • Looks OK–given the topic, I'm inclined to show some leniency towards places like Anime News Network, as they seem to be an authority on the subject
Verifiability
  • Are there any identifiers (OCLC, ISBN, ISSN, doi etc.) that could be added to Suzuki or Welker to increase verifiability? Aza24 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.

@Aza24: Response above. Obviously the FAC is closed, but I do intend to re-nominate this article, so it would be ideal if this could be sorted now so it would be ready for the next FAC. Thank you for taking this up. Morgan695 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This nom has been open six weeks and though several people have stopped by, it hasn't attractd the depth of commentary I'd have hoped for at this point so I'm going to archive and ask that further work be done outside the FAC process prior to another nom after the usual minimum of two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian Rose: This feels like a premature decision that I strongly disagree with, considering it's not even the oldest nomination on the page and your decision to close came a mere 40 minutes after User:Vanamonde93 responded to my comments from a week ago, precluding my ability to respond. Also somewhat frustrating that User:Aza24's decision to claim the source review and then not actually complete it likely influenced your decision to archive. My previous nomination in the FA space went a full seven weeks and had fewer reviews, so I'm a little confused by the rush to archive. Morgan695 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh my–I'm so sorry, I seem to have not added it to my to do list (which is how I usually keep track of source reviews I'm doing; I just got your ping so I'm seeing this now) I can do it right now regardless so you'll have it for this nom or the next if it's archived. Aza24 (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 February 2021 [18].

Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song) edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by American rapper Pop Smoke featuring Lil Tjay. The song is about Pop Smoke having sex with women off their birth control. user:Kyle Peake reviewed the article for GA and made it ready for review here. I want an experienced editor at FA to tell me which sources won't work at FA so I can get rid of them or replace them. Thanks a lot! (P.S. I'm going to be honest. I still sometimes cry that The Woo was shot and killed at only 20 years old. He was just starting to boost his career until he was taken from the world. You cannot say Pop without the Smoke. RIP Pop Smoke.) The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

  • Given that you abandoned your previous two FACs after people left comments and are marked as being 'semi-retired' on your user page, are you actually committed to seeing through this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I have more faith in this article. I'm also out of school for a couple of days, so I will be able to respond accordingly. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An FAC takes more than a few days. Usually at least a month, if not two. Given the track record here in the past, I'm inclined to archive this unless I see some commitment - a good thing would be to return to work on the abandoned FACs and address those concerns with the reviewers rather than expecting reviewers to weigh in on yet another FAC on a different song. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, I will absolutely show commitment to this article. When it comes to Pop Smoke; I’ll make sure this gets the gold star. I will not let you down! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(The star is bronze Panini🥪 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Support by Kyle Peake edit

  • The Ultimate Boss I would leave comments about the article, but I am awaiting your conclusion of the GA review for "Clique" first since that's been on review for nearly two weeks. --K. Peake 11:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss As it did when promoted to GA status after my review, the article looks very good. However, I would suggest trying to add an image somewhere in the body to improve media like the FA criteria advises. You could add further to the coverage of the song potentially; try to find more detail about the lyrics and write more in the lead about what critics praised specifically since you have currently only noted one aspect. --K. Peake 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake How does it look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss Great, I fully pledge to support and do you have any further comments for KSG? --K. Peake 05:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak edit

Fixes needed:

  • Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, all opinionated quotes need in-text attribution. This is done most places, but some (i.e. "effortlessly" at the end of "Background and composition") still need it.
AviationFreak, can you explain what that means? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In-text attribution means mentioning the speaker alongside the quote. So you would have John Doe called the song "bodacious" instead of The song has been described as "bodacious". AviationFreak💬 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak, I did it. How does it look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments below. AviationFreak💬 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally feel like there's too many quotations in the "Reception" section, but I would wait for other input on this since I'm new at FAC. I understand it's a reviews section, but MOS:QUOTE advises against overusing them.
Fixed.
  • Some quotes, like those from Rolling Stone and Complex, come close to 40 words and could be turned into prose or otherwise shortened.
Fixed.
  • The "Music videos" section needs improvement:
    • The music visualizer article that is linked in the opening sentence is about non-photorealistic rendering based on audio, which does not include actors. The second sentence then talks about about which actors appeared in the "visualizer," which is contradictory.
    • Double negative and clunky phrasing in the second sentence.
    • The caption on the image refers to "The music video" (singular), while there are multiple videos discussed in the section.
    • The citation for the first sentence of the second paragraph, which claims the video was considered a "huge failure," states "the fans ultimately deemed that it was not enough to do Pop justice, requesting a do-over." This doesn't match up.
Fixed all of your concerns.

Comments: After seeing the changes made, I believe all of my initial policy concerns have been fixed. However, there are now new grammatical issues (in addition to old ones) that I think should be tackled by a copyeditor. The first sentence of §Music videos' first paragraph is a run-on, the second paragraph's leading sentence uses "deeming" incorrectly, etc. In my opinion this prose is not "engaging" or "of a professional standard" as the FAC criteria require. I won't !vote either way on this since the FAC review FAQ discourages new reviewers from doing so and I may very well be missing something blindingly obvious. AviationFreak💬 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LOVI33 edit

This article looks great and I think it is definitely ready for FA! I just have a few concerns. Firstly, there is a lot of WP:OVERLINK on the work/websites in the references. Also in the track listing section, a BBC Radio 1 ref is used which doesn't back up a track list. It should use one from a digital download or streaming service. Speaking of which, shouldn't the track listing section also show the formats? For example: Digital download / streaming – Remix. Finally, to avoid WP:SYNTH, please place a ref to back up that the song was met with "mixed to positive reviews". Other than that, I think it looks amazing! LOVI33 21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments LOVI33. WP:OVERLINK is not a problem. Take a look at Blank Space. The article is at FA and has WP:OVERLINK all over the article. The BBC Radio 1 source also mentions that the song was released on August 21, 2020, as a single. Removed the "mixed to positive reviews" and fixed the formats too. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Although, you should remove the track list for the original version. The BBC Radio 1 ref backs up that it was sent to radio in the United Kingdom but it doesn't back up that it was released as a digital single. LOVI33 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOVI33 I have removed it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am now supporting this. Congrats! LOVI33 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Panini edit

I got a list of things to do, so I can't get to this immediately. I'll be back in the near future. If I forget, ping me. Panini🥪 11:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ultimate Boss: Okay, I'm here to begin now. Just a note, we aren't trying to be harsh. Consider it being... professionally passive-aggressive.

Background and release
  • "Imperfections" (Interlude)". There are three quotations here, so either there's a duplicate or it needs to be formatted as "'Imperfections' (Interlude)".
Fixed.
Music and lyrics
  • "...which The Atlantic's Hannah Giorgis said "complements the artists' amorous lyrics." This is a sentence I think would fit better in Reception.
The music and lyrics section is very small. I think this should stay here.
  • According to Grammarly, "said" should be followed by a comma.
Fixed
  • Same thing to say for the last sentence.
Fixed
Reception
  • "In late July 2020, the song started trending on video-sharing app TikTok." I'd move this sentence down to "Commercial performance" below.
Done
Commercial performance
  • "Following the release of Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, "Mood Swings" debuted at number 44 on the US Billboard Hot 100. The song later reached number 17 on the chart." Could you combine these sentences for better flow? Maybe do "Following the release of Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, "Mood Swings" debuted at number 44 on the US Billboard Hot 100m later reaching number 17."
Done
  • All the sentences in this paragraph begin with "it". Maybe refer to it as "the song" in some instances.
Done
Music videos
  • The second sentence has four citations, which I believe to be a bit much. If each of these cites a specific part of the sentence, I'd cite them throughout. If they all support the entire sentence, you don't need all four.
Removed a source.
  • "an eternal blue flame". Does it ever specify that it is eternal, or is it just a blue flame?
The Billboard source cites it as an eternal blue flame.

Other people are a lot more nitpicky than I am. To me, you did a really Good Job! Once my concerns are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Panini🥪 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review Panini!! I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other oppositions are fine, so I'll support. Panini🥪 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero edit

  • Darville 2020 doesn't seem to add much
    Guerillero are you talking about all the The Fader sources used?
    No just that singular source. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero are you talking about the review he left for the remix?
  • I get why Tidal is used for an Album's personnel. I just don't like that it is a streaming service
    It can also be used to showcase a songs, albums, or EP's release date.
    Was there a discussion about this? I don't see why streaming services would be considered to be reliable sources --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has to be a better source for the remix's release date than apple music
    Apple Music is the highest quality source when it comes to showing a song's release date.
    Was there a discussion about this? I don't see why streaming services would be considered to be reliable sources --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed it with 'Rap-Up
    Sounds good --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has to be a better source for X songs were on Y EP than Tidal
    Replace with Spotify
    I don't think you understand my objection. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero I really don't. Can you please explain? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Def Pen a high quality source?
    Removed
  • Why is Slant Magazine a high quality review?
    It is used in other song articles that are FA. Take a look at "Blank Space" for example.
    We don't normally have binding precedents for sources from their use. Is there a discussion on WP:RSN about the source that you can point to or something about it that tells you that it is a high quality source per WP:FA? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe HĐ can help me explain.
    Slant Magazine is generally reliable for music/film-related articles, as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. The New York Times described reviews by Slant Magazine as "passionate and often prickly"; Reuters reported that the site is among the reliable sites for reviews, alongside NY Times, LA Weekly, and WSJ. HĐ (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may also be noted that critics who write for Slant Magazine are part of New York Film Critics Circle, NYTimes, LATimes. I know this is not related to music, but for film reviews, Slant is described by Cineaste as an outlet that "regularly produces smart, idiosyncratic, and well-written criticism." Given their reputation within critics' roundtables, I'd argue that Slant is among the professional reviews that are of high quality for popular culture-related articles. HĐ (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may also be noted that critics who write for Slant Magazine are part of New York Film Critics Circle, NYTimes, LATimes. I know this is not related to music, but for film reviews, Slant is described by Cineaste as an outlet that "regularly produces smart, idiosyncratic, and well-written criticism." Given their reputation within critics' roundtables, I'd argue that Slant is among the professional reviews that are of high quality for popular culture-related articles. HĐ (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to second HĐ's comments. I would say that Slant Magazine is a high-quality source in the context of music and film as it is a publication cited and respected by reputable publications. I think it is a fair question (and it is important and beneficial to have these discussions on sourcing), but I believe HĐ did a wonderful job with supporting why this should be considered a high-quality source. Just wanted to provide my opinion (and I have not looked at the article so I cannot comment on anything specific about it). Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either link or don't link Billboard
    Done
  • Either link or don't link Official Charts Company
    Done
  • Why is HotNewHipHop a high quality source?
    Removed
    Did you remove the content that it was used to support or did you replace it with another citation? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the content
  • Why is OnSMASH a high quality source?
    Removed
    Did you remove the content that it was used to support or did you replace it with another citation? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the content
  • Why is SOHH a high quality source?
    Removed
    Did you remove the content that it was used to support or did you replace it with another citation? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the content

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Ultimate Boss edit

@FAC coordinators: I was wondering if I could nominate another article because this one now has three supports? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one will need passes at both source and image review before that can be considered. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this on my talk page:
"Before the article can be promoted, it needs an image and source review. This might take a while because nobody likes doing it."

Panini🥪 02:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

I will not be able to give a full review on the prose, but I have some concerns. As FA, the prose should be "engaging and of professional standard." Sentence structures and wordings can be improved, i.e.

  • Production was handled by Beat Menace, Dizzy Banko, while Kiwi contributed co-production -- passive voice; I also don't think "while" is good writing; could one "handle" or "contribute" the production? Why not "Beat Menance and Dizzy Banko produced the song with assistance from Kiwi", which is much more simple and straightforward?
Changed.
  • A remix that features Summer Walker was released as a single on September 18, 2020, while an extended play (EP) was released for the song on September 22, 2020 -- ditto "while"; do these releases matter for the lead?
Done
  • "Mood Swings" sees Pop Smoke rap about "see" is not very appropriate. Probably "the lyrics are about..."?
Done
  • with a number of them praising the lyrics and the remix "with" is not good writing. "... critics, who praised..." should be better
Done
  • The song has received several certifications, including being certified double platinum off-grammar
Changed
  • visualizer why not simply "music video"?
The sources call the first video made for "Mood Swings" a visualizer.

As my points are not exhaustive, I'll leave it for other editors to examine the prose. These issues should be plausible after a careful inspection of prose issues. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ thanks a lot for your comments. I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Note: I have never conducted a formal image review before this.

File:Lil TJ.jpg is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and hosted on Wikimedia Commons. There appears to have been a copyvio at one point as a new image was uploaded in its place, but that has long been reverted. I believe an OTRS team member has also confirmed that the original image is from the uploader. Is there a particular reason the cropped version is not being used? Additionally, fixed px should not be used per MOS:UPRIGHT; you could edit the upright parameter instead. As there is a slight MOS:SANDWICH with text between the image and the infobox (at least on my desktop browser), consider removing "left" so it goes to the right side below the infobox as it is preferable to avoid this where possible.

Done

File:Moodswingsremixcover.jpg has an appropriate FUR, but it would be nice to provide a link to where you obtained the image, rather than just "Tidal". In the infobox, the prefix "File:" is unnecessary, and there also needs to be an alt text parameter and info added. It appears the Summer Walker remix cover is being used because there is no other cover specifically for the song, is that correct? Heartfox (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox Added the link, and yes the Summer Walker remix cover is the only one available as the regular song was released as a single almost two months after the album was released. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

I will not be able to conduct a full review either, but I have similar concerns about the prose as HĐ. This FAC has accumulated a good deal of support, but I find there are areas of prose that could use further polish. This is not meant to be a comprehensive review. I would just like to point out some examples of what could be improved.

  • I find these parts, also known as Bashar Jackson and who has the real name of Tione Merritt, to be rather awkward. I understand their purpose as I am assuming both men are credited under their legal names for the credits, but I think this information could be presented better. I think it could also be made clearer that these are their legal names as opposed to their stage names.
    Changed the wording.
  • The structure for this part, An R&B track, the lyrics are about, is incorrect as if you read it literally, the beginning phrase (in this case An R&B track), should be describing the noun of the next part (in this case the lyrics). Since the lyrics themselves are definitely not an R&B track, I would revise this sentence to avoid that and be mindful of that in the future.
    Changed the wording.
  • Would it be beneficial to link "visualizer" to music visualization?
    Done.
  • I'm not sure if this part, the latter of the four is from Lil Tjay's May 2020 extended play (EP) State of Emergency, is needed as I do not think it is particularly relevant where this song appears.
  • For this sentence American record producer Beat Menace was contacted by Pop Smoke's team to create a new beat since the label wanted his "flavor.", I am not entire sure what is meant and I think further clarification would be helpful. Also, avoid using single-word quotes (like in this instance and with "sultry", "raunchy", "effortlessly", "delicious, "corny", and half-assed later on in the article), and put punctuation on the outside of the quotation marks unless you are citing a full sentence.
    Done.
  • I may be missing something but I'm not fully certain what this sentence, Because Pop Smoke's cadence was over the old beat, the producers had to work with the same flow, but managed to create a completely new sound., means. I am guessing that this song was initially recorded by Pop Smoke with a different beat/production, but after his murder, Pop Smoke's team then had it completely reworked and had Lil Tjay added to it? I just think the chronology of the production can be made a little clearer, particularly for a reader like me who knows absolutely nothing about Pop Smoke.
    Done.
    I think the prose for this particular part still needs work. I would recommend looking at it and testing out different ways of saying this information. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The managed to create a completely new sound part reads awkwardly to me.
    Changed the wording
  • I am not sure what this part, gently percussive production, means, specifically the gently word choice. Gentle percussion?
    Removed the word "gently".
  • Is there more information to expand on the "Music and lyrics" section?
There wasn't really any more information. I merged it with the background section.
  • I would also strongly encourage you to archive these citations since the web sources could die and you would want to make sure that the information is still readily available and accessible to support whatever is being cited.
    Done
  • You use opined a few times in the article, and I'm not entirely sure if that is the best word choice.
    Changed the wording.

Apologies for getting involved in this review as I should be enjoying my retirement lol. These are just a few points that I had questions about after doing a brief look through the article. I hope that it is helpful (and I wish the best of luck with the FAC), and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thanks a lot for the review. I have addressed all of your concerns. And tbh, I should be retiring from Wikipedia too lmao. I'm starting college in about four months and should be getting ready. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Best of luck with college! Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these parts, which The Atlantic's Hannah Giorgis said, "complements the artists' amorous lyrics." and wrote that Pop Smoke effortlessly raps, read more like positive reviews for the song and do not really fit the section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 how does it look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to let you know this part was reverted. I'm still not entirely convinced that the prose meets the FA standard, but I will leave that to other reviewers to discuss. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: please close this. All the time I put into this project is just not worth it with all this negative feedback. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Ultimate Boss, just checking that you are sure about this and are not just having a bad FAC day - goodness knows that I have had enough of those when reviewers have given one of my nominations a good kicking. I am aware that only two weeks ago you told a fellow coordinator "I will absolutely show commitment to this article. When it comes to Pop Smoke; I’ll make sure this gets the gold star. I will not let you down!" Obviously it is your call, but feel free to cancel the request if you feel more positive having slept on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the multiple reviewers here, it is a good article. When it comes to FAC, reviewers get reaaaal nitpicky, because an article that becomes featured means it is some of the best Wikipedia has to offer. It's not that people are giving negative feedback, as almost everyone will change to support in due time, it' simply that we need to look as closely as possible to simply places where grammar can be changed, etc. I believe you should keep this one up, as per the comments above you're doing a good job. But, if the process stresses you out, it's understandable. Panini🥪 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry, my teenage angst was taking over me. I would like for this nomination to stay up. Is there a chance if the article had enough supports that it could be promoted by February 19? It'll be the first year since Pop Smoke was shot and killed in a home invasion at the age of 20. I want to honor his career by making some of his music articles FA. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder if you were channelling the song title ;-) . FAC is usually rough on the nom. If you think that you are getting a hard time, look at my last FAC review, for a nominator with three promotions behind them; or the 20,000+ words of review on my 31st FAC nomination! It ain't personal, it's just that the bar is high and the process rigorous.
The 19th is not impossible, but I note that a couple of reviewers have commented on the standard of the prose. ("engaging and of professional standard" is tough.) I would want to see at least one thorough review of and support for the prose before considering promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild never mind then. There is no way that is going to happen. Please close the nom. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2021 [19].

Live-In edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lesser-known American sitcom that aired on CBS in 1989. I came across it to add television ratings but then discovered the episodes were available online and decided to watch them over my winter break. I have since expanded the article significantly and believe it represents the limited available sources effectively. At 1500 words, it is relatively short, but I believe it is informative and a good example of what a television series FA could look like. This article was promoted as GA earlier today, but because there isn't really anything more to add that I'm aware of, I have no qualms about nominating it for FA at this time. This is my second FAC after The Masked Singer (American TV series) which I withdrew earlier this month and will renominate at a later date. I welcome any and all comments and look forward to responding to them. Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere, such as the camera setup
  • The camera setup is a given as multiple camera angles are used in scenes, rather than one shot like a single-cam. It's also filmed in front of a live audience, unlike single-cam shows. The cameras never move around or follow the actors, unlike single-cam. I couldn't find a secondary source for this.
  • 24 minutes is the run time of all the episodes I watched online. It's also given in the timestamps. I couldn't find a secondary source.
  • Stereo sound is given as the episodes have the chyron "CBS StereoSound Where Available" at the beginning. I couldn't find a secondary source.
  • Concluding run time from watching an episode personally might be reasonable, but I don't agree on the other two - seems like original research to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the camera and sound format from infobox.
  • Fn4: are you citing the credits specifically here, or some other part of the episode?
  • There are secondary sources available for everything in the sentence but ELP Communications, which is only given in the credits. Fn4 is citing the credits. Since everything, including ELP Communications, is cited in the credits, only Fn4 is used (though others could be used for everything but ELP).
  • FN4 is used for more than one sentence... Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4 is citing the end credits for all of the times it is used. I have added the time parameter to the reference to indicate this.
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher/locations and how these are formatted
  • Can you point me to an instance of an inconsistency so I know what to look for?
  • For example, you're including a location in FN47, but not FN70 - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that's a mistake. I only meant to give locations when it is not in the work's name. Removed.
Okay, but then you've got Wall Street Journal with no location. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7: is there a reason to rely on a primary source for this? How would someone access this source?
  • It's a ticket I found on Etsy. It's the second image here. This is the only source I could find for the fact it is filmed specifically at Sunset Gower Studios.
  • That seems like an indication that perhaps you shouldn't be including this detail, because a ticket you found on Etsy isn't really a high-quality reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; removed.
  • There seem to be quite a few citations to TV schedules in a random assortment of newspapers - could you explain your approach on this?
  • This is a complex thing that deserves a paragraph to explain clearly, so I will do that in an edit very shortly.
  • Here it goes... So the books that are cited (specifically Brooks and Marsh) give an episode airing length from March 20 to June 5, 1989, meaning episodes aired between those dates (this timeline, as described further in this paragraph, includes repeats). However, when looking at the Nielsen ratings for the last episode supposedly on June 5 from USA Today, it has "(r)" next to the title, meaning it was a repeat, not a new episode. From the same source (Nielsen ratings from USA Today on ProQuest), the May 29 episode was also a repeat. On May 15 and April 24, no episodes aired. No episodes aired in irregular time slots either. This caused me to do further research as to why this was the case (how can there be eight air dates but nine episodes listed in TV guides?). A quick search on Newspapers.com on May 8 shows that according to some TV schedules, one episode aired, while other TV schedules say a different episode aired (This is further explained in note b. Additionally, there are no such glaring differences for all of the other episode air dates in TV guides). There is no book or other reliable source that I'm aware of with all of the air dates in one place, so episode titles given in the TV listings part of newspapers are used to source the air dates and titles. These titles are cited from newspapers for all but the first and seventh episodes (as the titles were not available in TV guides for those episodes). So for the first and seventh, the next best source, TV Guide, is used. I know this seems complicated but the episode titles are not given in the episode credits or anything else online, so there is really no other option. If you have any further questions about it I'd be happy to answer :)
  • Hm. Is there a reason for selecting the particular newspapers that have been chosen? Why do you believe TV Guide is less reliable than the schedules in individual newspapers? The episode list in the Leszczak book differs slightly from what's here - do you know why, and why what's here would be considered more accurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the episode titles, the newspapers that are chosen are the only ones that provide titles; most only give a couple-word summary. TV Guide is only used when necessary because one of the titles according to them is just blatantly incorrect/misspelled. It says the second episode's title is "The Coupe, the Group and Everything", but this is obviously a mistake because the main plot is about how one of the characters gets croup (a newspaper TV guide also lists it as "croup", which is what is cited). Additionally, TV Guide lists May 29 as the original air date of "Peter's I-Dented-It Crisis", but Nielsen Media Research (via USA Today) which calculates television ratings, says that the May 29 airing was a repeat of an episode (link), and the Chillicothe Gazette says it aired on April 10 (link). TV Guide also only lists four air dates and eight episodes—it doesn't seem as reliable as it normally is considered because it doesn't even have a full collection of information. This is why I chose to use TV guides in newspapers for the citations. I don't know why the Leszczak book has episodes titled "Les Liasons" and another "Harmless". This is not how the newspaper TV guide listed it. (This is my original research but it's called "Les Liaisons Harmless" because there's a French-speaking character at the beginning (hences Les) and then Lisa is found not not actually be taking over from Sarah, so she's Harmless). I honestly don't know why it's written like that in that book. Why what is cited here should be considered more accurate because it is from the time of the series directly when it aired, not from a book/website published decades later (for the sake of your question). Heartfox (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my perspective this approach is probably crossing the line over into original research, but let's see what other reviewers may have to say about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand; it's just when there's no resource with all of the dates together because it's such an obscure series, you kinda have to find your own sources lol. I get it, but it is a really unfortunate situation (though I do have to say I am confident in the sourcing of the titles and dates). Heartfox (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't a sourcing issue, but at the moment the episode summaries aren't very understandable to someone who hasn't watched the show. For example, "Lisa believes her firing is imminent, but Sarah was referring to Muriel." - referring to Muriel in what way? I would suggest checking throughout that the article is comprehensible to a non-"expert". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it's dumb but I was kind of obsessed with having plot summaries that are all only one line long on my browser. I see how the first summary could be confusing, though (in my opinion) the rest of them are pretty straightforward and just include the main thing the episode is about instead of all the irrelevant events that occurred in between. I just stumbled across the article/series so I am by no means an expert myself lol. I will go over it again tomorrow and change the first plot summary to make it more clear. Please let me know if you find anything else confusing. Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the review! I have responded above to everything but the newspapers and plot summary stuff with honest explanations. I will address the newspapers/plot summaries in an additional response tomorrow. Please tell me how to proceed with the other stuff :) Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I have responded above. The Sarah–Muriel thing was even a bit confusing for me as well, as it is never explained that Muriel works at the department store with Sarah and that Sarah is her boss until she gets fired by her. I have attempted to rewrite this to make it clearer, and have also revised a couple other of the summaries; please let me know if anything remains confusing. I will explain the newspaper TV schedules momentarily. Heartfox (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a secondary source for the stereo sound and added it back to the infobox. It is from FN27 which was already present. Heartfox (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I hate to ping you as I know you are incredibly busy elsewhere, but I was just wondering if my replies to your inquiries above are satisfactory, or perhaps need more explanation, or are not acceptable at all. It is a good thing that a source review is done first thing, and so I wouldn't want to waste other reviews' time commenting if there happens to be irredeemable issues. Thanks for your dedication to the process, Heartfox (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: you could probably archive this as there doesn't seem like there will be any consensus to promote. I thank Nikkimaria for being generous and at least hearing me out, but right now I don't have confidence in the rest of the FAC process and unfortunately I do not think that the majority of the editors here understand the constraints that TV shows/Music/etc. articles often have in finding so-called "high-quality" sources (as noted above, even TV Guide was unreliable for use in this article) when their main editing focus is elsewhere and they obviously have more high-quality sources to consult. I feel in other reviews sources are being removed for the wrong reasons. Of course it is beneficial to question things, but stuff in source reviews elsewhere has gone way too far in my opinion and I do not wish to be associated with this process or continue this nomination. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Heartfox, it can be most distressing to put time and sweat into an article, searching out sources, to then have them queried or dismissed. Sadly, for some articles there simply aren't the high quality sources which would be necessary for them to become FAs. I don't know if this is the case here, but if so it would explain the impasse. I hope that at some point an editor as impressive as you will be tempted back to FAC. If you ever do consider it, feel free to ping me to give a pre-nom look over to whatever you are planning to submit. I am a decent copy editor, but I am afraid that my sourcing can be as wonky as the next editors, so it comes without warranty. Archiving as requested. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gog the Mild, I do hope to return eventually. I'm not mad at anyone or distressed about this nom, it went through GA and I didn't feel like there was any more sources to add, so I nominated it for FA as like, whatever, let's just see how it goes. Unfortunately, there is a lack of concrete sources available with regard to the air dates of specific episodes, and to a lesser extent, the titles, so there isn't a 100% guarantee everything is correct. (I get that). My concern is with some of the other noms... I just wish "high quality" was more well-defined than user essays so there could be less conflict all-around. That's all :) Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2021 [20].

Kids See Ghosts (album) edit

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the album Kids See Ghosts by the duo of the same name, which consists of famous rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi. The album was a critical success universally and was ranked amongst best-of lists, while it also experienced a good commercial reception in numerous countries. I promoted this article to GA over a year ago by now and have worked on it continuously since, including the times it went through a peer review and a FAC; I have taken aboard comments from the first candidate archive to help improve the article, as well as making fixes to go into as high detail as possible. K. Peake 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts edit

Reviewing articles is not my thing but the article look good so far, I sure there be other editors point out the errors. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by The Ultimate Boss edit

Resolved comments from User:The Ultimate Boss

The article looks amazing as always Kyle; there are just some minor issues. As I told LOVI33, you should ask an editor who is experienced at FAC to see which sources should be removed or replaced. For example, I see you are using Vice. Someone told me "There's no consensus about the reliability of Vice as well, according to RSP. Again, the sourcing standard for FA is higher than that of GA." The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Ultimate Boss, I do understand where you are coming from on this subject. But I would like to comment that I have removed sources like uDiscoverMusic and 411Mania that are not up to the standard, also the Vice review is from a highly reputable critic in Robert Christgau so I think that indicates reliability and for reaching out to experienced editors, do you recommend looking at the FACs page or looking through passed articles? --K. Peake 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice is fine for pop culture topics; I believe it's marked that way for use on more controversial issues such as politics. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe Yeah I was thinking that too; it is only mentioned that Vice Media is contested, not specifically the magazine as far as I'm aware. Are you willing to support? --K. Peake 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake The article looks amazing! I am going to support! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss Big thank you, hopefully I will get my first FA soon enough with this! --K. Peake 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by LOVI33 edit

After a review of this article, I think that this is 100% ready for FA. Support. LOVI33 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Thank you for opining, I was expecting comments from you after mine in the other direction earlier! --K. Peake 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman edit

I still stand by my word in the previous FAC attempt. 웃OO 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman Very glad to hear that; it has been great working with you here on Wiki and I recall your initial comments before pledging to support the previous FAC that I made sure to take on board! --K. Peake 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Aoba47 edit

I had participated in the previous FAC for this album where I raised concerns about the audio samples. I have retired from Wikipedia so I will be unable to do a full review, but given my previous participation, I wanted to say that I still have the same concern about the article.

From my understanding, it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and only use it when it can illustrate something that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. I have been told in my own FACs for album articles that audio samples should restricted to items that can represent the album's overall sound or genre or something that would need to conveyed through audio rather than just prose. I do not think the current audio samples fit this criteria as the captions are almost entirely focused on the lyrics, and you do not really need the audio samples to understand what the lyrics are about.

If you want to keep these audio samples, I think a strong justification is still needed. Just to be clear, I prefer album articles to have audio samples (so I do not have any bias against them), but right now, the audio samples do not seem essential as again a reader can understand what a song's lyrics are about without the aid of an audio sample. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • To further clarify this, I would think an audio sample that shows this album's psychedelic sound would be more beneficial or something demonstrates this "fusion of psychedelic and hip hop". Just wanted to at least provide one suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 Very nice to hear comments from you again; I do remember you making suggestions back when I first submitted this article as a FAC that saw me initially change the text of the audio samples due to them not being neutral enough. When you say that readers "can understand what a song's lyrics are about without the aid of an audio sample" but mention samples can be used to show the album's sound, doesn't your logic also imply that they can be used to show the artists rapping lyrics that are written about in the article? Also, I have changed the "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" sample to have text more relevant to the sound of the album by mentioning the psychedelic elements and I thought referencing the song being rap rock was worthy since the album is noted for including a rock sound a few times. Any comments now? --K. Peake 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, in the first FAC, I had discussed the neutrality of the audio captions along with this separate issue of whether or not there was a clear rationale for including non-free media. To answer your question, I do not think that is true. I could see a rationale for including an audio sample if critical commentary discussed something specific about the rapping style throughout the album in the context of the song, but I do not think having a sample to just show the artist rapping the lyrics is enough. You can simply say in the prose that this person raps these lyrics and it would still be perfectly understood without an audio sample.
  • I do not think the changes to the "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" sample are enough to justify its inclusion. I think you're overlooking one important point from my above comments. I have been told in the past that audio samples in album article should be representative of the album. The rap rock/psychedelic parts of the "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" sample refers to the particular song, not how these genres are used in the album as a whole or how this song represents that. Again, I do not think lyrics alone are a strong argument for including non-free media because again, lyrics can be discussed in the prose so even a reader who has never heard anything from this album would understand what is being discussed. I'm sorry, but I just do not see solid justifications for either audio sample. However, this is just my opinion, and I wanted to voice my concerns again per my prior involvement in the first FAC. I hope you have a great rest of your week and stay safe. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize my concerns (as I have a tendency to ramble), I do not see how the audio samples 1) are representative of the album and 2) illustrate information that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. Lyrics can be discussed in the prose and a person does not need to hear them performed (rapping, singing, etc.) to understand a discussion about them. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 I do get what you are trying to say about the audio samples and I fully respect your opinion, as well as the fact you have given me relevant advice. Even though I have tried to improve them to the best I can, we will see if the issues you believe are still prominent are enough to stop this article becoming an FA or if other users believe the current usage is warranted. Kind regards, --K. Peake 13:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AviationFreak edit

Resolved comments from User:AviationFreak

This looks good to me, and I don't see any issues mentioned in the first nom still remaining. The one thing I would note is the WP:SANDWICH in the "Themes and lyrics" section. AviationFreak💬 18:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak Hello, thank you for the support and your point about the WP guideline; how do I group two audio samples together like images? --K. Peake 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for jumping in on this, but you can see what I did with the Hey Y'all article for an example of how to combine two audio samples. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did check that and even though the formatting is slightly different, I have now implemented this change to the article and nice memory on your part to think back to that! AviationFreak I am sure you will be pleased to see this changed, but two images are aligned to the left because they are far from interfering with lists or other items and it is better to not have every piece of media on the right to be less repetitive. --K. Peake 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, the article looks great! Having media on the left isn't an issue as long as it's not squishing text with something on the right. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak No it is not anywhere near being one in this context and I am amazed to have confident support from you! --K. Peake 21:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

Ealdgyth If you read below, I clearly referenced that I removed the info from these sources... that's why I crossed them out. --K. Peake 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth Thank you for going over the sources to spot check them. I totally sympathize with your viewpoint for Your EDM and i-d; I have removed these sources since not only are they likely to contest discussion due to not being considered highly reliable anywhere, but the information they back up is about the album's cover art reception and that's not required for heavy detail here. I also removed Hypebeast since the info provided by it is not a necessity and the source is not regarded as unreliable totally but it's often disputed how reliable it really is; replaced Rap Favorites with NME because that info was already provided by the other sources unlike the tour hospitalization NME mentions. AllMusic and Vice may be disputed by WP:RSP, but it says the former's reviews are considered usable with attribution and the latter is not contested for pop culture topics, as stated earlier.
  • To cover the other sources, I will start by saying that The Fader is a magazine dedicated to covering music, style and culture which has been around since 1999. It is owned by The Fader Media and stands as the first print publication to be released via iTunes, a highly regarded digital retailer. The magazine also publishes consistently factual articles about artists in its music coverage; I see no way it is not high quality. HipHopDX is a website focused on hip hop, the genre of this album and its performers, which reports regular news around rappers and is owned by the well-regarded Warner Music Group; it has also received best hip hop website rankings to showcase reliability. On a similar note, HotNewHipHop is mostly focused on the genre and reports news about it often, publishing factual claims about artists that are separated from any reviews/opinion pieces from clear marking. AnyDecentMusic? is an aggregator similar to Metacritic that collects reviews from reputable publications, so I think this constitutes reliability. The Player FM source leads directly to an audio interview with Pusha T himself, so this content is definitely reliable. Stereogum has been an internet publications that regularly shares articles for years now, with it having received several awards and citations. 'Atwood Magazine focuses on established artists from across the world in its authentic writing; there are columns but they are identified and the source here is not from one. The about page for Central Sauce explains they have creators showcase content who are "writers, data analysts, videographers, and creatives of all kinds from around the world". It further says they are no "egotistical music critics or 'hit pieces' on [the site]" and they create content for artists they're passionate about. You can tell the dedicated and in-depth writing from those who are not egotistical or provide sensational news should be reliable. Dummy Mag and Joe are used for year-end lists as they regularly report, so I do not see any lack of reliability there. Thank you for your concerns, these are my comments! --K. Peake 21:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't strike things in my lists for me. When I'm satisfied, I'll strike the concern. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the rest - being the first magazine published through iTunes isn't showing high quality reliablity. As for Vice - the fact that it isn't considered realible for some coverage does not help establish taht it's a high quality source per the FA criteria. AllMusic again, what makes this reveiewer a high quality source instead of some random person doing a review? And while being owned by Warner Music Group helps - does HipHopDX have an editorial process and is it enforced? And interviews are not inherently reliable - the reliablity of them is based on the site publishing them and the interviewer. Nor does length of existence show high quality reliablity. For help with meeting the FA criteria see User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet, but given Nikkimaria's concerns below about spotchecks, I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing and suggest that this be withdrawn and the sourcing concerns including the spot check issues be worked out outside of FAC. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth The Vice review is from Robert Christgau, one of the most revered music critics. This obviously proves reliability and Player FM is an app that provides a variety of podcasts, being supported by the likes of Apple and Google Play. HipHopDX do have an editorial process and as for your suggestion of withdrawal, I have only one of the current spot checks to fix plus I've tried to address your concerns so even though you are entitled to oppose respectfully, isn't the withdrawal opinion pushing things too far a bit? --K. Peake 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ping me everytime you reply. I have the review watchlisted. As for spot checks - they are just that... spotchecks. If another reveiwer found enough concerns with those checks to oppose, I share their concern and thus it is likely that more checks need to be done. This is best accomplished outside of FAC where the time neccessary to make sure all the sources support the information can be devoted to the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you felt like I was being irritating with the mentions, but I meant it is unfair to suggest withdrawal when the article is not in terrible shape; I have added the sources now where requested by the other user and do you understand why I crossed out the ones I removed earlier? --K. Peake 17:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

I am afraid I won't be able to do a full review due to time constraints. However, I have some comments regarding the prose, and would like to leave in-depth reviews to other editors.

  • I don't think a sentence starting with "But" is good writing.
  • No it is not, fixed. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it add substance to the lead to mention that Kanye West and Kid Cudi had been friends in 2008?
  • Yes it does, as this is relevant to the build up to them deciding to create a collab album and eventually recording it. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prominent production is featured from the duo avoid passive voice; probably something like "The duo produced the album with collaborations..."
  • I wrote "The duo mostly handled the production" which is very similar to your suggestion. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It succeeded the release of Pusha T's Daytona and West's Ye, while preceded the release of Nas' Nasir and Teyana Taylor's K.T.S.E. This is pretty confusing... why are artists apart from West mentioned here?
  • These albums were produced by West as part of his "Wyoming Sessions" in 2018; if you look at the lead it actually mentions this. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer a note about the Wyoming Sessions to make the flow better, as the current structure rather obstructs the flow. Examples of note usage can be seen at Lost in Translation (film). HĐ (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HĐ I don't think this is needed here, as the sentence is a short one in a four-sentence para and only mentions four albums, one of which was released by West. --K. Peake 12:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cover art was designed by Japanese contemporary artist Takashi Murakami, with it being based on Hokusai's landscape print series, Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji can be rewritten to "The cover art was designed by Japanese contemporary artist Takashi Murakami, who based it on Hokusai's Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji" (again, passive voice)
  • I did this using a semi-colon instead and kept the comma because that is needed grammatical, in the same manner you'd add one if introduction an album. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album received widespread acclaim, with music critics pointing out the chemistry of West and Cudi in praise I personally don't like "with" as it is poor writing. Keep it concise and straightforward i.e. "The album received acclaim from critics who praised the chemistry of West and Cudi"
  • I have edited this now, as well as the following part. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure it's "top-five album" instead of top five album
  • Why so... I did not believe the dash is needed? --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "top five" is a noun while "top-five" is an adjective (like "List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 2020", where "number one" is equivalent to "number-one song/single/track"), and naturally it is better to use adjective+noun rather than two nouns next to each other. I could be wrong, though. HĐ (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments help. Could not guarantee a full review, but I'll try to read some of the sections later. HĐ (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ Thank you for the comments, I have responded above and tell me if you have anything to say further in regards to them. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I agree with the sourcing concerns raised by Ealdgyth above; some of the sources in use here do not meet the bar of high-quality reliable sources. Examples include Central Sauce, Dummy, and HotNewHipHop.
  • Like HĐ, I have concerns about the quality of the prose. Samples include repetitive phrasings like "listed among decade-end lists", extensive use of passive voice, eg "A top five position was also attained by Kids See Ghosts", and convoluted sentences that are difficult to follow, such as "This was a position five places lower than Ye peaking at number two gave West on the chart earlier in 2018".
  • There are also issues with regards to the article's style, particularly in the extensive reliance on quotes, but also in some areas missing appropriate in-text attribution. For example, the article states in Wikipedia's voice that "4th Dimension" is "an example of bipolar disorder" - this is an opinion of a particular source, not a fact.
  • The article's structure makes it rather difficult to follow. Why is Artwork and title after Release and promotion? Why separate Charts from Commercial performance/Accolades? Suggest reapproaching how to organize this article to improve flow.
  • Spotchecks show issues with content not being supported by the citations provided. Examples include "describing Cudi as his "brother" and "the most influential artist of the past ten years"." (only the first of these quotes is in the given source) and "West released his seventh studio album The Life of Pablo with the tracks "Father Stretch My Hands, Pt. 1" and "Waves" featuring vocals by Cudi" (source supports that Cudi was featured on the former track but doesn't mention him in relation to the latter). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria Thank you for commenting, even if it is not entirely positive. I have addressed the sourcing comments earlier on this page, the list fixing is repetitive yes but I have now reworded and I've gone over the parts where top five is passive now, I think. I have found some convulted sentences in the commercial performance section and altered, but I shouldn't merge that with accolades and charts since they are all more than large enough on their own, though I moved the artwork and title section like you said per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. I have added a citation for Cudi's vocals on "Waves" and will look at the spot-checked quote soon, as I am going out now; I apologize for this original research and it was included in the article before I actually began working on it – I should've spot checked things more heavily! --K. Peake 13:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say those discussions re: Dummy inspire a lot of confidence that it would qualify as a high-quality reliable source. The views on HotNewHipHop appear to be mixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria I have now fixed all of the OR you pointed out and see my other comments as a reference point for elsewhere, but how do you feel about the article after these improvements even if you still oppose? --K. Peake 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I'm not prepared to withdraw my oppose. While I appreciate you've looked at those couple of examples, they were examples only. On a quick additional look, I see in the lead that "the duo experienced brief fallings-out in 2013 and 2016" but the text supports only 2016. I would suggest that, as you indicated above, a more in-depth review of potential OR/verifiability issues would be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note edit

Two experienced reviewers have each identified a number of issues which they believe make this article not yet ready to be reviewed at FAC and have each formally opposed. I am therefore going to archive this nomination with the suggestion that the points raised be worked on - not just the specific issues raised, but that any other aspects of the article which may give rise to similar issues also be checked. It might be best to do this under the aegis of peer review, but that is only a suggestion. The usual two week wait will apply before the nominator can nominate another article at FAC.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2021 [21].

2048 (video game) edit

Nominator(s): Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the video game 2048. It passed a GA recently, and I'm trying to get it to FA status. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Will do, and claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing requirements for GA is reliability, for FA it is instead "high-quality RS".

  • per WP:RSP, there is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider, so it does not meet the FA "high-quality RS" standard.
  • WP:VGRS lists Softonic as inconclusive on being an RS, so it does not meet the FA high-quality standard
  • Buzzfeed is not high-quality RS
  • What makes Radio Times a high-quality RS
  • Tech Crunch is also listed an inconclusive at VG:RS, not high-quality RS
  • What makes Udacity (which seems to mainly be known as a for-profit university), a high-quality RS about technology?
  • What makes MathWorks, Inc a high-quality RS?
  • There seem to be scholarly sources that are not used. I got the provided examples freely through The Wikipedia Library, which is accessible upon application to most editors. This and this are examples, there is likely more.

Sorry, but I don't think WP:FACR 1c is met (many sources are not high-quality RS, and the coverage of this game in scholarly sources does not appear to be fully included, so I'll be opposing and suggesting peer review. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Hog Farm. On Google Scholar I can find various unused scholarly sources such as [22][23][24][25] You don't need to cite every paper but the total lack (studies have covered machine learning for playing the game, computational complexity, and other issues not discussed in your article) indicates that comprehensiveness is not met. At only 1,000 words the article has plenty of room for expansion without being too long. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note edit

While I am sure that there is an FAC which could be created from this article, it is also clear - as the reviewers above identify - that it is not there yet. I would suggest seeking assistance at WikiProject Video games, seeking a mentor and/or submitting the article for Peer review. I look forward to seeing it back here in better shape in the fullness of time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2021 (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/Archived_nominations/February_2021&oldid=1008734697"