Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Now Now/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [1].

The Now Now

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 06:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This is my first FAC. If I do something wrong, please let me know.)

I have primarily worked on this article on my own, but it recently had a peer review and I have received a few extra tips from User:Masem.

This article is about the British virtual band Gorillaz' fifth studio album, following their somewhat critically divisive 2017 album Humanz. This album was taken by critics as a sort of opposite to Humanz. Whereas Humanz had 20 songs and plenty of guest features, The Now Now only contained 11 tracks and 3 features. It is also a sonically different listen (as is the norm for all of Gorillaz' albums) and I hope you consider the article up to FA standards. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 06:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Welcome to FAC! Don't use fixed px size for images; you can use |upright= instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 04:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Lead and infobox
[edit]
  • I would separate the lead into two paragraphs to make the information somewhat more digestible to readers.
    • Done.
  • Is the All Points East festival tease really important/notable enough to be included in the second sentence of the lead?
    • Removed.
  • The lead says that the album recorded started in late 2017, but the infobox gives a more exact date (September 2017). The "Recording" section says late 2017 as well, but I am guessing the September 2017 part is coming from the "Idaho" live performance. It is a little confusing since it is not entirely consistent. I would go with the late 2017 date unless there is a source that specifically says September 2017 was the time the recording started.
  • I am a little confused by the inclusion of "Lake Zurich" in this lineup: (including the lead single "Humility", "Lake Zurich", "Hollywood" and "Tranz".) Since only some of the singles are mentioned here, I had assumed it would only be the ones with Wikipedia articles, and "Lake Zurich" seems like the odd one out here. What makes this single notable enough to be mentioned here over others?
    • Removed.
  • I do not think the Drowned in Sound quote should be included in the lead. It is a great source, but putting a single critic/publication in the lead gives it more undue weight over others.
    • Removed.
  • From my personal experience, it is not normal to use references/citations in the infobox of an album article. This is because all of this information should already be included and sourced in the body of the article.
    • Moved.

I will be going through the article section-by-section to make sure that I cover everything. Let me know if anything needs further clarification. I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done in this section. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
[edit]
  • In the first sentence, Albarn's full name should be used and he should be linked since it is the first time he is mentioned in the body of the article. A short descriptive phrase, similar to the one used in the lead, would also be helpful here.
  • For the same reason, Gorillaz should also be linked in the first sentence since it is the first time the band is mentioned in the body of the article.
    • Done both.
  • For this part, (He compared the spontaneous nature of it to their 2010 album, The Fall,), I do not think the first comma in front of the album title is necessary.
    • Removed.
  • I would avoid using the "expressed x" sentence construction in this part, (but expressed desire to make another record like that feel more "complete" in comparison), and I would instead say something like: but wanted to make another record like that feel more "complete" in comparison.
    • Changed per your wording.
  • For the last sentence of the first paragraph, I would replace "the subsequent year" with "in 2018" since 2017 was only mentioned in the first sentence.
    • Changed per your wording,
  • I would rephrase this sentence, (At a concert in Seattle in September 2017, a new song called "Idaho" was debuted.), as it is a little awkward to me. I'd go for something like: (Gorillaz debuted "Idaho" during a September 2017 concert in Seattle.)
    • Changed per your wording.
  • I would remove "late" in the phrase, (In late March 2018), as I am unsure if it is entirely necessary.
    • Removed.
  • For this part, (while at a concert in Santiago), I would say "during" instead of "while at".
    • Changed.
  • I would link URL.
    • Added.
  • I have a comment for this sentence: (The latter pointed to a teaser for the album that revealed its title and release date.) This is a personal preference on my part, but I agree with the following essay (Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation) about avoiding the latter/former word choice.
    • Reworded.
  • All Points East is linked twice in the body of the article when it should only be linked on the first mention/instance.
    • Removed duplicate link.
  • I know absolutely nothing about this band so I am confused on how Jamie Hewlett is related to the band. Some sort of descriptive phrase would be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
[edit]
  • I think this part, (According to a Radio X interview with Albarn, the album was produced within), is awkwardly constructed. I would go for something a little more like: (In a Radio X interview, Albarn said that album was produced within...). The "according to" sentence structure just does not work from my perspective.
    • Changed.
  • I have a few issues with the only sentence in the second paragraph. I would remove the "In the same interview" part. It is not immediately following the Radio X sentence so it is a little confusing to refer back to here. The citation placement is also weird because it cuts the sentence into two, which hinders readability, and it is unclear what citation is being used to support the second half of this sentence. I would also just say "saying" instead of "stating".
    • Moved (hopefully).
  • The second paragraph is almost entirely a long quote. I would encourage you to think about a way to paraphrase this quote to really clarify why this information is important to the reader.
    • Changed.
  • This section is rather short, and it may be beneficial to combine it with the "Background" section to make a "Background and recording" section. I think it would be helpful to have these two sections together and edit the prose so it reads more like a cohesive narrative. Aoba47 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style
[edit]
  • A section like this one is typically named something like "Music and lyrics" or "Composition and lyrics". With that being said, however, this section seemingly only focuses on how the album sounds. It does not go into the lyrics or the songs' basic concepts or ideas. This seems like a pretty sizable gap, especially given the last sentence of the previous section explicitly talks about "lyrical cohesion".
    • Added some reviews that mention lyrics.
  • For this part, (that it compared to their earlier album Plastic Beach), I would clarify "their" and add the year the album was released instead of saying "earlier", which is too vague.
    • Done.
  • DIY and PopMatters should both be in italics.
    • Done.
  • DIY and Drowned in Sound are both linked in later sections when they should only be linked on the first instance, which is in this section.
    • Done.
  • Some parts of this read too closely to a critical reception section. This part should be more unbiased. For instance, the following quotes read too much like reviews than descriptions of the album's sound: (an impressive collection of different and varying drum patterns), (The music doesn’t knock you down as much as it washes over you like a warm, comforting wave).
    • Removed.
  • The prose in this section could use further work. It reads more like a list of critics and their opinions/quotes rather than a cohesive take on the album's sound. I think this is made even more noticeable since the lyrics/song content is not mentioned at all and the amount of quotes. I have a tendency to use a lot of quotes, but I would look carefully at the quote usage here.
    • I've added some reviews that mention the lyrics, if that's what you were looking for.
      • My concerns with the prose go further than just whether or not it had information on the lyrics. I still think the prose needs further work to avoid sounding like a list of critics. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but I oppose this nomination based on the prose. I think substantial work needs to be done, which should occur outside the FAC space. I'd recommend another peer review and inviting editors who have worked on album FAC for advice and reaching out to a FAC mentor. While reading the article, I notice more and more issues with the prose which hinder it from meet the prose requirement of the FA criteria (at least in my opinion). Apologies for the oppose. No one enjoys an oppose (both on the nominator and reviewer end). Aoba47 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you for the review and I will take an in-depth look at the prose (and your comments) in the next few hours. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 06:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I've had a good look at the prose in the prose in the article. Would you mind adding comments for the rest of the sections in the article? Thanks in advance, User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the revisions. I have some brief comments on the remainder of the article, but I will not do a more thorough look because I think that type of work should be done outside of the FAC space. Here are some quick comments below:
  • The poster tease at All Points East is explained in two separate sections, which seems unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Removed second iteration.
  • The "Singles" subsection almost entirely focuses on the song's commercial performance. It would be better to expand on this section by moving information about the music video here and any further background information on the songs.
    • Will do.
  • The "Year-end rankings" subsection/table seems unnecessary since there is only one accolade. This could easily be covered in the prose instead.
    • Moved.
  • For the "Track listing" section, I would also clarify who produced the songs.
    • Will do.
  • For the citations, I would not put the publication name in caps, as done in references 18 and 22. It makes sense to do it with DIY, but not so much with Uproxx and The Fader. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now – as mentioned by Aoba47 above, the "Music and lyrics" section of the article should definitely be expanded into a complete song-by-song composition section; see other featured album articles for examples of these. Also, the "Commercial performance" section is extremely small and needs to be combined with the reception section somehow. Philroc (c) 13:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, looking like it's back to the editing board for this article. Thanks for the suggestions – I've combined the "Commercial performance" section. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 14:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FAC coordinators: How many oppose votes are needed to close a nomination? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 09:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, sorry, this ping didn't register at the time for some reason. A belated welcome to FAC from the coords! We try not to think of "supports" or "opposes" as "votes", because promoting or archiving a nomination is supposed to be based on consensus rather that simple numbers. So noms can continue with active opposes, especially if those are grounded in the FAC criteria, but OTOH it does look like some serious work is necessary and that is indeed done away from FAC. So I'll archive it and echo Aoba's suggestion for Peer Review. Another option you could consider (particularly if PR doesn't attract commentary) is the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Now_Now/archive1&oldid=962499883"