Talk:21 (Adele album)

Reception

This particular section was clearly written by an avid fan of the singer. Since when Wave, Evening Standard or News Of The World are relevant sources for professional ratings? What about Allmusic, Rolling Stone...? Sonicadv27 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Charts and Sales

Adele is debuting at number 1 in the US with 353.000 copies sold in it's first week. http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.238.214 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION OF ADMIN!!!. Music week amd many other reliable sources announced on 4th Decemeber that the album has now become of best selling UK album of the 21st century, overtaking Amy Winehouses' 'Back to Black'. As the page is protected can someone put this information into the first paragraph. Thanks. Here is a reference. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047727&c=1 86.178.73.8 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is an error in the Commercial Performance category under North America. The article states that "21 returned to number one on the U.S. Billboard 200 for its 24th week, the longest since Prince's Purple Rain finished a non-consecutive 24-week run in 1985." in fact, According to Billboard magazine, the Purple Rain album spent 24 consecutive weeks at #1 on the Billboard album charts (August 4, 1984 to January 18, 1985). Can someone please correct that since the article is locked. 98.116.75.98 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) AR

UK sales this week

21 sold 158,000 copies in the UK this week, totaling up 1,340,000 copies. Could you please post this in the chart performance section, or at least post the total number of copies? The section has 21's weekly sales to date, but I understand if this information is too much or does not necessarily need to be posted. Perhaps it would be better to take some of the information already there out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.64.218 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

29-10-2011 Adele's 21 topped the Dutch charts for 30 weeks actually, not just 23. - Maybe someone should change that - good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.46.249 (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

name 21

Just like 19 is the album her age when producing it? theirs no mention in either articles of how her album got named — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Song Not Written About Her Ex

There is a comment that "One and Only" is the only love song on the album not written about her ex. We have to include "Lovesong" also because that song is a cover of a song released in 1989 by The Cure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbillings512 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

In the first paragraph, it says that the popularity of "21" caused "19" to get a new peak in the U.S. That's wrong as "19" reached No. 10 after Adele won 2 Grammy awards in 2009 and not after 2011... For the other countries, that might be right but in the US, "19" couldn't reach a new peak! --79.199.27.248 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also this statement 'In its eleventh week, the album became the longest-running consecutive number-one album since Bob Marley and The Wailers' Legend in 1984, which spent twelve consecutive weeks at number-one.' is wrong. The Beatles hold the artist record with 30 weeks in 1963. The all time record is the soundtrack to the film 'South pacific' (70 weeks). Metafis (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Metafis, there's nothing wrong with the statement. The article says that 21 is the longest running consecutive #1 since Bob Marley. In other words, 21 is the longest running #1 since 1984, although there may have been albums that have had longer #1 spells before 1984. Do you understand? Orane (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Release date?

In the opening paragraph, and in the table box on the right, the release dates don't tally. Is it the 19th February or the 21st? If anyone cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.203.111 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I've taken a quick look at the lead with regard to prose. I have not looked at the rest of the article and have not considered sourcing, verifiability or copy-vio. Here are some points that I noticed:

• "While adhering to the folk and Motown R&B inclinations of her debut album 19, 21 also bears the influence of Adele's exposure to American country and southern blues music, acquired during the North American leg of her 2008–2009 tour An Evening with Adele." Presumably 19 was also named after her age? If so, I might say in the previous sentence "Like her previous album, 21 was named after her age..." I'm not sure about "inclinations" and the name of the tour is over detailing. What about "Sharing the folk and Motown influences of 19, 21 was further shaped by the American country and southern blues music Adele encountered during her 2008–09 North American tour."
• "Her second "break-up album"": Unencyclopedic; maybe "Her second album on the [theme/topic/subject?] of break up..."
• "composed in the wake of the singer's separation from an unnamed spouse, the songs exploring various themes of anger and revenge, heartbreak, self-examination, and forgiveness." Again, too much. What about composed following the break up of a relationship [spouse implies marriage and I doubt an unnamed person would be married to her]..." Also, not sure about the latter part of this sentence. This is only my opinion, but "the songs exploring various themes of anger and revenge, heartbreak, self-examination, and forgiveness" reads like POV. It needs to be something like: critics have identified themes of ..." or whoever says that the songs are about this. Finally, "the songs exploring various themes of anger and revenge" is possibly ungrammatical given the rest of the sentence but in any case, using a noun and an -ing verb is bad practice. I would recommend the prose exercises on User:Tony1's pages.
• "The majority of the album's production was handled...": Maybe "Most of the album was produced..." is more concise.
• "Released to positive reviews, critics hailed the album as an artistic improvement over her debut..." The opening clause has a different subject to the main clause. Maybe: "The album was released to positive reviews and critics ..."
• "its vintage authenticity, ... and introspective songwriting" I'm not too happy with these phrases as they are quite meaningless to a general reader. Authentic in what sense? Vintage in what sense? Introspective in what sense? The music? The lyrics? Introspective meaning shy? Inward looking? Try to make it more precise.
• "Preceded by lead single..." Does this mean the single was released first? But why mention a single like this in such detail in the lead? Keep it for the main body, or cut it back to "After the lead single reached XX in XX..."
• "It also peaked..." Why also? Nothing obviously is linked to this.
• " well-received" by who? And if you are linking the performance to the album's subsequent success, I hope it is well referenced in the main text (which I have not looked at).
• "dethroned" Unencyclopedic.
• As above, I hope the link between the success of 21 and the revival of 19 is well referenced.
• "Ranked as the best selling album of the year so far" Personally I would lose this and wait until the end of the year, but I wouldn't insist.
• As the situation is still unfolding, I would make sure that everything in the third and fourth paragraphs is qualified by "as of XXXX 2011" per WP:DATED.
• I would always be careful with an article like this, because it is all fresh and unfolding. My personal inclination is not to have quickly unfolding events at FAC to let it settle down and for the full picture to emerge, but that is just my view and holds no weight at FAC; as long as the article is stable, that would not make me oppose. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So... was there anything right about the intro lol? Just kidding. I definitely appreciate your input and will try in incorporate as much of it into the prose as I can. I have a few points in response to your critique:

• "This is only my opinion, but "the songs exploring various themes of anger and revenge, heartbreak, self-examination, and forgiveness" reads like POV. It needs to be something like: critics have identified themes of ..." or whoever says that the songs are about this."— I'm not sure I agree that it's POV. I didn't really make any value statements about the songs. Also, Adele, critics and practically everyone else would agree that these are themes on the album (Current single, "Rolling in the Deep", aimed at her ex, has lyrics like "There's a fire burning in my heart...don't underestimate the things that I will do...think of me in the depths of your despair, you're gonna wish you never had met me..." and another single has her singing "I wish nothing but the best for you, don't forget me, I beg"). And the songs' themes are discussed in an entire section (explaining/identifying the songs about anger, heartbreak, self-examination etc), supported by quotations and sources from both the singer and critical reviews.
• "" well-received" by who? And if you are linking the performance to the album's subsequent success, I hope it is well referenced in the main text (which I have not looked at)."— well received by everyone (I originally wrote that she gave a critically acclaimed performance, but was told at the last FAC to change it to "well-received" b/c "acclaimed" was too strong a word, and possibly POV). She gave an emotional performance, and started to cry at the end of the performance, which incited cheers and a standing ovation from the audience. Also, yes, the main text does reference this, and state how her sales increased by 890% on Amazon following the performance, and how critics regard that performance as the "night she became a star".
• "As above, I hope the link between the success of 21 and the revival of 19 is well referenced." Yes, it is explained in the chart performance section.
• ""Preceded by lead single..." Does this mean the single was released first? But why mention a single like this in such detail in the lead? Keep it for the main body, or cut it back to "After the lead single reached XX in XX...""— yes, single was released October/November 2010 (album released late January-February 2011). I went into detail about it because, in addition to it being the highest charting single of her entire discography, it also set the tone of the album and its success. It was marketed as a break-up/revenge album on the strength of the first single.
• "its vintage authenticity, ... and introspective songwriting" I'm not too happy with these phrases as they are quite meaningless to a general reader. Authentic in what sense? Vintage in what sense? Introspective in what sense? The music? The lyrics? Introspective meaning shy? Inward looking? Try to make it more precise."— "vintage authenticity" was actually lifted from one of the reviews, which read "Adele hasn’t got a big drum to beat, but packing all the signifiers of vintage authenticity, she theoretically rises above the fray." It was in reference to her ability to channel a vintage, Motown sound (old-school R&B/blues/jazz) and make it her own, without sounding pretentious. That was a common statement from the critical reviews, and discussed at length in the "influence and sound" and "critical reception" section. But I agree that "introspective songwriting" was vague. For the record, I meant her ability to bare her soul and innermost thoughts in the lyrics, also discussed at length in the music and production section of the article. But I could make it more precise.

I think I'll hold off taking it to FAC until the album has run its course (album still #1 in almost every country, including U.S. and UK, Ireland, Australia etc), but hope to have the article done by the end of summer. Orane (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rumor has it

Radios are playing "Rumor has it", that means it was released as a single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.8.30 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

storage

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/adele-s-21-ties-saturday-night-fever-as-1005293672.story http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/74397/week-ending-aug-7-2011-albums-12-for-21/;_ylt=AnGQosJMO7CHCZTGXitL4EMPwiUv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.58.215 (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.nme.com/news/example/59086

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046464&c=1 31 weeks, top 3

http://74.6.239.84/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=Adele+Adkins%27s+%E2%80%9C21%E2%80%9D+sets+another+chart-topping+longevity+record+drawing+equal+with+Dire+Straits%27+%E2%80%9CBrothers+In+Arms%E2%80%9D&fr=yfp-t-715&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Adele+Adkins%27s+%E2%80%9C21%E2%80%9D+sets+another+chart-topping+longevity+record+drawing+equal+with+Dire+Straits%27+%E2%80%9CBrothers+In+Arms%E2%80%9D&d=4620285583818808&mkt=en-CA&setlang=en-CA&w=6cf51605,c43f0ccd&icp=1&.intl=ca&sig=m52qSc8U2ixK8SnYWvk0DA-- 21 weeks at #1 in New Zealand.

http://www.billboard.com/news/chart-beat-bonus-1000883618.story#/news/chart-beat-bonus-1000883618.story Paul Grein

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8269710/Adele-I-want-to-discover-my-own-sound.html --sound, quotes

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K2vq_HVaUTEJ:www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/print-ChartInfo.asp%3Fid%3D164+Adele+Equals+Shania&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca "Adele Equals Shania"

http://www.thecouchsessions.com/2011/02/album-review-adele-21/ self examination

http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/hometown-hero-adele-interview

http://www.metroweekly.com/arts_entertainment/music.php?ak=6005 "SLY" lyrics

http://www.themusicvoid.com/2011/09/mud-wrestling-at-sony-music/ and http://www.gigwise.com/news/54682/Rick-Rubin-Paul-Epworth-Working-On-Adeles-New-Album hmmm. a bit confusing...

http://www.webcitation.org/64Wty70cp

Comments for improvement

Journalist/Orane asked me to take a look at this article, which I must say, is quite long, but good looking. Please note that I am awful at British English, but I tried my best.

Lead/lede

The main problem I see here is the vocabulary, but can be easily amended.

• " the UK " -> " the United Kingdom "
• " While it shares the folk and Motown influences of her debut album 19, also named after the singer's age, 21 was further shaped by the American country and southern blues music Adele encountered during her 2008–09 North American tour. " — We typically use "while" to contrast ideas or present simultaneously happening events. So, his is not proper usage.
• What is meant by break-up, a vague term?
• " Her second album on the subject of a break-up, 21, like its predecessor, was composed in the aftermath of the singer's separation from an unnamed partner. " — This sentence just does not make sense to me. How about, just cutting it down to " Her second album, like its predecessor, was composed in the aftermath of the singer's separation from an unnamed partner. "
• " eclectic cavalcade " — Woah, what does that even mean?
• " which include " → " which includes "
• " Upon its release " — Do not use the word "upon" which is considered somewhat fancy. "Following", however, is fine.
• " it attracted " → " the album attracted ". I just thought that using "it" twice was repetitive and strange.
• I dislike the word "success" because it does not show a very neutral viewpoint and what you are doing is assessing the album/single(s)'s success, which is the reader's job.
• " a number of " is a vague expression.
• " It appeared in the 2011 edition of the Guinness World Records for claiming the most consecutive weeks at number one (eleven) " — Which chart?
• " The album's success helped to revive sales of 19, which ascended to new chart peaks within the top three in the UK, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, despite its release over three years ago. " — Is that worthy and relevant enough to be in the lead?

Background and conception+Titling and development

Again, I see a wide array of issues, but all are just prose problems.

• I'd like to see a reduction on quotes, and some can be easily paraphrased.
• " on which the album was based " — revise tense
• " In the midst of her 2008–2009 U.S. and European promotional tour An Evening with Adele, the twenty-year-old singer embarked on a new relationship with a gentleman ten years her senior,[10] and months later, cancelled a number of dates on her tour itinerary[11] in order to "balance [her] career, boyfriend and family."[12][13] " — A bit long.
• " Motivated by her heartbreak[,] "
• " However, she explained that the album was not solely about her "bitching about an ex-boyfriend",[12] but that she also wrote songs on which she tried to "be honest about [her] own flaws."[12] " — I don't feel that it is necessary to cite immediately after both quotes if they are from the same source.
• " An avid fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication (1999), which "defined her youth,"[12] Adele had long expressed an interest in working with its producer Rick Rubin. She first met Rubin in 2008 through her appearance as the musical guest on the American sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live, recognising and signalling to him in the audience during her live, televised performance of her American debut single "Chasing Pavements".[13] " — I don't think this belongs in this section. Maybe to Music and production?
• " Adele's attendance at the 2009 Grammy Awards in Los Angeles " — Link 2009 Grammy Awards.
• " Additional producers included British musicians Jim Abbiss and Francis "Eg" White, two of Adele's prior collaborators from her debut album, as well as Fraser T. Smith, Paul Epworth and Semisonic frontman and record producer Dan Wilson. " — Again, wrong section, maybe?
• " While admitting the apparent simplicity in the album's title " — Again, wrong usage of "while".
• The simplicity of 21 or Rolling In the Deep? Which title?
• The last paragraph looks like Critical opinions, not Background info.

I may do more sections later on, but tell me what you think. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment.

Yes, very astute observations. I incorporated almost all your suggestions. A few notes:

• Changed "eclectic cavalcade" to "eclectic team". ["cavalcade n: A succession or series" (as in "a series of producers")]. Saw it in a New York Times review. Thought it sounded cool :P

  Lol, okay. Are you sure "eclectic" is a neutral word, though? It is a compliment-ish kind of word. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  I do agree that it's not completely neutral. But I couldn't find any other word that fits (and again, it came from an article about the album). If you know any synonyms, then be my guest :) Orane (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The reduction in quotes will definitely be worked on. Will do it when I can paraphrase and rewrite the section.
• " It appeared in the 2011 edition of the Guinness World Records for claiming the most consecutive weeks at number one (eleven) " — Which chart?"-- The UK album chart. Trying to write it without it sounding repetitive, since the subsequent clause also says "UK albums chart"
• Removed the cavalcade (see what I did there? :)) of critical responses to the album's title.

  You're very creative, ha. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm kind of reluctant to remove the mention of the producers from the "backgrounds" section, and here's why: I was intending to use the background section to tell how she met/came upon the producers (since she had met most of them (except Epworth, Wilson and Tedder) prior to writing the album, and since there's such a story to her meeting with Tedder and Rubin), and use the "writing and recording" section to just say what they did in the studio/how the songs came together. What do you think?

  Fair enough, I guess it stays, :). —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Also, you are a great help. If you want to, please review and deconstruct any other section you want to. It's greatly appreciated (the last paragraph in "influence and sound" may be problematic because it delves into the philosophic just a tad bit). Thank you so much. Orane (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for the comments. I will try my best to assist you in any way I can. I will get to the gigantic Production section, sometime. Just wait and see. :) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  Take your time; no rush whatsoever. And thanks again. Orane (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Influence and sound

Some Manual of Style issues here, but not much problematic prose.

• " 21 bears the marks of Adele's extended stay in the U.S " — Vague.
• " (she no longer smokes) " — Something creepy about this, but I cannot put my finger on it.
• " that I don't know....It feels " — MOS:ELLIPSES syas to have a space on both sides of the ellipsis.
• Do not link inside quotes, per MOS. There are a few times that this is done. This can be problematic in instances such as:
  • " "[During my tour] I discovered lots of artists I’d never heard of, particularly...Yvonne Fair, Andrew Bird, Neko Case and The Steel Drivers who I fell in love with. Then I delved in to more from artists I’ve loved forever— Mary J Blige, Kanye West, Elbow, Mos Def, Alanis Morissette, Tom Waits and Sinéad O'Connor. There’s something in every single one of these artists that has really really inspired 21." " Here, the article would benefit from linking to these artists, but the MOS objects to it. A paraphrase can be a solution to these quotes.
• Americana (music) overlink.
• " many critics disagreed " — Vague "many".
• " characterization " — British English please.
• I just see two critics, not "many".

—WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Again, thanks a bunch, I really appreciate it. Working on your suggestions. As usual, I have some comments.

• "'(she no longer smokes)' — Something creepy about this, but I cannot put my finger on it." "Creepy" is a strong word lol. I've always found this clause a bit awkward myself, but I included it because I wanted to make sure that people know that she said she'd given up smoking (the whole deal of smoking being the worst habit for a singer). I've tried to work it in the text, but it becomes convoluted. But will work on it.
• '21 bears the marks of Adele's extended stay in the U.S' — Vague." That's actually a very loose paraphrase from a critical reception. I think I changed only a word or two. It's basically saying that the album displays the influences of Adele's stay in the US. My fav sentence in the article, but I'll see what I can do.
• Will paraphrase quote with wikilinks.
• Changed "many" and "two critics" etc

Again, you're a great help. Thanks, and keep on going---At your own pace.

PS:The Lady Gaga NPOV tag can be removed anytime you want to, and I appreciate your work on the intro. Orane (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think the Gaga bio is a bit problematic so I may remove it when the time is right. I'll have more comments for you soon! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fourth single

Billboard confirmed that "Rumour Has It" will be released as the next single from the album on November 22. Here's the link: [1]. My love is love (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Gold in Venezuela

look--190.202.214.231 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Lovesong

The link belongs to "the cure" song, not Adele's... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.217.237 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Vinyl edition

Just thought I'd mention, under release history. The Vinyl edition is also available in the UK. UK amazon has release date as 24 Jan 2011 from XL rec.

-- J.P.Lon (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Total sales of 21

I really do not understand how some websites are more reliable than the artist's official website, YouTube videos where the artist confirms something, etc. So many sources reported that Adele had sold over 11 (and even 12) million copies, but Wikipedia administrators and editors still don't recognize it.

The issue that I'm addressing is not only with regard to Adele and sales of her records. Lady Gaga had mentioned numerous times that Born This Way sold over 8 million copies worldwide and Wikipedia seemed to find that "unreliable" until Billboard confirmed it. Excuse my modern talk, but WTF?!

As a matter of fact, most sales are only ESTIMATED so you're not wrong if you say 11 million instead of 11.5 million or vice versa. However, it looks to me as if Wikipedia would rather recognize less than more sales.Iggy Ax (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The major issue that we're dealing with is the reliability of the sources that can be used for the article. Wikipedia policy states that only high-quality, reliable sources are to be used in an article. And these sources should preferably be "third party sources". In other words, if an artist or their record company claim that an album has sold 20 million copies, we can't simply take their word for it, because they deliberately inflate sales figures as a means of self-promotion (I'll get to Lady Gaga in a minute.) We have to wait until an organization not affiliated with the artist/record company confirms this.

Many of the sources that report that Adele has sold 11 or 12 million may be true. But they are not high-quality reliable sources. If you read these websites, they all say that they get their figures from Media traffic's "Global album chart". Well, first thing, there is no formally recognized tracking system for worldwide sales, so we have to approach this with some level of skepticism. But even more importantly, media traffic is not an authority on worldwide sales. The website is run by two random German guys, as a hobby!! Who publishes and fact-checks their claims? What organization do they belong to? Why should we take their word for it? Do they have a background or degree in chart analysis or journalism? No, they do not. For their methodology, they state that some charts "ARE WEIGHTED TO THE SIZE OF ITS MARKETS" and that "ALBUMS WITH HUGH SALES IN THESE COUNTRIES ARE WEIGHTED HIGHER". Now, it's my turn to ask, WTF? Who are these people? What if I made a website and put Adele at 20 million, and other gullible news sources report on this, should my figure be used on Wikipedia?

The source that we're using right now to cite Adele's sales figure is Music Week, a reputable magazine from the UK dealing with sales and chart analysis, much like Billboard magazine in the US. Until it, or Billboard confirm Adele at 12 million, her figure will remain at 10. Heck, if Adele herself says 12 million, it probably won't be changed.

My last comment is about Lady Gaga. There is no way in hell that Born This Way has sold 8 million copies. It has barely reached 2 million in the US, and has been certified platinum is few other countries (and these are countries where platinum is about 15,000 copies sold). Heck, its total hasn't reached 2 million if you combine its US and UK sales, and these two countries make up nearly 70% of the world music market. Where did she get the other 6 million? Did she sell 3 million in the African Congo? Another million in Afghanistan? A million in Antarctica? Common sense begs to differ. Orane (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's take your reliable magazine as an example from my perspective. Can't Adele and her record label pay the magazine to write an article about impressive 10 million records sold in support of the promotion? I don't think this is true but it could be, couldn't it? It's more humble when others say good things about you than when you blab about yourself. Taking this into account, reliable is a matter of personal choice. Remember that all industry works together and that's how everything functions. Iggy Ax (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she could have paid the magazine to promote her. But, unless you have proof of this, that is a moot point. And even if reliability is subjective, the fact remains that media traffic operates beyond the realm of subjectivity. It has no weight and no authority on worldwide sales, regardless of how you look at it. Orane (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad Music Week confirmed it. :) --Iggy Ax (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding MediaTraffic, if thats the case, then there are no worldwide numbers from anyone and all we go on is shipment. Your argument is bs. MediaTraffic is reliable week after week, year after year. They compile the sales from every country they can. Its the best we, or anyone else, has. She's pushing 12.5 actually sold right now. Also, Chart News keeps track he posted 12.14 last week which is what MT said if I remember correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.141.193 (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, it seems that just because some magazine publishes something, it's suddenly official or whatever. In this case, as I've mentioned before, reliable is a matter of personal opinion, since Wikipedia itself is never completely reliable. Taking into account that MediaTraffic has been around for years, it the only source about global sales we currently have. Your reliable magazine probably finds their info about sales on MediaTraffic.--Iggy Ax (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To both of you, reliability is relative. If I say, "Blood is red", then no one cares. If a doctor (Ph.D/MD) says the same thing, then it becomes more reliable. People trust your opinion when you have the credibility (credentials) to support what you say. So regardless of the opinions either of you have about the site, Media traffic is considered unreliable and the guys who run the site have no credentials. That's the way of Wikipedia, and of academia in general. End of story. Orane (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested comments

Following your request on my talkpage, I've only had time to glance at the article and pick up a few points. I don't think I'll have time to delve deeper. One general issue on which you may be challenged is its length; 7,000+ is an awful lot for an album article. There seem to be quite a few opportunities for slimming down the material without diluting its sense. In particular I'd look for ways of cutting down the verbatim quotations, of which there are lots and lots, some incoherent. For example: "[to] always have someone that has your back" - no idea what she means; do you?

A few specific points from the early parts of the article.

• "Preceded by lead single "Rolling in the Deep" 21 debuted at number one in the United Kingdom." Can you explain what you mean by "preceded by"? And presumably singles and albums are charted differently? Clarification needed.
• Why are you writing out values greater then 10 (eighteen, nineteen, twenty-three, twenty-six etc) when the MOS guideline is to express suc values numerically?
• Why are you citing information in the lead that is also cited in the main article?
• Why is the peripheral information concerning Guinness World Records thought worth including in the lead (though not in the main text), and why does it need three separate citations?
• The lead information (cited) is that the album "set an all-time record of twenty-six weeks at number one in New Zealand", whereas the text (also cited) says "On the New Zealand RIANZ Albums Chart, 21 debuted at number-one in January, and spent twenty-four weeks at the top (as of 25 September 2011), the longest running number-one of all time on that chart".
• Out of curiosity: maybe Adele is a late developer, but at 19 she was "coming to terms with the conclusion of her first teenage relationship"? From experiences with my own daughters and their friends, I find the "first" a little unlikely at that age; maybe her first "serious" relationship?
• "a gentleman ten years her senior" sounds arch and Victorian. Almost any other word would be better - man, partner, person, geezer (well not the last, perhaps).
• "Late one night, she received shocking news about her ex-lover from a mutual friend..." - the "shocking" news being, not his violent death, exposure as a rapist or as a member of the BNP, but his engagement to someone else. Doesn't seem worthy of "shocking" - he was her ex, for God's sake, and do we need to know she had a cold and was waiting for her bath to run? Too much detail, too much self-dramatisation, too much "look at me, me, me".

I hope these slight observations are helpful. I'd seriously look to lose at least a thousand words before a stab at FAC. On the positive side, from what I can see most of the article is reasonably well written, without any glaring stylistic defects. Also, no one is going to accuse you of not being comprehensive. There is a citation tag buried in the depths of the article that needs checking out. Good luck with the article, whatever you decide to do. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your input. I'll definitely begin working on your suggestions immediately. And yes, I do realize that it's too damn long. A few specific comments in response to your critique:

""Preceded by lead single "Rolling in the Deep" 21 debuted at number one in the United Kingdom." Can you explain what you mean by "preceded by"? And presumably singles and albums are charted differently? Clarification needed.

• Singers usually release a song (known as "lead single") from an upcoming album weeks, sometimes months, prior to the actual release of the album. The aim of this is to promote the album, and increase awareness of the type of songs that the audience can expect (the lead single is usually the "strongest" song on the album). And usually, the performance of the lead single on the singles chart is usually an indication of how successful the actual album will be on the respective album chart. For Adele's album, her lead single was released in November 2010; the album was released in January 2011.

"The lead information (cited) is that the album "set an all-time record of twenty-six weeks at number one in New Zealand", whereas the text (also cited) says "On the New Zealand RIANZ Albums Chart, 21 debuted at number-one in January, and spent twenty-four weeks at the top (as of 25 September 2011), the longest running number-one of all time on that chart"."

• Sorry, just needs to update the latter.

"Out of curiosity: maybe Adele is a late developer, but at 19 she was "coming to terms with the conclusion of her first teenage relationship"? From experiences with my own daughters and their friends, I find the "first" a little unlikely at that age; maybe her first "serious" relationship?"

• Yes. Consulted the source; it actually states "serious" relationship.

""Late one night, she received shocking news about her ex-lover from a mutual friend..." - the "shocking" news being, not his violent death, exposure as a rapist or as a member of the BNP, but his engagement to someone else. Doesn't seem worthy of "shocking" - he was her ex, for God's sake, and do we need to know she had a cold and was waiting for her bath to run? Too much detail, too much self-dramatisation, too much "look at me, me, me"."

• Will definitely rewrite it. But yeah, she was a little dramatic (a critic said that she was almost too confident in her agony, or something like that), and I was a little dramatic in depicting it.

So, to reiterate, I will definitely work on the suggestions. And don't worry about going deeper. It's much appreciated. Thank you. Orane (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

sough

"sough" should be "sought" 75.84.100.88 (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Europe

Source says 21 is 2x Platinum in Europe, not 3x! Please change that... --79.199.28.71 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why yes you are right. I have addressed your concern. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Release date?

What's the correct release date? Lead and release history sections currently say it was released on 21 January (a Friday), infobox says 19 January (a Wednesday), Adele article says 24 January (a Monday). Chart performance and accomplishments section says it debuted at No. 1 on 30 January after first week sales - if it was released on 19 or 21 January first week sales would have ended on 23 January, not 30 January. --DavidCane (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox convention is to list the very first date the album was ever released. This would be January 19th, in Japan. The album was released 21 January in the UK on itunes (and most of Europe); but to be honest, most other sources list it at January 24. This date is also more believable, because that is the date that record companies usually release albums to the UK public (it's Tuesday in the US). If the album debuted on the UK charts on January 30th based on first week sales, it was most likely released on the 24th (Monday 24-Sunday 30th= one full week). I'll have to check things out though. Orane (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything that you've explained here should probably be put in a note in the article, knowledge of infobox conventions cannot be assumed. It will likely be questioned at FAC. --DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre?

The genres listed in the info box aren't really accurate. Most songs on the able don't meet the characteristics of alternative rock, and in no way is this indie music. It was released by a mainstream artist on a major label to massive commercial success. Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.164.8 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Album was released on XL recordings in England, and Columbia records bough publishing rights in the US. XL is an indie label, and songs like "Lovesong", "I Found a Boy" etc are indie. Orane (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that indie music can easily be defined in its principal elements (since indie music means everything and nothing at all), are you really saying that "lovesong" features any of indie rock's themes, issues or aesthetics? as far as i know, bossanova has never been quite undertaken by indie musicians... and what about alternative rock? to me, "i found a boy" sounds rather bluesy, or folksy. and i wouldn't say that these are personal points of view...what's the point of saying something, even with proper sources, if it is clearly incorrect?--188.216.128.75 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Australia

"21" is 10x Platinum in Australia. Same source as always... Please change! --93.229.99.172 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments for improvements con.

A couple of months late maybe, but I will do as I promised and continue my review of the Production section. Here are my comments in order as they appear in the article. Don't feel forced to implement every suggestion I make. These are just nitpicks. I copy-edit the article as I go (diff).

Writing and recording

• "Adele was faced with the composition of a follow-up album to her debut hit 19" - This does not make sense. It sounds like she is facing a real dilemma here ("was faced with") and "composition" seems like an odd word to be used. All in all, it is not very clear and straightforward what the sentence is trying to say.
• "a label she would attempt to circumvent with the composition of a more upbeat and contemporary second album." - "label" is figurative language.
• "among them Francis "Eg" White, Paul Epworth and Rick Rubin" - I think this parenthetical clause is more fit for dashes instead of commas. It's a more distracting detail and is not relevant enough to the sentence overall for comma use.
• I see more figurative language such as "shelve" and "hit a roadblock". How about "cancel" and "ended". ([2])
• "the singer decided to play 'Take It All' for her partner" - state-of-mind expression. If she did end up playing the song for him, "the singer played "Take It All" for her partner" suffices.
• "which she had written as a response to feeling unloved and unappreciated by him." - she wrote "her partner" as a response to feeling unloved by him? Technically, that is what "which" is referring to.
• "'Rolling in the Deep', one of the angrier and more visceral offerings on the album," - technically, it was Adele who was angry, not the song. ;)
• "in the aftermath of" -> "since"?
• "However, she accredited her collaborators with encouraging her to tackle her emotions head-on, and to write with more brevity and incisiveness." - Two things here: (1) do you mean "by encouraging herself"? (2) I'm not happy with the two "her"s so close to eachother.
• "especially praising his free-form approach, which included isolating her in the studio and encouraging her to approach the production process with more spontaneity and unrestraint." - there is no inline citation to this.
• What do you mean by "lack of believability"?

I'll do the next section soon. Very comprehensive and interesting read. Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As usual, thanks for the amazing work. I have a few responses to your comments.

• "Adele was faced with the composition of a follow-up album to her debut hit 19" - This does not make sense. It sounds like she is facing a real dilemma here ("was faced with") and "composition" seems like an odd word to be used. All in all, it is not very clear and straightforward what the sentence is trying to say.--That was actually deliberate on my part. Writing a second album was daunting for the singer; she had writer's block; took an extended break, and told her record company not to pressure her. Stated that she had nothing to write about. But I could make that more obvious.
• "a label she would attempt to circumvent with the composition of a more upbeat and contemporary second album." - "label" is figurative language. How so? what do you suggest?
• What do you mean by "lack of believability"? Believability, or verisimilitude, is a quality usually in literature, music the arts etc that deals with credibility and plausibility, and the quality of being true or real. Does the audience believe the story? Does the singer sound authentic? Do you believe, or can you relate to her pain? Does she sound like she believes the lyrics, or does she sound like she's singing just to show off her voice? When Adele was talking about this, she said that, on the recording, she sounded like she didn't believe a word she was singing. Her pain wasn't palpable. Her performance lacked believability.-- thats my long-winded explanation to that lol.
• I'll get to work immediately. And thanks for the amazing copyedit. Orane (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Responses:

• Please do, if the source goes into that detail.
• The word "label" has always sounded informal to me in such context. Wiktionary gives a definition however: A name given to something or someone to categorise them as part of a particular social group. I don't think this will be heavily debated in FAC, but I thought I needed to raise it.
• I see. Learn and live then.
• You're welcome for the ce. I'll get to the next section soon. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Song structure and lyrical themes

• "Adele's response to an argument" - Is this a response in an argument? If not, then it's fine. Don't worry.

• They argued the night before, he told her some horrible things ("you might as well stay"; "you're nothing without me"; "your life is going to be boring and rubbish without me in it"; "you're never going to find anyone else" yadda yadda yadda). The next morning, she wrote "Rolling in the Deep" and aimed the lyrics at him ("Finally I can see you crystal clear/Go ahead and sell me out/And I'll lay your shit bare/See how I'll leave with every piece of you/Don't underestimate the things that I will do...Think of me in the depths of your despair.../You're gonna wish you never had met me" yadda yadda)

• "... and features background vocals by Epworth on its final chorus." - needs citation
• "'Rumour Has It' is Adele's tongue-in-cheek retort to the many rumours that surrounded her break-up, many of which were started by the singer's own friends." - Relative pronoun "which" is incorrectly referring to "her break-up", not the rumours.
• "which jerks away from the song's pounding rhythm" - The expression "jerk away" is a bit awkward.

• Will change. Expression was lifted verbatim from a New York Times article about the song.

• "A homesick Adele dedicated the song to her mother and friends, in whom she found solace whenever she was lonely." - not sure what the "in whom" is referring to.

• 'Whom"/"who" refers to people :)

• That was a misreading on my part. Sorry! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Consistency is needed in hyphen use in the term "piano ballad".
• "'Someone Like You' is the lyrical opposite of "Rolling in the Deep" in which the singer mentally addresses her former partner after he finds happiness in a new relationship..." - this can cause a lot of confusion. Readers will think it is "Rolling in the Deep" in which the singer mentally addresses her former partner, not "Someone Like You".

• I completely get that. But to be fair, the subject of the sentence is "Someone Like You", so the "in which" would refer to that song. I see what you mean.

My copy-edit. I think you have to review the realtive pronouns (which, where, who, etc.) throughout because there may be some confusion and awkward grammar. Also remember that there is no linking inside quotations per MOS:QUOTE. Overall, a decent read, but some clarification is needed in this section. I wouldn't say the section is very engaging yet due to the prose, which was difficult to understand at times. I think that can easily be dealt with before the FAC.

• Thanks so much for the review. I will definitely try to improve the prose in this section. To be honest, it was the hardest section to write. I guess it shows :P. Orane (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think my commentary stops here. I will probably continue to make tweaks every now and then though. Excellent job and best of luck with your FAC. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for all you've done. It is a big help. Forever in your debt. And good luck with your article as well. Will also do my best to help out. Orane (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks and you're welcome. :D —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Wikipenguin.

• I'm not sure where to put the blog quote. I'm very reluctant to remove it completely from the article, since it really hits the mark as to why she chose the title. Do you have any suggestions?
• I'm gonna print parts of the article and read it out loud, so I can fix the prose issues. I removed the awkward first sentence you mentioned, and changed it to something simpler, but more direct and concise.
• Changed the caption of the sound sample. I'd love to keep it in the section it's in, as it supports the point about her being a bitch lol. What do you think? Orane (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The place where you have the blog post quotation now is perfect. I wouldn't remove it either; it's very insightful and intersting.
• That's a good idea for copy editing.
• Better. However, I think the caption should have some detail on the music composition itself, because that's what sound samples are for--what words alone would have a hard time describing. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2011

In the section titled "Chart performance and accomplishments" under the subtitle "International" at the end of the second paragraph there is an error. The sentence states "It is the biggest-selling album in the U.S. since 2004 when Usher's Confessions sold 8 million copies." This statement is not true and is not supported by the given citation. It is not the biggest-selling album in the U.S. since Confessions, it is the biggest-selling album in one calendar year in the U.S. since Confessions.

Thewhiteboy114 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Already done by Journalist (talk · contribs) in this edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011

21 has now sold 16 million copies worldwide as of December 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16075504

Masonrudd12 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done. I've reverted the change, and I'll tell you why. I think sources have a tendency to inflate sales numbers, and this is what is happening here with BBC and 21. Billboard is a superior source when it comes to sales figures, and, only last week, it listed 13 million for 21. There's no way the album has sold an added 3 million since then. Orane (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

YOU are sn editor. You shouldnt state your own opinion or original research. you said 'no way has it sold an added 3 million since (the article was published). This is your opinion, not a fact, and she, in fact, added over 3 million by the time you reverted. Anyway, Billboard has released a figure of 17 million now, and someone else has put this in the article correctly. 86.178.229.183 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

21 has sold 5.68 million copies in the United States in 2011. With the highest sales week ever in December 25 with 399,000 units sold. This is according to Billboard, Nielsen Soundscan, and Yahoo! Music. Also, 21 is the first album to sell that many units since Usher in 2004 when he sold 7.9 million units. http://www.billboard.com/#/news/michael-buble-remains-no-1-adele-s-21-has-1005744752.story http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/week-ending-dec-25-2011-albums-very-jeezy-155111343.html

Worldwide

OK, so 5.7 mil in US and 3.8 mil in UK - totalling 9.5 million between them, but the lead states 13 million worldwide. Just 3.5 million in the rest of the world put together? Are there any year-end (worldwide) sales that are more accurate?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Year end charts?

shouldn't the year-end charts be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.153.64 (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Year End Chart

"21" is No. 1 in Canada http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/yearendcharts/2011/canadian-albums , No. 2 in Austria http://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/albumyear/, No. 1 in the Netherlands http://dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2011&cat=a, No. 1 in Flander and Wallonia http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2011&cat=a! Please include them --93.229.98.15 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Orane (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan

The chart position that is given is wrong. "21" reached a new chart peak which is No. 25, so please change it to that! http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/w/2012-01-09/more/4/ --93.229.96.31 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the given source, 21 is Platinum in Austria, not 2x Platinum! --93.229.96.31 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! Orane (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Belgium

According to the given source, 21 is 2x Platinum in Belgium, not 4x Platinum. Of course it's extremely undercertified but until it's revised, we should stick to that one. --79.199.52.65 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: as far as I can see, it says 5x Platinum? Mato (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

17 million copies sold Worldwide - Billboard

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/global/the-year-in-international-music-biz-the-1005812952.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.30.147 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - link confirms figures, quality of source appears to match the one it is replacing. Mato (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - Please, read the actual source: "with global sales in excess of 17 million, according to XL" (her record label)[3] That's an unreliable source, if the Billboard didn't mention where it got that figure, the article would pass as a reliable source, by present guidelines. -- Frous (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats not how it works, WP:V only says the information has to come from a third party. The source being used is Billboard - which is deemed reliable. It doesn't matter where billboard says they got their information. It would only be unreliable if we were using the company's web site directly. Its common practice for reliable news sources to quote sales figures from record companies. We just can't quote the company directly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wtf?! So the entire Wikipedia has lost common sense. o.O Right... -- Frous Frous (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No source claiming she has sold "over 18 million copies"..174.89.27.70 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese version of this article

Can someone who can edit this semi-protected page? Please link the page to the Chinese version to let people using Chinese learn more about this album. Thanks a lot! Ansonansonansonwu (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And, the page name is called zh:21_(專輯). Therefore, just write "zh:21_(專輯)". Thanks. Ansonansonansonwu (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks as though a link has been added. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dimension of this article.

This article is of excessive size. It's twice the size of the articles on 'Sgt. Pepper', 'Thriller', 'Pet Sounds' or 'Nevermind'. Is this necessary? Just askin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.237.87 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead revisited

Orane asked for comment on the peer review but that meant another addition to my already-huge watchlist, so I'll comment here. And to be honest, peer reviews are so hard to navigate through (they can get really long, like a FAC without any subheading division). I reviewed the lead several months ago, and so much of it has been re-written. Here are observations that you should consider before FAC (next Sunday are the Grammys!).

• "It shares the folk and Motown influences of her debut album 19, but was further shaped by the American country and Southern blues music she encountered during her 2008–2009 North American tour, An Evening with Adele." -- Some informal and difficult language here: "shaped" and "encountered". To be less vague, "shaped" is not the word you are looking for. Maybe "composed" or etc., but not "shaped". Second, "encountered" is personification-ish? And this should be pluperfect, not past tense, because this was long before production. Use plain but professional wording because one cannot encounter music.

• Lol yeah "shaped" kinda was the word I was looking for. The album's sound borrows from the folk and Motown influences, and its sound was also shaped by the American country and blues... Orane (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's a bit colloquial, but I don't have a major problem with it. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Composed in the aftermath of the singer's separation from her partner, the album typifies the tradition of the confessional singer-songwriter, and explores themes of anger, revenge, heartbreak, self-examination, and forgiveness." -- "In the aftermath of" is really wordy language; maybe "following" could work. And "tradition of the singer-songwriter" is vague and somewhat confusing". Also, it's probably better to say "Adele" instead of "the singer-songwriter". It's a bit strange and readers will be wondering "who".

• "Following" is satisfactory, but aftermath was the word I was going for. "She wrote it after the break-up", "she wrote it in the aftermath of the break-up"-- the former just attaches a temporal aspect; the latter makes it explicit that the effects of the argument-- the emotions that came after it (i.e. its aftermath) is what's notable. But I'll think through your suggestion.

• "tradition of the singer-songwriter"-- "it was originally "near dormant tradition of the confessional singer-songwriter", but faced opposition from an editor who disagreed that singer-songwriter was a dormant craft. In this light, "singer-wongwriter", as used in the sentence, was not meant to refer to a person per se, but to the craft, the musicianship. As opposed to a "pop album from a pop star", 21 typified the craft of "the confessional singer-songwriter" (singer-songwriter craft can be grouped; music/theme can be political (works by Bob Dylan), religious (see Leonard Cohen), romantic, or confessional in tone). Am I confusing here?

• "Adele began writing 21 in April 2009" -- Missing "for"?

• Was not changed by me, but by a reputable prose reviewer with a few FA's under his belt. He was the one who also removed the "near-dormant" point from the sentence.

• Pardon my stupidity, but is there such as thing as a "musical tragedian" and "breakdown of her relationship" is a bit informally used here. You could try "end to her relationship"...or not. (yes, musical tragedian is standard term. Also seen her referred to as a "neo soul tragedian".)
• "Adele collaborated with an eclectic team of songwriters and producers, which included Columbia Records co-president Rick Rubin, Paul Epworth, Ryan Tedder, Jim Abbiss, and Dan Wilson." -- That first clause makes the sentence a lot longer than it needs to be. Sorry, I couldn't find anything in place of "eclectic" after, not that I see it sourced anywhere. ;-)
• I see "old school soul" but not "vintage authenticity" in Critical reception. Can the two be synonymous?

• Yep, they are. It's about her music being soulful and believable. It's vintage and authentic.

• Is "by a considerable margin" necessary? Just saying, it's pushing a bit too far...

• agreed.

• By definition "sonically bombastic" would work, but is there more simple wording for that? It sounds a bit exaggerated. And literally, the music industry is not sexual, hehe.

• agreed. Orane (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

La fin. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving this page

I think this page can do with some archiving. Shuipzv3 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted/proposed changes

I recently made changes to this article's critical reception section that were explained nicely in my edit summaries, given a general explanation to one of this article's main contributor's talk page, and then reverted with a brief "no" in the edit summary by the contributor. Anyway, the article's history shows my edit summaries, which should make me explaining all my changes here unnecessary, but one point he argues, and something according to him he explained before to me (a while ago when I was passing by and made one particular change, which he reverted with an edit summary), the point about which leading statement for this section is more accurate.

Journalist argues that Metacritic is not the be-all-end-all of reviews, yet it's score is atop the review template and it's used as the primary source for the lead-in statements of near all critical reception sections in WP:Albums articles, not to mention it clearly has nearly all the professional reviews of an album, especially the most recent ones. But, he insists on using this source as a source for the statement "21 garnered general praise from music critics". Note that all that article does is have an aggregate score of Adele that is 142 out of 200, which is neither here nor there as it does not specify 21, and states, "Given the acclaim for her 21 album, it's a bit surprising she didn't do even better. But then, most critics reviewed the album before she became a capital-P Phenomenon."

Other than this, I added some prose about other critics' reviews. I also removed the parenthesis from the ratings template (according to Template:Album ratings talk page, now unnecessary), which first drew me to edit this article again in the first place. And changed the template to reviewers I found more notable, an even split bewteen US and UK publications, and scores I think reflect most of the reception, which I'll admit, I adapted from Metacritic. But hey, they have almost every professional review. I hope this doesn't lead to more arguing with Journalist. He's a far more constructive, productive editor than me, but I feel I made good enough points with these changes for them to be given a chance. Comments? Dan56 (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point that that Rolling Stone article isn't really all that great for summarizing the critical reception the album has received, given the actual text of the piece. Conversely, i can understand the desire not to overfill the article quotes with too many review blurbs; it's the general critical consensus we need to convey, for it would be impossible to quote every notable review. Still, which quotes to include and which not to can be discussed separately from this, I feel. I think your choice of reviews to place in the reviews template did a better job of covering the foremost voices in music criticism, but we do need to avoid including reviews in the template that don't have any sort of rating system (saying "Favorable" is pretty subjective and can be misleading especially if we are talking about sarcastic reviews--this template is only really effective if there's some sort of rating metric). I feel it's a bit of a leap to say "21 was well-received by contemporary music critics; according to Metacritic . . ." (I too agree Metacritic isn't a be-all, end-all,; "it's used as the primary source for the lead-in statements of near all critical reception sections in WP:Albums articles" is not true for the majority of articles on albums released before 2000, in my experience, due to the presence of books to cite for albums that are old enough to warrant books, and the decreased role of the Internet in relation to music criticism the further back you go), so I get the appeal of the current version of that section's introduction, though we do need a better source that properly summarizes critical reception. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the "favourable" point, I think the template showing that is just reaffirming what's in the prose, that a publication like the voice approved of it, basically giving the same sentiment as a four star rating or a B+. In response to adding more prose, I think I only added two or three quotes, one from Q and two from the Village Voice, both of which were blatantly removed. As for the lead-in, how about if it was "21 received generally positive reviews from music critics"? Dan56 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dan56, don't be stupid. What you seem to want to write is "21 received 'generally positive reviews from music critics"... according to the website Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 to reviews from selected mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 76 based on 34 reviews, which indicates "generally positive reviews". Does that repetitive piece of nonsense sound like good prose? Orane (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the Q and Village Voice additions were removed as they were professional and are different, instead of echoing other reviewers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the opinions they add work well here. And taking out AbsolutePunk and musicOMH for print sources that the general audience might know better in the template it's also understandable (even though Village Voice has "favourable" instead of a score). igordebraga ≠ 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone may not have done a great job summarizing initial critical concensus, but I can find a million other publications that praised the album, especially after its successful chart run. Where is the rule that says we should only use the tone set by metacritic? There are dozens of publications proclaiming 21 the best album of the year (see the latter paragraphs of the critical reception section). Are these not also critical reviews? Is there a Wiki rule or convention that states that we should only include initial reaction to the album? Because, initial reaction to the album was "generally favourable". But the critical and commercial momentum increased drastically after the album's release. It did, after all, win Album of the Year.
• I disagree with the preference for paper sources over music websites. Apart from the fact that there is no convention/rule for this, you should also realise that this is 2012—the digital age. There are as many reputable online sources as there are paper ones, especially if they are proven to be published by authoritative companies.
• Also, I disagree with WesleyDodds that we should aim for sources that use star-rating. Putting aside the fact that star-ratings reduce the meat of the reviews—the actual content of the analysis—to an over-simplified score (which, to be quite honest works against the articles themselves, since a reader's eyes tend to gravitate towards the score, rather than allow them to uncover the nuanced and implicit ideas in the reviews themselves [i.e. not all 3-star ratings are equals]), there are a number of reputable and authoritative sources (like The Washington Post, The New York Times and some Los Angeles Times reviews) that do not use this system. Are you advocating for their removal from the templates?

Yes, if they don't use rating systems. That's sort of the whole rationale for using the template in the first place, for a quick and dirty rundown of the scores--of course it will be over-simplified (incidentally, that oversimplification plus the inability to properly summarize reviews from super-notable publications that don't use ratings scores are the main the reasons I refrain from using the ratings template at all in articles I write). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• With that said, I am not the one who changed the reviews in the template. Another user did, and my only message to him was: 1. he must keep the number of reviews to 10; 2. I'd prefer if he kept New York Times, since it's the most reputable source among those used. The reason why I reverted Dan56 is because, not only was his addition awkwardly phrased, with misspellings and conjoined words, it was also misinformed. And he should read the Rolling Stones article before he attempts to make any other changes. I've had this exact discussion with him before. We agreed last time. I'm perplexed as to his renewed obsession. Orane (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Where and when did this agreement take place? And how did you communicate this "only message" to me? By reverting all my changes and a "no" in the edit summary? Metacritic shows all of the reviews, and it's listed atop the ratings template (for a reason?). "Garnered praise" is not only more awkwardly phrased, but it's also less accurate and non-neutral than what I'm suggesting, which is also what the unbiased source Metacritic proves, rather than the Rolling Stone article that seems slanted towards some "Queen of Pop" nominees: 21 received generally positive reviews, or it was "well-received by ...". What is awkward about that? You're blowing this praise thing out of proportion. You sound like a member of the Recording Academy. Accolades are one thing, apart from critical reviews, and this is the first I've heard from you about a "critical momentum". Critics don't revise their reviews after an album starts getting more exposure. Year-end lists and awards like Grammys are not the critical reception. And those minor publications like Toronto Sun (tabloid), Associated Press (news agency), Hollywood Reporter, and Rhapsody (digital music store), don't qualify as the more notable music reviewers. You are basing this on hype and puffery from the album's subsequent exposure, or "commercial momentum". It is what it is, reviews were positive. I tried to get through to you delicately by "proposing" the changes without getting into some ridiculous disagreement, but your tone suggests my changes are plain garbage. And where are the mispellings in my changes? Here are the changes I made through three edits to the article. Please point them out. And it must be more than mispellings you have something legitimate to oppose. I've explained my piece, and since you're dissing my changes completely, I've reached out to other editors who may give me a fair shake. Don't take it personally.

• To your response above, what I'd really like to write is "21 received generally positive reviews from music critics." and follow with "At Metacritic, which assigns..." which would complement the leading statement as a primary source (reaffirmed by its inclusion in the ratings template). The rest of the section justifies the version of the lead-in that I'm proposing. And please don't call me stupid, Mr. "Garnered praise". Dan56 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That part of the sentence was not what i was referring to. You want to say "21 received generally positive reviews from music critics... At Metacritic...the album received an average score of 76 based on 34 reviews, which indicates "generally positive reviews" ". To say twice, in the same sentence, that the album received generally positive reviews, at metacritic, it received generally positive reviews. That's what's repetitive and awkward. Orane (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure it's a little repetitive, but that is the term Metacritic uses, so it should be clarified for readers. 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it says "generally favorable reviews" at Metacritic, but like I said before, what's wrong with either "generally positive reviews" or "well-received by..." in the first sentence? Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan, write whatever you want to write in the article. I don't care. Orane (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Should have brought this up before when addressing "repetitive piece of nonsense". Dan56 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Took out the stuff about Amy Winehouse and other artists not being commercially successful any more

02:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC) There was stuff in this that was written by some A-hole critic called Joe something about how Adele had only become successful because Amy Winehouse had vanished in a puff of smoke and Duffy, Joss Stone and Lily allen all flopped. That's purely an opined statement and one which I feel is very offensive to both Adele and those other artists. Makes out Adele is a usurper who only wins when the competition is down and devalue's her achievements and it also makes out that Duffy, lily Allen, Joss Stone and Kate Nash are old has been's and Amy Winehouse's (Who is dead) place has been taken. Again all of that never mind being offensive are completely opined statements anyway. Whose to say if Amy Winehouse had lived and made a third album 21 would still not have been every bit as successful, what are you telling me all those people who bought 21 only did so because there was no third Amy album? I also fail to see how Adele has exactly taken Amy Winehouse's place as they are two different artists just because they are both soul singers. Has Adele taken Etta James place too she is a female soul singer. Furthermore I fail to see what Lily Allen quitting music has got to do with 21 or Duffy and Kate Nash's second albums being big flops or Joss Stone (whose most recent album was actually successful which is not what this article stated) This is just one critics opinion I might add its a fairly badly thought out sexist opinion and its presented as fact in this article when its not. Before her death Amy Winehouse was still popular Back to Black her last album was a worldwide hit and Adele herself said it paved the way for her so the statement of Amy Winehouse's commercial popularity going down as Adele came about is wrong. Furthermore this A-hole critic failed to mention Susan Boyle. If he was saying that Adele only became popular in the states because there were no other successful British artists any more well what about Susan Boyle who had like two number one albums over there? I took that shit out and quite frankly it should stay out for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossty (talk • contribs) Orane (talk) (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But you can't go around removing content that you disagree with. That's not how Wikipedia works. He is a reputable, published journalist, and his opinions (sadly) carry more weight than yours or mine. But maybe you could try reading it differently. He was simply suggesting that (and to an extent I agree with him) with the lack of staying power of many of these artists, Adele has emerged from the group and has gained more prominence. It's not really a diss to these artists: they really did decline, and their decline really does makes Adele's rise seem all the more impressive. Do you get what I mean? Orane (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But they didn't decline, its not fair to those artists to say that they declined and just failed and their careers went nowhere while Adele went from stength to strength (especially when Amy Winehouse only didn't make music for the last two years of her life because she was a drug addict and an alcoholic who eventually died at a young age from those problems, wow your right that really does make Adele's rise seem more impressive that she outdid someone who couldn't make any more music because they were an addict and are now dead.) Lily Allen officially quit music (round about the time 19 was released and many years before 21) after two very successful albums not the same as her popularity went down because of Adele which is what the article makes out. Amy Winehouse died! she was an addict for the last two years of her life and then died, seriously am I the only one who finds it a bit distasteful to say that someone who can't make anymore music because they are dead doesn't have any staying power compared to someone who is alive and can potentially make music for decades. Its like including something on Jackie Chan's wikipedia page about how he has more staying power than Bruce Lee because Bruce Lee only made a few films before his untimely death, whilst Jackie Chan has made hundreds. There is nothing to suggest Amy Winehouse's popularity had declined while she was alive her last album Back to Black had been a huge hit all over the world, and right before her death she went on big tours around the world like in Brazil where there were thousands in attendance in January of 2011, even her Serbian gig that went badly right before her death drew in audiences of thousands, added to that she also recorded with Tony Bennett and Quincy Jones two hugely successful american artists both of whom sought her out specifically to work with her right before her death. Furthermore Joss Stone has not actually declined her latest album LPI was reasonably successful in fact it's her second most successful album to date in the states and its her fifth one overall I think that proves that she has at least some staying power if by the time of her fifth album she can still be very successful not just in the UK but abroad in America and other places like Germany and Italy where it was also a hit. She was never the biggest seller of all time her career is going on pretty much the way it always did. And as for this Adele has emerged to be more successful, she was always more mainstream than Joss Stone and the others anyway. She won two grammy's for 19 Joss has only won one throughout her entire career Duffy only won one grammy for Rockferry too by the way whilst I don't think Kate Nash was ever even nominated for one Lily Allen I don't think ever won a grammy either (you can't get anymore mainstream than the grammy's) 19 Adele's first album peaked before the release of 21 at number 10 on the billboard charts that's better than Kate Nash's debut album ever did Made of Bricks peaked at number 36, so its not like what he is saying that Adele was the one no one thought would do well but who emerged to become the most successful after they all failed has any basis in fact. Lily quit altogether, Amy fucking died, and Adele was always either as commercial and popular or in most cases more so than the others like Kate Nash or Duffy or Joss Stone both duffy and Joss's albums debuted higher than 19 but they didn't win as many awards as Adele and Adele seemed to enter popular culture more hell she even guest starred in Ugly Betty before the release of 21. Duffy's latest album did flop but that has nothing to do with Adele, neither does Kate Nash's album flopping, Kate Nash by the way wasn't even really a soul singer like Adele or Amy Winehouse she was more of a pop singer. It seems to me the article was making out that Adele emerged to become successful in a time when British female artists popularity was in decline. Again need I mention to the A-hole critic Susan Boyle who had like two number one albums over there, Leona Lewis, or Jessie J who came out at the same time as 21 and has had a number one album over there. What are we going to say Jessie J and Susan Boyle are in decline as well. Who cares if he is a prominent journalist his point of view is badly thought out and a lot of bullshit and sexist. He could just mention Adele's success but he has to put her against other artists who are nothing alike just because they are women, and I think he devalues her accomplishments greatly that way. Furthermore his points as we have seen really do have no basis in fact at all, they are purely opined statements and your not supposed to include stuff like that on wikipedia as though it were fact so that's why I took it out not just because I hate it thought I will admit I do intensly, these critics who pit Adele against other artists always piss me off because they no fuck all about female artists. That dick who coined the phrase the Anti Gaga called Ethan something (who we actually have quoted in this article much to my annoyance) actually said in that very article that Adele unlike Amy Winehouse writes her own songs. What an ass hole Amy Winehouse won awards for her songwriting, but hey if we are including that all of these artists lost their popularity then why not include that ignorant piece of crap too just because it was written by a respected critic does not mean it has to be put in there nor does it mean it is fact. Surely there must be another critic whose mainstream and respected whose opinion we could include, one whose opinion does not disrespect other artists and make out that they are failures and that Adele is merely a usurper. What if Duffy has a major comeback with her third album and becomes big in the states again you will have to take that bit out then wont you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossty (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My first point to you: stop removing content from the article just because you disagree with it. It's not up to you to decide what to keep in the article and what is to be removed. Do not delete the info.

My second point to you is this: if you want a proper response and to engage in meaningful dialogue about the article, I'd advise that you compose a concise (i.e. short) and well-argued point. Don't ramble on for two hundred words. No one is going to read it. I know I'm not. Orane (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But what if what I had to say was quite long? anyway here is a shorter argument for why that stuff should be removed (PS how does anything get removed if users can't take it out, and if no one is going to listen to what they have to say as to why it should be taken out how the hell does anything get removed) The statement about those artist like Lily Allen, Amy Winehouse, Duffy, Kate Nash, Joss Stone not being commercially successful anymore and going into decline and thats why Adele is now successful is not a fact they did not all decline and even if they did their decline has nothing to do with Adeles rise, its not fact its one guys opinion and it's presented as fact in this article when it really shouldn't be, also Kate Nahs is not a soul singer so it's incorrect that way too she's more pop. They didn't decline, Lily Allen quit music after two successful albums (her second one was bigger in the sates than her first so that's hardly an example of her declining) Amy Winehouse is dead, so that's why she is not making any more albums. Also before her death she was hardly in decline considering she went on massive world tours, in brazil and serbia which was a disaster but which stil drew in thousands, she worked with Tony Bennett and Quincy Jones before her death. It's also offensive and disrespectful to Amy's memory to say that she didn't have any staying power compared to Adele considering she died (and died only a couple of months after 21's release) and Adele is still alive and making music, not really a fair contest is it. I am the only one who finds it in bad taste to make out that Amy a dead artist had no staying power, again its not a fact is it how do you if she had lived and hadn't been an addict she wouldn't have had tremendous staying power and gone on for decades. Furthermore Joss Stone has not declined her most recent album which is her fifth was her second most successful in the States do some research on this. Kate Nash and Duffy's albums fair enough flopped but what if Duffy's third album is a big success you will have to take it out then. I don't think it makes Adele's rise seem more impressive no offense that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What it's more impressive she outdid Lily Allen who quit altogether, or Amy Winehouse who died. Devalues her rise as it makes out that it only occurred because the others took the money and fled or fucking died.

The point is you are making arguments based on personal view points (as you are not, I assume, a published author/critic with expertise in the music industry), not wikipedia guidelines. Specifically read and gain an understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states:

"Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable."

It goes without saying that the same rule applies for removing content. No matter how convinced you are that something is not true, do not remove it if it is verifiable. Wikipedia aims to collect verifiable information on the subjects it presents. Commentary on 21, positive or negative, is to be presented from reliable, published sources. That being said, if you find reliable sources that contradict or have an alternative view point to the current statements being made, then by all means add them, but don't remove sourced content simply because you disagree with it. Any perceived disrespect towards other artists in comparison is completely irrelevant to the article, unless another reputable source specifically says it is. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback but I don't think I was just making arguments based on my viewpoint. I will admit I do despise the critics point of view and it shows rather badly, but still I did present facts that contradicted his point and proved even if it was verifiable it should not be presented as fact which it is in the context of the article. The article says "Joseph Vinney saw their subsequent commercial decline" THEY DID NOT ALL HAVE A COMMERCIAL DECLINE that is a complete incorrect statement one which is blatantly contradicted by other wikipedia articles and numerous other sources. Lily Allen was more popular than ever when she quit music, not the same thing as a commercial decline. Joss Stone is still going as strong as she ever did her fifth album (which was released in 2011) is her second most successful album in the states and it says so on its wikipedia page. Amy Winehouse was still amazingly popular prior to her death, and I might add after her death she just won a grammy for goodness sake and her recent album ranked very highly in charts around the world. Read the wikipedia article on Lioness Hidden Treasures and you will see it says that it was actually her highest ever debut in the states so you can't really say she has had a commercial decline. Highest debut in the states is actually the opposite of commercial decline, wikipedia contradicts itself by including that they had commercial decline on this page and then on other pages mention how successful they still are. Kate Nash and Duffy okay they have had a commercial decline, but Kate Nash was never as big as Adele in the states anyway like the article says and facts not my opinion back that up. Her first album did not rank as highly (read the articles on both of them) nor did it win as many awards in the states as Adele's first album, also she is not really a soul singer, neither is Lily Allen the same way Adele and Amy are so to have them in amongst the british soul invasion is also incorrect and should be taken out. I don't see why just because its verified by a critic it should be included, its still just one guy's opinion it can be taken out no problem. A critics opinion is not fact, just because they are respected doesn't matter if what they are saying isn't true. To be honest most of these critics no shit about what they are talking about anyway. Ethan something who dubbed Adele the anti Gaga said Adele writes her own songs "unlike Amy Winehouse". Amy Winehouse won multiple awards for her song writing that's just flat out ignorance it says so on her wikipedia page she won awards for her lyrics that she was a singer songwriter, that she wrote moast of her own songs. But suppose if I was to include that quote on the article and it was verified as it came from him a major critic, would it then have to stay in even though it is completely untrue and is contradicted by facts included on other wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossty (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much... another policy is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. In other words, since every article is under constant editing, with the same scrutiny of WP:V we can't base arguments based on other articles (in most cases). But like I said before, if you find sources which contradict Viney, they can just as easily be included.

After reading the source "Amy Winehouse disappeared in a haze of smoke, Lily Allen took the money and ran whilst Kate Nash and Duffy dropped off the radar after two poorly received second albums. Adele has been given a clear runway and the chance to stake her claim as the UK’s leading solo female artist," I see now that "commercial decline" isn't the critic's exact meaning. Prior to her death, Amy was more famous for her troubling personal life than her music and Lily simply left the music scene. I'll change the wording but the source is still valid in Adele's overtaking her contemporaries. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How was Amy more famous for her personal life, over 15 million albums sold worldwide, directly inspired (by their own admission) Lady Gaga, Paloma Faith, V V Brown, Florence Welch, Jessie J and oh yes ADELE HERSELF (look on line and you will see many interviews where they say that I am not just saying that because they are all women), 5 grammy's in a single night, tons of other awards, Ivor Novello awards, Brit Awards how exactly was she better known for her personal life? Also why mention Adele has overtaken them at all, its just grouping them together because they are women, Kate Nash and Lily Allen are not even soul singers, female singers aren't a genre. It's like saying on David Bowie's page he has outdone Hendrix because he sold more and grouping them together because they are both men or on Frank Sinatra's page saying that he has out done Bing Crosby because he sold more. You would never ever even see anything like this on Paul Mcartney's page saying that he was the leading Beatle who had outdone the rest because he had sold the most as a solo act, imagine the hell to pay from John Lennons fans if that were to happen. It's also debatable that she has outdone them too I might add, just because she has sold more and broken records, that doesn't mean everything. David Bowie did sell way more than Hendrix and was very influential but you could argue that Hendrix still had the far bigger impact and influence on popular culture than David Bowie as he made the guitar into a major instrument and there are arguably more musicians who cite him as an influence. There are many ways a person can have an impact its not just sales and really I think it is just someone's opinion to say Adele or Amy Winehouse or someone else like Susan Boyle is the leading British female artist (As if there ever could be a leading British female artist again British female artist is not a genre).I really don't like having to read about how all these people like Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen who did so much for modern music are nothing's now compared to Adele just because some A-hole critic who has never done anything for modern music said so. But at least it has been changed now so that the article doesn't say that they had a commercial decline which was completely inaccurate. But I still don't see why we have to include that whole thing about her having outdone them, that is purely an opinion and again it does devalue Adele's accomplishments as it makes it appear that she is only a success because they are not around, by the way there are plenty of other female singers who are successful around right now and at the time of 21's release like Susan Boyle who is still having number one albums or Jessie J or Florence Welch so that whole it was the absence of successful British female singers that allowed her to emerge thing is rubbish too, because there are plenty of them around now and many sources not just other wikipedia articles will back that up. Amy Winehouse may have inspired Adele but they are nothing alike (and the only reason they are being compared is because they are women two male artists as different as them wouldn't be getting compared on wikipedia) and I think as lioness and other successful female artists currently over in America such as Jessie J and Susan Boyle prove there can be more than one successful female artist at any given time. I would also as an Adele fan like to read something that didn't compare her to every other female artist who has ever lived just once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossty (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The information is relevant and is not, contrary to what you may think, defamatory. It's a critic's brutally honest conclusion, and that of a professional one and means nothing very personal towards Adele or other artists you have mentonned. I do not understand why you went on about things that have nothing to do with the actual article addition. Hope that helps. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is insulting to those other artists. They are being called losers who were eclipsed by Adele. ADELE DID NOT ECLIPSE AMY WINEHOUSE, LILY ALLEN,DUFFY ETC Amy Winehouse is still just as popular today as she always was she just won a grammy, Lily Allen quit (And she still maintains a loyal and devoted fanbase) and Duffy's fall didn't have a single thing to do with Adele in any way shape or form. I really want this stupid bit taken off I don't see why Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen who did so much for modern music should be dubbed second stringers that nobody cares about any more just because of a critic who has never done anything for music. It is not a critics brutally honest opinion (it's also not fact in any way shape or form so I fail to see why it should be) what it is is a stupid shallow critic who groups female singers together just because they are women's opinion. I don't care if Adele sold more that does not mean she has eclipsed anybody. Why would she need to eclipse anyone what there isn't room for more than one female artist? Seriously answer me this Frank Sinatra sold waaay more albums than Bing Crosby, should we then put on his page that Bing Crosby is a loser and Sinatra is the leading crooner and noone cares about Crosby any more and that he is less of a singer and less iconic than Sinatra is now. Of course we never would do anything like that about Sinatra and Crosby because they are both guys and it seems to be only women that the media loves to pit against each other even when they are nothing alike in anyway, style, music, persona anything. By the way I think its in the most appalling taste to use Winehouse above all else as an example of every single female artist of all time being outdone by Adele considering she is FUCKING DEAD. How can you people think that that makes Adele's rise seem more impressive, that she outdid someone who is dead. It's a huge insult to both of them makes out Amy's place has been taken and there is nothing she can do about it because she is well DEAD (her and Adele even if they were rivals can not possibly be compared any more considering one is DEAD, not exactly a fair contest is it, its like me getting into a fight with Bruce Lee). It also makes out that Adele only succeeded because Amy died which is total rubbish, and is not a fact not in any way. There is no need to mention it THEY WERE NEVER IN COMPETITION it's just because this lousy critic who didn't have the brains to say anything intelligent about 21 lumped them together because they were women we are having this discussion. I hate these critics like him and that one who went on about Adele being the Anti Gaga they really get on my tits. They constantly go on about Adele doing stuff for young women and about how Lady Gaga has had a bad influence on the way people look at female singers, and girl power, whilst they are the biggest sexists who ever lived. They are the villains not Lady Gaga (which is how she is presented in this article), they pit women against each other just because they are women, they make every female singer in competition with one another, and they try and undermine female artists like Amy Winehouse, Duffy and Lady Gaga's (who are totally unrelated to Adele) great accomplishments. Hell they even undermine Adele's by making out she is only big because Amy is dead and Lily quit and ran away. Hate these critics so much and their opinions are not fact how the hell does Lily quitting music have any factor in 21's success or how does Amy's untimely death have any factor in it's success either. I still think it should be removed as it is not a fact, it's just one guys opinion and it is just offensive to those other artists one of whom is deceased.

Insulting isn't defamatory though. I partially agree with your POV, but editorial POV should not exist on a Wikipedia article. Note to Journalist however: Sputnikmusic is a questionable source in terms of FAC reliability. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Commas after dates

In the US, writers tend to follow dates, times and years with a comma (e.g. In March 2008[comma], On January 21, 2008[comma]). I'm not quite sure if this is usually done outside North America. The article is written in Brit. Eng., and I've seen most FAs without commas in such areas. The commas are actually being deprecated in the US as well, in which they are only placed after full mdy dates per Chicago's MOS. In British English articles, I do not see commas in eg "On 11 January 2012 the album yada yada..." or "In April 2009 20-year-old Adele..." I didn't want to be too bold and start removing them, but people are invited to this discussion if they are in agreement or disagreement. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel. I trust your judgment. Orane (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fourth in Finland in 2011

Hi! Sorry to be a bit rude, but it seriously pisses me off to have to put back the correct year-end chart position of Finland time after time. "Myydyimmät ulkomaiset albumit vuonna 2011"[4] means "the best-selling albums by foreign artists of 2011" and "myydyimmät kotimaiset albumit vuonna 2011"[5] means "the best-selling albums by domestic artists of 2011". So. Check the figures, it's 44,000 and that's the fourth-best in 2011. Not the best. Period. Thank you! -- Frous (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Please add that 21 is the most downloaded album ever in Germany with 140,000 digital copies being sold as of November 2011. source--79.199.55.188 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The link provided links to a press release. Press releases are not considered independent, reliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 20:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See Also

Can we put "List of Best Selling Albums in the United States" in the see also list. Linked to here this URL: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States"

It seems strange not to have the U.S. listing, but to have all the other country listings. Then to have a limited list that only includes Nielsen ratings.

Why not give people the easy opportunity to click this also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.135.7.80 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

"its 23-week tenure atop the UK Albums Chart is the longest by a female solo artist"

You should delete the word female - it's the longest-running No 1 album by a solo artist in the UK, period (beating Elvis Presley with GI Blues = 22 wks).

86.26.186.190 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.everyhit.com/recordalb.html

Scroll down to "Album with Most Weeks At Number One (in total)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.186.190 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

21 now 5th best selling album of all time in the UK

Beating Thriller [6]. Please update article. 86.133.214.35 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

stuffabout you

when were you burn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.166.134 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting the removal of unnecessary information.

Under "Commercial Performance", paragraph 2: "With 21 spending 23 weeks at number one and 19 spending a week at number one, Adele has had more weeks at number one than David Bowie, Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, and Eminem achieved in their entire careers and has had more weeks at number one than two of The Beatles' classic albums (A Hard Day's Night and With The Beatles)"

This is unnecessary information contributing little but excess and frankly useless information that compares across artists, and it should be removed. We have an article for most weeks at number one for anybody who is interested, but it really makes no sense to have this line in here; none of these artists have a close affiliation with Adele or 21. Billiesteen (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Argentina

Please add that 21 received 3x Platinum in Argentina! http://www.sonymusic.com.ar/DetNoticia.asp?Gac_Cod=15190 --93.229.98.252 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

Please add that 21 is the 7th all-time best selling album ever, the longest running album at No. 1 with 35 weeks and that it received 18x Platinum in Ireland...source--79.199.21.46 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That source does not include the information you've suggested adding. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the right source is this one. --Stee888 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Track list

The first UK, Poland and Bulgaria limited edition bonus track "If It Hadn't Been For Love" (track 12) is a cover by The Steeldrivers. To one of the composers could be added a interwiki to Chris_Stapleton. I'm writing this due to lack of writing rights. Saemikneu (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

MusicOMH review

I don't think we consider this reliable, especially for a former FAC. Till 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable in citing what? It's a critic's review. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an unreliable critic's review, as the writer holds no qualifications as an expert critic. Please see this, "We're always looking for enthusiastic music, film, opera and theatre fans who would like to write - regardless of age or location." Till 23:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but was this source brought into question at FAC? Also, Metacritic uses it in their scores, so wouldnt that qualify it in anyway? Since I've got you here, I made a revision here to the "Influences and sound" section, which I felt had a flimsy OR paragraph about the "media" calling 21 a "soul album". Since this is likely to be commented on, I thought I'd introduce it here and now. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the writer. For example, we can trust this reviewer as they studied music in university or w/e, and are classified as a 'features editor'. Whereas the reviewer for 21 is a 'contributing writer' and thus not reliable. Will take a look at the soul album issue. Till 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly correct. Contributing writer or "features editor" does not reference credibility. There are many freelance writers etc with the appropriate experience and credentials who only "contribute" certain pieces to a publication, or do not write as often as other writers. That's why they may be labeled "contributing writers". The term doesn't irrevocably designate a writer "unreliable" and unqualified. Orane (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Is it me or is every contribution of mine here automatically reverted? It seems hard to get something through here; had to propose above just to clean up the POV critics section. Journalist reverted my change here, claiming that the radio personality's minority opinion that the album isnt soul is valid b/c CNN interview him (looked through the article and he was the only one who disagreed) and claimed that the sentence in my revision didnt make sense. There was only one person whose disagreement was noted after the line "critics disagree with" it being a soul album, and it wasnt even a critic. The Slate sentence is appropriate following "British soul"; it gives context to British artists performing an African-American music genre. What didnt make sense in my revision? The previous revision also had a confusing line about the album being "branded by the media as a 'soul album'"? What media? The sources citing that line were critics sources! Doesnt any of this seem like original research? I'm at fault for not notifying the article's main contributors directly, but I explained myself here and through my 1st edit summary when introducing the changes. Anyway, here's my original revision. It's not like anyone was busy improving that section, so why dismiss any attempt? Dan56 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont mean to dismiss contributions of the past contributor(s) to this article, but this "influences and sound" section has to be reexamined just a bit. Wont bother to reitorate my edit summaries, so... (after the aforementioned "soul album" revision) 2nd revision, 3rd revision, 4th (failed verification; something about instruments contributing to "exploration of blues and soul") Dan56 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Made further changes to your additions. "British soul" isn't a general classification (i.e. genre) of music, so it shouldn't be added. The album is pop and R&B, and borrows soul elements in its lyrics and vocal stylings. And for the record, Larry Flick (the "radio announcer" who was interviewed by CNN) is a pop music critic and former senior editor of Billboard magazine. Google him. Thanks for your additions to the article, however. Orane (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary R&B is derived from soul music. There's rhythm and blues, which is the article that R&B redirects to, ("R&B" is also known to be an umbrella term for all black music), and contemporary R&B, basically soul music in the aftermath of hip hop. I've heard of indie rock being referenced as "indie", but Indie music isnt a genre (is major label a genre?), and if it is, then according to who is it a genre on this album? I still dont understand what backs up the idea that 21 is "essentially pop and R&B, but borrows elements from the American soul genre". Where in the AV Club or Paste article does it mentioned that the album borrows from soul, but is pop and R&B? The Economist article does not mention the album, but perhaps this line could be included instead: Adele is a "pop" singer "who embrace[s] or borrow[s] elements of soul, an American genre originated in the 1950s that grew out of the blues, R&B and African-American church music."? Instead of the first statement, which cant be substantiated, how about concrete quotes like in this revision? Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I also dont understand why you dont find British soul to be an acceptable genre (but "indie music" is?). Sources for it are available, and it's just as valid as neo soul, blue-eyed soul, or Madchester, all of which are accepted elsewhere. And if your contention (or that of the Slate and Economist articles) is that it can't be soul music because the British are not culturally tied to the context of soul music (the African-American experience), then wouldnt "British soul" be all the more appropriate? Rock and roll was originally developed by African Americans, but the style ultimately became appropriated by white artists, for example. Dan56 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to step in and give my opinion on here and I would like to remind everyone that we are to work as a community and not as a rivals. No one owns articles on here regardless of who the main contributor to the page is. Everyone is free to edit.

1. A source in question should always be discussed in length and with consensus but if a sources has been used on more then one article then it is reliable regardless of who wrote the review and their status on the source. The source is reliable.
2. I'd like to remind everyone that we do not want to show so much "I don't like this edit". That is unfair to other editors. If there is a source or sources that can be produced to show the genre then there is no reason for it not to be added.

I hope this helps and I hope that all who contribute to this page can work together and get along. This is not a warzone and all contributions should be welcomed with open arms. I hope this helps out. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 03:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)