Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Syro/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 [1].

Syro

Nominator(s): Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth studio album by electronic musician Richard D. James under his Aphex Twin pseudonym. I am nominating this featured article for review because it is a well-written article that I feel is worthy of becoming a featured article. I believe that it fits all of the FA criteria. The article was recently promoted to good article status on February 27, as well. Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is a good start, but the article falls short in a few fundamental areas:

1a: It is not well-written at this time. Random examples:

Basic grammar: "He noted that by rearranging equipment—and often keeping the same setup for around just five minutes—it allowed him to explore more writing possibilities"
Lack of clarity and detail: "Describing the overall process as 'brutal', James referred to the in-studio technical issues as the catalyst for writing new music that would be featured on Syro." This makes no sense as stated. Why would technical issues cause someone to write new music?
Clunky, non-parallel sentences: "Syro (pronounced /saɪroʊ/) is a neologism that was coined by one of James' children and a shortened version of 'Syrobonkus', a 'nonsense word one of his sons blurted out while listening to [the album].'"
General overuse of quotations. Quotations should be used only when something is important to state precisely as written in the source, or when paraphrasing is impossible. You have used quotations throughout the article where paraphrasing would produce a much better result. Example: "then [the engineer] realized [sic] he was doing it all wrong and had to start again". There's nothing profound here that shouldn't just be paraphrased.
The Reception section in general is overstocked with quotations, most of which say nothing that can't be paraphrased. This is a growing practice in album articles, and not a positive one.

1b: After reviewing some of the sources on this album, I feel that you have left out information about the musical themes on the album, and writing about EDM as a genre.

At least 3 sources describe EDM aspects of the album, yet you don't mention it. On the other hand, you provide a list of subgenres sourced to the Staples review—he really only mentions them in passing and not as major themes of the album.
On a similar note, I think it's a bit of a stretch to list "glitch" as a subgenre based on Staples writing "his utilization of familiar glitch-hop melodies".

1c: A brief library search revealed 2-3 prominent articles about the album that you didn't use, and that could be used to expand the coverage of themes. For example, the Gary Suarez Billboard review, and the Simon Vozick-Levinson Rolling Stone review (on 9/25, later than the one you have here).
2a: The lead doesn't reflect the key points of the article very well. It should be expanded to put due weight on the major ideas and less weight on minor ones. For example, you have a phrase dedicated describing the subgenres, an idea which is discussed in only one sentence in the article. It would be better to devote 1-2 full sentences in the lead describing the primary genre.

These are representative issues—the whole article should be examined for similar. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing cmt -- Tks Andy, I think it'd be best if the article was gone over for these sorts of issues away from the FAC process so I'll archive this shortly. Per FAC instructions, the article can be re-nominated when that's done or two weeks from today, whichever is the longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.