The article for Electra Heart by Marina and the Diamonds recently passed its good article review after my rewriting earlier in April and May. The article now thoroughly discusses its conception, musical direction, accompanying music videos (which were essential in the development of this promotional campaign), and unbiased summaries of critical reviews and sales performance. It is fully supported by reputable sources with inline citations where they are needed. I believe the article is ready for FA consideration, and will be readily available to respond to any comments that come about during this process! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: WikiRedactor. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The composition section just reads like another reception section. It's not the place where you should describe tracks as "mediocre electropop". There are no musical samples in the article, nor are there clearly labelled external links for the songs/music videos. - hahnchen 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Hahnchen: Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving some comments; I replaced the picture of Marina in the "Composition" section with samples of "Primadonna" and "Power & Control", and replaced portions of the section with more in-depth analysis. I also created an "External links" section that features links to all of the music videos released for this era. When you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on these revisions. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm confused by the article's organisation. It starts with the album's recording, and then jumps forward to the release of promo videos and singles. That same section then describes the artwork, before the next one talks about the music. Then we come back to a repetitive ("On <date>, <video name> was released") three-paragraph look at the music videos, sourced almost entirely to the YouTube videos themselves, i.e. primary sources.
Then we come to another section where we look at the singles and the videos. A critical review follows, and then there's a detailed look at the chart performance (already looked at for the singles previously in Release... and Singles...), which is anyway elegantly presented as a table later.
There is simply too much back-and-forth here. All you need to do for an album article is to present the information chronologically—Background and recording; Composition; Release and promotion; Reception. The problem here is that the promotion and commercial-performance stuff is all over the place, spread across the article in four sections. Bring them (videos, artwork, singles, tours and chart performance) together chronologically in one "Release and promotion" section (subsectioned if needed), and you can get rid of all lot of the repetition and back-and-forth.—indopug (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Indopug: Thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. I've merged the "Release and artwork" and "Singles and promotion" sections into one streamline "Release and promotion" section, which is chronologically divided into "Music videos", "Singles", and "Tour" subheadings. In the process, I was able to remove some redundant information, which gives the article a better flow. I have also tried to mix up some of the more repetitive phrases in the "Music videos" section. When you have the chance, I'd appreciate it if you could take a took and get back to me with your further concerns. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Some things I noticed real quick before I take a thorough look at the article:
On the certifications table, insert the parameter "nosales=yes" on Certification Table Bottom as neither certification is based on sales.
No year-end charts for other countries?
Unfortunately not! I double-checked the charts websites for territories where it originally got a weekly chart position, but I couldn't find anything, not even in the UK!
Repetitive use of "Writing for..." well as "from..." on the critical reception section. Some suggested alternatives: "[reviewer name] of [name of source] said/note/etc." or "[reviewer name] editor [name of source] said/wrote/etc."Erick (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll have another look tomorrow at the article for another check. Erick (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a Support on everything else except for the prose. Not because it's bad or anything, but because I'm not an expert on that area. Erick (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There are duplicate links throughout the body of the article. Run a script so you can fix them.
My apologies, would you mind showing me where I can find this?
Electra Heart is the second studio album by Welsh recording artist Marina and the Diamonds; it was released on 27 April 2012 by 679 Artists and Atlantic Records. ---> Can we get rid of the ; and just merge the sentences?
Contemporary music critics could be cut to music critics only.
Nonetheless, the project was ---> I find Nonetheless redundant here.
My idea was to include a brief sample of each of the three singles (all of which are 65 kbps or lower), which all mildly vary in style. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. But all three samples do not follow WP:SAMPLE. For example, the sample of "Primadonna" is 30 secs, but original song length is 3:41 so the maximum length for the sample is only 22 secs. — Simon (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out; I've shortened all of the samples to 20 seconds in length. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think the first para of "Background and production" is very quote heavy, especially so due to the inclusion of a quote box. I think you can break down the tumblr thing quote and paraphrase a few bits.
I paraphrased several of the longer quotes.
" it was initially planned to become a three-piece film inspired by American culture in the 1970s, although it eventually evolved into her second studio album" - Does the source really mention this? I am sorry I haven't read the entire thing but I think she meant that the album is supposed to flow like a film?
I clarified the language a bit, hopefully this straightens things out.
" Diamandis stated that Electra Heart was influenced by recording artist Madonna, sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, and queen Marie Antoinette; she described the former as being "fearless" and felt that "it shows that [she doesn't] want to just have fame and success. [She wants] to be a successful artist."" - Here 'former' would refer to both Madonna and Marilyn. Hence you will have to replace former as she seems to be talking about Madge only.
Yes this article is very quote heavy. I think it needs some paraphrases.
I redid the parts of the "Background and composition" section that you recommended, and I also paraphrased some pieces in the "Composition" section.
Shouldn't the release table of the music videos also contain sources?
I removed that altogether because it looks like it was added in recently that I had not realized earlier.
" although opined that Lana Del Rey was more successful in discussing "love, identity, femininity and America" - this seems wrong. I think it should be 'opining'
The sentences starts off with "Kitty Empire assumed xyz", so I think that the second portion of the sentence should use the past tense of "opine", although I could be mistaken!
How does the quote in the commercial performance section relate to its chart performance? It seems to be more related to public reaction. I suggest incorporating it into the Critical reception section or somewhere and paraphrasing some things she said to give it a little more weight.
I paraphrased what she said towards the end of the "Commercial performance" section and tied it in more directly with its "under-performance" in the United Kingdom, which I think gives the quote a bit more meaning in the section.
I hope you have not directly taken anything from a source without changing the words or putting it in quotes. I suggest doing a run through just to check.
I went through the entire article to make sure that I addressed the excessive quote-farming that you pointed out, and made sure to paraphrase longer quotes throughout.
As soon as these changes are addressed I shall give my support. The only major short coming seems to be the overuse of quotations. Otherwise it's a great article and very interesting to read indeed. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@WonderBoy1998: Thanks so much for your feedback! I believe I've addressed all of your comments above, although if I have missed something you would like to see corrected by all means let me know! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay these changes have been addressed well. Just one more thing I forgot to mention is the constant use of "throughout" throughout the article lol. Also this sentence "According to James Christopher Monger from AllMusic, the following track "Primadonna" blended elements of Swedish recording artist Lykke Li with styles reminiscent of British band Coldplay; the pop track blends a "surging beat" with an "anti-chorus structure"" contains repetition of "blend" and "elements of Swedish recording artist Lykke Li" doesn't really sound right. Try using words like "inspire" or why don't you simply make it " blended with styles reminiscent of British band Coldplay and Swedish recording artist Lykke Li" --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@WonderBoy1998: I've mixed up the usage of "throughout" across the article and reworded the sentence that you pointed out above; please let me know what you think of this revision. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I saw the difference between revisions and I am happy with the article now. There is just one place where it mentions "during the album" which sounds incorrect. I'm sure you'll amend it, hence I hasten to support. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Thanks for stopping by, when you have the opportunity please let me know what you think of these corrections! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well done! As for Pitchfork, I was saying that it should be linked in review box and in reception section. However, I just went and fixed that myself and removed extra links to Katy Perry and The Guardian :P. I'll finish with these general notes:
When using multiple refs to the same source (i.e. multiple MTV refs), only the first instance such a ref is used should link the work/publisher
If an author/critic of a ref being used has his/her own Wikipedia article, link to that author's article in the ref by using the "authorlink" field (but only in the first instance this author is used for a ref). If you aren't sure how to use this, I can set it up for you.
No problem! One additional thing I noticed is how "Entertainmentwise" needs to be replaced/removed. After that, I will officially support. Might make minor copyedits myself at some point, but nothing to worry about. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this nomination today, you could have asked me to comment. :) Anyway:
In the lead section: "consequently" → "subsequently" (you're implying that she started recording pop music because of her producers)
You should try reducing the "1;2" sentences. There are no problems with those sentences, however you could try omitting the semi-colon and utilizing the gerund more frequently. (almost all the sections in the article contain this sort of sentence)
All the file samples state, in their fair use rationale, that they're all lead singles from Electra Heart... also, they're a bit lacking, they should be stronger (talk a bit about their sound; they're important to demonstrate the album's electropop sonority to the readers, etc). Moreover, are three samples needed (varying mildly isn't justification)? Maybe the sample of "Power and Control" is unnecessary...
Done, although I removed "How to Be a Heartbreaker" instead.
"[...] has been described [...]" (cite The National ref next to the end of this sentence)
"incorporated prominent elements of new wave and indie rock music." → "incorporated a new wave and indie rock influenced sonority" (I think "prominent elements" is a bit weird) [this is just a suggestion]
Is MuuMuse reliable? (this affects a lot of content)
MuuMuse has been discussed in The New York Times, while Stern himself has also contributed to MTV Buzzworthy. It think it is alright to keep its use limited to two song commentaries and an opinion about the album cover, although if this is a sticking point I will certainly find another citation!
"blended" → "blends"
The first two sentences of Composition are structured like "The song/style/lyrics, which critic X [...]". Spice up one of the sentences.
"Cragg also classified" (remove also, it's not necessary to the sentence)
"The sixth track "The State of Dreaming" was seen as a more solemn offering from the record by Monger" (very, very ambiguous sentence. Was "The State of Dreaming" seen by Monger as a solemn offering; was the song seen as a solemn offering by an unspecified entity from an album by Monger; was the song seen from the album by Monger [the list could go on...])
In case you confirm that MuuMuse is an RS: did Diamandis confirm that "The Valley of the Dolls" drew inspiration from the movie? If not, please clarify ["according to (editor) from MuuMuse"]
"placed emphasis" → "[...], according to him, places [...]"
"the clip itself reflects on the earlier music videos" (clarify that it contains excerpts from the videos)
"with Diamandis having tweeted "Goodbye, Electra Heart!" on 8 August" (and when was the video released?)
"; however," (change the semi-colon to a comma)
"acknowledged" → "considered"/"opined"
"Representing The Observer, Kitty Empire assumed that Diamandis' collaborations with Dr. Luke and Greg Kurstin were evidence of "a big label push"; she compared the disc to the works of Perry and Britney Spears, although opined that Lana Del Rey was more successful in discussing "love, identity, femininity and America."" (break the sentence in two from the semi-colon. Did she compare the album positively or negatively to the works of the other artists? If it was negatively, you need to remove the 'although'.
"nearly inducing "physical pain"," (a bit strange)
"under-performance" (remove the hyphen)
"which resulted in its relative under-performance" (another ambiguous sentence. perhaps ", thus resulting in a relative underperformance"
"; in contrast, she felt that her American audience was more receptive of Electra Heart and her evolving public image" (make this a new sentence)
Sorry for the big list! Let me know when you correct those points, and feel free to respond to any of those if you feel they are incorrect. — prism△ 20:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Prism: Thanks for your suggestions, please check back to make sure that I've addressed all your comments to your satisfaction! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Just one more question: when talking about "The State of Dreaming"'s video, why do you say "effectively" (it's a bit non-NPOV) and say that Diamandis' "alter-egos" are displayed? The only reference you give is the video itself and that's not enough for that. However I do trust you and I won't let this get in the way of this FAC. I give you my support; brilliant work. — prism△ 22:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@Prism: I've added another reference for the video and removed the word "effectively"; thank you for your support! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Electra Heart is the second studio album by Welsh recording artist Marina and the Diamonds, released on 27 April 2012 by 679 Artists and Atlantic Records. Diamandis..." -- I don't think you can just go from "Marina and the Diamonds" to "Diamandis" like that. The uninitiated have to check the Marina and the Diamonds link to find out that what appears to be a band name is in fact her stage name and they shouldn't have to. One way around it might be to recast as "Electra Heart is the second studio album Welsh singer-songwriter Marina Diamandis, recording as Marina and the Diamonds, released on 27 April 2012 by 679 Artists and Atlantic Records. Diamandis..."
Pls review your duplicate links -- you can use this script to highlight them.
Wow, what a nifty little tool! Thanks so much for pointing this out to me.
Has anyone reviewed image licensing?
I'm not sure, although the only two images are the album artwork and a picture of Diamandis that has been released by a Wikimedia Commons user under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
@Ian Rose: Thanks for your suggestions; I believe I've addressed all of your comments above, although by all means let me know if there is anything else to be done! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
All good, especially your variation on my suggestion for the opening. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The use of the album cover is accepted through the guidelines established for US fair use of artwork; it is also of reduced size and would not be able to affect the intended commercial outcomes of Atlantic Records and its subsidiaries.
The second image, uploaded by a trustworthy user on Wikipedia Commons, has a free license and its use is also accepted. — prism△ 16:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)