Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [1].

Illinois (album)[edit]

Illinois (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jujutacular talk 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) and —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last FAC closed September 22. Substantial editing has taken place to address concerns. Diff comparing version of article from close of last FAC to now: [2]. I feel that it is now up the comprehensive standard required of a featured article. Jujutacular talk 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom I have added myself as co-nominator: I have not put as much work into this as Jujutacular, but I regularly edit it and will be watching this page to amend it per any requests. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2c: There may be other citation or reliability issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes Tape Op a HQRS? Tape Op 70 has a publication date: here Linking to a possible copyvio by outside party.
Reliability Tape Op is published by Larry Crane, who is a recognized professional (see citations there for the person and the magazine) and has published at least one book on the topic. As far as copyvio goes, you can just remove the URL and keep the rest of the citation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link to potential copyvio. Jujutacular talk 01:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Roberts, Rafter. "Sufjan Stevens: So Right and So Wrong". Tape Op Magazine 70: 45." is still lacking the publication date that can be found at the site linked above; thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added date Jujutacular talk 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double check mdash: "Interview — Sufjan Stevens"
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it might be his greatest commercial and critical success, your not describing how it still performed very poorly. I mean it reads kind of biased, considering that you write only how its his best seller to make it sound good, when in fact it was beyond a commercial failure. I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude, trust me that is not my intention at all, I'm just trying to give a few pointers and opinions :). I'd say express it more from a third person point of view, to me it seems a bit biased, at least in the sales section. Fix this and I'll give the article a deeper look.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point to a reliable source that characterizes it as a commercial failure? I assure you I am fully committed to maintaining a neutral point of view. Jujutacular talk 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: added sales information. Jujutacular talk 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commercial failure? Where did you get this idea that it's a commercial failure? It's certainly the best-selling Sufjan Stevens album or Asthmatic Kitty album; I'd be happy to have a reference that says it lost money or was disappointing in terms of sales. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes I'm sorry if you don't agree, but not even charting in the top-100 is not a success. The album didn't reach the top twenty anywhere in the world, and in the US the worlds biggest market, it peaked at #124, I'm sorry thats a commercial failure. Trust me, there are allot better things I would call that as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • NPOV If you consider it a failure, that's fine; it's just not encyclopedic. If you can find a reputable source that calls the album a commercial failure, I will gladly add it. Otherwise, this is actually a huge success when one considers how the artist and label were complete unknowns. If (e.g.) Van Halen released an album that charted and sold like this, it would be a failure. If I did, it would be a huge success. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)|content=[reply]

Illinois -> wikilink
by Illinois authors Saul Bellow and Carl Sandburg[1] and -> by Illinois authors Saul Bellow and Carl Sandburg,[1] and
Queens -> where?
Brooklyn -> where?
New Jerusalem Recreational Room in Clarksboro, New Jersey -> where?
I was pretty nearsighted in ... —Sufjan Stevens, 2006 -> not enough for an own quote
  • Illinois themes
Many of the lyrics in Illinois make references to persons, places, and events related to the state of Illinois. -> remove the link and change it to and events related to the state of the same name.
  • Artwork

"Cum on Feel the Noize" -> though is almost unneeded to fix redirects, "on" is not a preposition in this case.

The album cover reads, "Sufjan ... to Come on Feel the Illinoise or Illinoise." -> [citation needed]
  • Critical reception
Paste and Michigan are overlinked

In general excellent work. TbhotchTalk C. 05:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done Brooklyn isn't a dab page, so no further explanation is necessary. I don't understand your criticism of the quote or your note about fixing redirects. There is no need for a citation for the name of the album; just look two inches to the right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the redirect, and I believe I have the quote how you want it now. Take a look and let me know. Jujutacular talk 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering that the quote I was pretty nearsighted is too short for have its own paragraph. It shoukd be merged in another para. TbhotchTalk C. 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other quote on Musical style and thematic elements was OK is bigger so it could have its para. TbhotchTalk C. 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. fixed now. Jujutacular talk 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really looked. That thing I mentioned caught my eye. Well you still have to source the liner notes. Look on other album pages thats how its done even on GA.--AlastorMoody (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Source the liner notes"? The liner notes are listed in the references section. The 'Personnel' section does not include a citation, as is the standard practice in all FAs and GAs. I listed 3 FAs above, and picking 3 GAs at random, they likewise do not have a citation in the personnel section: Loose (Nelly Furtado album), Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, The Division Bell. Jujutacular talk 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a. I'm sorry but there are quite a few basic problems present here, and it is a long way from FA quality. It requires additional research, quite a bit of rewriting, and attention to MoS issues (in that order). Examples:
    • Prose problems evident even in the lead. For example, misplaced modifying phrase: "The album was praised by critics for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations, noting Stevens' progress" and redundant words: "Besides numerous references to Illinois' history and locations, Stevens also included multiple references to his Christian faith."
    • "Musical influences for the album cited by reviewers" This seems problematic. How do the reviewers know who influenced the album? Later, you write "Reviewers of Illinois have compared Stevens' style to" which seems far more accurate.
    • The one sentence for which I checked the sources for accuracy is misrepresented: "Stevens utilized unconventional techniques in the composition of Illinois, with a 5/4 time signature appearing in 'Come On! Feel the Illinoise!' only to revert back to a standard 4/4 later in the song." Where precisely do those two sources state that is "unconventional"? I'm not saying it isn't—but you can't make that determination on your own. One of the sources says it's "tricky" but that's not the same thing.
    • One of the glaring items is that you describe the release dates in the lead; however, you never write about them again except for a mention in the infobox. There is nothing at all in the article about the release, promotion, and touring support of the album.
    • There is relatively little examination of the musical elements present on the album. It sounds relatively complex from the limited description, but what is the music on this album actually like?
    • After work on the research and prose, attention will be needed to punctuation within quotations; please see WP:LQ.
Recommend withdrawing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have addressed several of these issues in my most recent edits, including:
    • Prose problems in the lead
    • Possible OR with regards to the reviews
    • Possible OR with regards to the section on time signatures
    • A paragraph on the tour-its geographic scope, length, and costuming
    • Fixing prose around quotation marks.
I do not think that the problems that you addressed are so critical as to require withdrawl--this article can be amended as-is and it has already gone through a peer review. With regards to your criticism that "there is relatively little examination of the musical elements present on the album" I honestly don't know what more could be written. The music is examined from technical/recording, lyrical and thematic, music theory, genre-based, and comparative perspectives. What more would you have in mind that could or should be written about the music itself? Anyone reading this article will learn about how this music sounds in terms of its time signatures, recording fidelity, relationship to musical influences and genres, and lyrical themes present throughout. I'm willing to allow that this isn't exhaustive, but I don't know what more one would want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The issue with the release dates only being discussed in the lead is still present. I know the July 5 date is mentioned in the Artwork section, but check an album FA like Mother's Milk to see how the "Release" section is handled. Here, it might not be that substantial, but we still want to write about the release in the body. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Acceptable? I personally prefer a release history section a la the one presently at WP:ALBUM, but they are usually difficult to source. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly. The July 4 and 5 dates are explicitly discussed in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, they should be in the text as well. Currently they are simply alluded to. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked - moved the more specific explanation to the body, while maintaining a brief mention in the lead. Jujutacular talk 05:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks As you might know by now, text is my weak point. This is why we're co-nominators. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some good progress has been made. I consider this particular issue addressed and struck a few others above. I need another read-through but hopefully we aren't too far off. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it, but it needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor. Not a big job. Here are examples from the top.
  1. I ask you, why would an English-speaker want to go look up a list of US states in the opening sentence of an article on this album? There's even a link to the state of Illinois two words further on. Why are NYC and US linked in the infobox? Both are universally known quantities, and are linked in the "Astoria, Queens" article anyway. Better to focus the reader on a single patch of blue. See MOSLINK on bunched links.
    Removed links Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wouldn't mind a comma after NYC. The longer the sentence and the fewer other commas hanging around, the more likely you are to use one like that. But it's on the mandatory side of the scale even in a short sentence.
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WP:HYPHEN: can you pipe "low-fidelity" please?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "in a world tour" better than "with" (like you strike "with" a baseball bat). I think the motivation for the tour is pretty clear without the agency preposition, with. Wow, you mean his tour lasted for ... more than a year? Impressive; you don't actually give the start-date; perhaps it doesn't matter.
    Changed to "in". Removed the part about lasting through Nov. 2006. It actually happened in two separate tours, as explained a bit further down in the article. I couldn't think of a way to summarize that. Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations and reviewers noted": comma required before the second "and", which is on the highest structural rank in the sentence. When there are multiple ands, check for whether a comma is needed. Reasonably long sentence too: you could be a little more aware of the influence of sentence length on punctuation in your style.
    Removed the second "and", placed a semicolon. I think it reads better, let me know what you think. Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. well-written, but then best reviewed in the next sentence?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. multiple reviewers ... somehow a bit impersonal for people (multiple factors, yes). Could it be several or many? Unsure. "Also" could be dropped.
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Possibly "greatest public success: it was his first ..."?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Why is "Christian" linked? I think WP:OVERLINK suggests not to (can't remember specifically, but why is the article on that anchor focused enough to divert?).
    Removed link Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. leap,"—MOS says the comma goes after the closing quotemark. Final period is often OK before the quotemark, if it's in the original, of course.
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "low fidelity" again a compound adjective and needs a hyphen. Why link it again so soon after?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boosted the first image size (church) to 240px and removed the final period from the caption, per MOS. It's just a nominal group, a thing. It's not an indicative statement. Tony (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments:
    • I'm troubled by the characterization of the Rolling Stone review. The "creative-writing workshops" comment was made about one song in particular, but that's not really what you write in the article. Also, the reviewer writes "But for a musician like Stevens, going too far and trying too hard is the point"; that, however is hardly "praise" as you write. Sheffield no doubt liked the album, but I don't think you've accurately represented his comments.
    • Can I get a copy of the Roberts article from Tape Op Magazine? The mention of 8-track tape is odd, as is the statement about "two tracks at a time" linked to multitrack recording. I'd like to see what exactly the source says about the recording mechanics, because the section reads a bit like it was paraphrased by someone who didn't necessarily understand it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response The Tape Op issue is available here: http://www.thebuddyproject.com/news/sufjan_tapeop_0309/tape09_0309_1.jpg . As far as the rewording, it's probably best left to Jujutacular. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the Rolling Stone review. I believe it to be a better characterization. Jujutacular talk 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support—I'm not completely satisfied with the prose, but it's probably good enough to pass. Some minor nitpicks:
    • and it topped the Billboard "Heatseeksers Albums" list — maybe it's just my insanity, but I'd prefer it as "Billboard list of..." or "Billboard's list of...".
    • Awkward use of prepositions. I fixed one in the lead, but here's another that stands out: ...to retain creative control and keep costs low on recording Illinois." Something just doesn't seem right about that one.
    • ...several tracks that were recorded during these sessions were — many users try to avoid "that were" as much as possible, and I'm one of them. It's more of a personal preference than anything else; it's not an earth-shuddering redundancy. Same with "which were".
  • I think another pass would help greatly, but I'm not going to oppose over it. Also, the references seem fine on a quick skim. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Deckiller. Good to have you around again. I will be making another pass at it tonight, and then hopefully it will be at 100%. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of prose:

  1. "Reviewers have found similarities between this album and musicians and composers in several musical genres—from pop music to contemporary classical. In addition, the lyrics and their rich ..."—I guess we need the recent-past tense "have"? False comparison: album vs musicians and composers, let alone genres (all mixed up ... I think the comparison is between one genres and other genres). Please remove "In addition,". The same false comparison a few inches below.
  2. MoS—comma after the closing quotemarks: "regressively twee communalism," but found
  3. "utilizes"—why not the less ugly "uses"?
  4. MOS—no hyphen after -ly ("classically-trained").

etc.

I have to oppose, unless this is thoroughly copy-edited. Tony (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché, Tony! :) A weak support was probably too dull on my part... —Deckiller (t-c-l) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. This needed quite a bit of work, but I think it's been pulled up to standard now. I've gone through it a few times with an eye toward prose, but also toward accurate reflection of the sources, and made several revisions along the way. I believe the article now accurately reflects the sources used. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's OK for Andy, I'll go with it. Sorry, I don't have time to look again. Tony (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note: I have gone way past spot-checking and have actually looked at most of the sources used here by now. I'm satisfied there are no issues with plagiarism, nor with statements in the article misrepresenting the sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably just my personal preference, but I'd love to see more commas. Some sentences are marathons. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (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/Illinois_(album)/archive3&oldid=1136458570"