I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fits the FA criteria. For background, the article is a Gold-certified album by Christian rock band Third Day. It is one of their more successful efforts and featured collaborations from Lacey Mosley and Chris Daughtry as well as being produced by mainstream producer Howard Benson. I think the article is of featured-article quality and it would be a nice addition to our featured article collection, as well as WikiProject Christian Music's third FA success. To specify on why I think this passes each criteria, I'll note why I think it passes each individually:
1(a) Well-written - The article passed GA and was peer-reviewed; any issues that slipped through either can easily be fixed.
1(b) Comprehensive - The article covers all aspects of the album; background, recording, composition, reception, sales, and singles.
1(c) Well-researched - The article is cited at all relevant and important sections, and features citations from reliable publications like Billboard and CCM Magazine.
1(d) Neutral - The article is represented fairly, noting some negative points critics made in reviews even though the reviews were very positive.
1(e) Stable - The article has not encountered an edit war and does not change on a day-to-day basis.
2(a) A lead - The lead is three paragraphs long and represents the most crucial aspects: recording, commercial success, and critical success.
2(b) Appropriate structure - Sections are divided into section headings when required.
2(c) Consistent citations - All citations are made using citation templates and have a uniform date structure.
3 Media - Three images are in the article, two of which being free-use images and the non-free image, the album cover, being covered by fair-use guidelines on album covers.
4 Length - The article is 2,616 words long, reasonable for an article on such an album.
If you have any concerns or issues to point out I will be happy to address or correct the problem. Thank you for your time. ToaNidhiki05 00:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Review by Royalbroil: support with the following comments:
I like how the Billboard and R&R charts are cited since 2008/2009 is the time when R&R was fading from prevalence being replaced by Billboard (who bought it out).
Please cite this sentence - They also chose to work with mainstream producer Howard Benson, who had worked on projects with other bands that Third Day had enjoyed; Benson had wanted to work with Third Day because he liked the quality of Mac Powell's vocals.
Good job of selecting the right sources for professional reviews.
The first two sentences in the "Release and sales" section should have inline citations.
Comprehensiveness is the right length and all of the sources are reliable. Royalbroil 03:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
To address the concerns:
Thanks, it is really interesting just how quick R&R went from a great source of charts to being out of print.
Comment by The Devil's Advocate: As I said in the GA review I think expanding on the Awards section would be important before this could be considered FA status. I also noted then that there should be more paraphrasing because the article is a little too heavy on direct quotations. The packaging section could also do with a little expansion, though not much, and rewriting, especially with the repetitive use of the word "location" in that section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Not much I can expand on awards, but I could merge it with critical reception perhaps and make 'Critical reception and awards'. I'll see what I can do on the rest. ToaNidhiki05 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I slightly rewrote and beefed up the packaging section, adding their bassist's input on the art as well as his opinion on similarities between it and Radiohead's "Hail to the Thief" cover. As for direct quotes, I removed some but I'm not sure there's much more I can remove. The important parts in background that are direct quotes would be rather difficult to paraphrase, while the reviews are also mostly direct quotes. I'll check again but I'm not sure if there is much more to be removed. 19:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. 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, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Lead needs a complete rewrite. It is far too focused on dull, quantitative, factual information like detailed chart positions, sales figures and awards. It mentions nothing about the making of the record, the music and lyrics in it, and what critics considered to be good about it. See In Utero (album) for a good album-article lead.—indopug (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I do agree with this objection. Seems the lead could use some improvement to move away from sales data.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean, analysis on background, lyrics and music is lacking and it focuses a lot on technical aspects. There is enough content in the article for a three-paragraph lede, so I'll try and make the first one analysis on background, the second on lyrics/music, and the third on sales/singles. Would you be willing to change to a 'Support' !vote if I were to do that? ToaNidhiki05 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
On a further note regarding the lede, the information about Benson's religious beliefs should be cited directly in the lede since it is contentious BLP material. See WP:LEADCITE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for noting such a critical issue. ToaNidhiki05 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a copy of the album as a physical CD, but where would I find the number?
It would depend on the album - some have it on the spine, or in the booklet, or on the back. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I see it on the spine, added. ToaNidhiki05 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Are there any specific areas I can fix? I'm using citation templates so it shouldn't be too hard to fix.
For example, compare FNs 9 and 13, or 16, or 20. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
...I see what you mean. I've fixed them all, I believe. ToaNidhiki05 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
As to the first source, keep in mind that context is required - while the opinion of a source such as The Christian Manifesto might not be the best source for, say, a Lady GaGa album, it is perfectly fine for a Christian album such as this one. To get to a bigger point, per WP:RS the TCM review is an 'opinion piece' - the reviewer, C. E'Jon Moore (and also main editor of the site), has had his work published in magazines not related to the TCM site. While it may technically qualify as a 'self-published' source according to WP:RS, since TCM calls itself a blog, as the author of the review (C. E'Jon Moore) has published work in the relevant field of Christianity published in third-party magazines, it can be used per that policy. I'm absolutely shocked you question JFH as a RS; if you were to ask anyone in the Christian Music WikiProject they would tell you it is one of the most reliable sources in the field of Christian music. It is more reliable than TCM and I'll point out that among other things, JFH is not a blog or self-published source as it has editorial control and oversight among all reviews, has had dozens of interviews with notable Christian and mainstream artists. It also has a bit more credibility due to its length of activity - 15 years is quite a while for a Christian review website, as the CCM movement didn't even start until the late-70s or early 80s. ToaNidhiki05 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not in the Christian Music WikiProject, so you'll have to be a bit patient. Can you source Moore's work in other magazines? And JFH's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't found much on Moore aside from contributor status at Northstar Magazine, the official magazine of Rochester College. The citation isn't essential to the article so it could be removed. As for JFH, this is from their 'About us' page:
The JFH Staff writers adhere to strict journalistic standards. Our editorial staff is independent of any artist/record label/management firm. All artist interviews are arranged through the artist's management/publicist/label and are recorded and transcribed for true accuracy.
I have found some additional sources that will help you in expanding the article further.
These two focus on the album in general but touch on subjects regarding the album that do not yet appear to be addressed: .
This one is a press release from their label's parent company that goes into some detail on the Dove Awards they won so you can expand on that material: .
Lastly, the first source used in the article seems to redirect now to some other page. Here is a version of the article from Reuters: .--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Great sources - I've implemented the awards one and expanded the awards bit. I'll find a place to implement the two ones regarding Third Day in the mainstream.
Thanks for noting the last source issue, I've fixed it to note the article must be found manually on that page. The Reuters version works fine but there are some things the citation covers that the Reuters port doesn't. ToaNidhiki05 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Quotes and lede
I have said before that I think there should be more paraphrasing, but to note some specific issues the Reception section overall could use more paraphrasing, but the quotes from the Allmusic and Jesus Freak Hideout reviews are especially in need of paraphrasing. I am not suggesting you not provide direct quotes from the reviews, but you should try to use your own words as much as possible. Another part that should mostly be paraphrased is the description of Mosley's recording session.
Agreed, I'll see what I can do. UPDATE: I've added more paraphrasing on both, removing much of the direct quotes. There is still some but there isn't as much of it. ToaNidhiki05 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems there is enough material to expand the lede a bit. I would like to see a larger lede for a prospective featured article. I have some other concerns, but I am going to try to address those by editing the article directly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer a larger lede myself. I could expand on the singles a bit without going into too much detail. ToaNidhiki05 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delegate note -- open for 7 weeks and apparently no activity for about a month, I can't see any prospect of consensus to promote... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.