Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Worlds (Porter Robinson album)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 May 2024 [1].

Worlds (Porter Robinson album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk and TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming popular as an electronic dance music artist, Porter Robinson eventually grew weary of the style, writing his debut album Worlds in an attempt to break the conventions of the culture. The album used a novel blend of influences to evoke a sense of grandeur and nostalgia over the pounding bass music of Robinson's discography prior. The article was significantly expanded by my co-nominator Skyshifter (who did most of the work, honestly), and after an excellent GAN review from Averageuntitleduser, we feel confident that this article is ready for an FAC review. We look forward to your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Davest3r08

[edit]

What makes Fuse.tv reliable? There's no mention of it on WP:RSP or WP:A/S. (AGF comment) Davest3r08 >:3 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the Fuse videos are interviews with Robinson and I am exclusively using his words; even if it's unreliable, WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. Skyshiftertalk 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

..Daft Punk's Discovery (2001), an album Robinson considers the best of all-time.. - Man's got good taste.

No kidding! —TS
lead
  • Prefer "He was inspired by fictional themes, including elements"
    Done for now. Skyshifter, we've discussed the phrasing of this point before as well. Let me know if you want to workshop it in the lead or in § Composition any further! —TS
  • "including sounds from 1990s video games." - According to the body this is mostly about the video game music, could be made clearer since sound effects from video games have been a source of inspiration, and sampled by various artists.
    I could use some clarification on what changes you're envisioning here. This sentence in the lead is referring to Robinson's use of general MIDI sounds, which were used in many 90s-era video games. —TS
    Then we're good. /DrB
Background and development
  • "which became one of his first principles for Worlds." - The former or the latter?
    Rephrased; it's both. —TS
Composition
  • Prefer "and emotional feeling."
    Rephrased as "atmosphere" instead. —TS
Critical reception
  • "Some critics thought Worlds demonstrated that Robinson could have a promising career." - I know that there's nothing wrong here, but the tone of "demonstrate" feels at odds with a sentence about the future, could we rephrase?
    Rephrased. —TS
Legacy
  • "Robinson's struggles with depression, writer's block and mental health" - Recommend using either the specific or the general, or rephrase into something like "struggles with mental health including bouts of depression".
    Rephrased to be more in line with WP:SUFFER. —TS

I was becoming a bit concerned over the lack of any commentary at all on music and lyrics, until I realized I had set the printer to duplex printing. Cheers. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Draken Bowser! All comments in progress. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments addressed, some need clarification. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second pass everything looks good. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Draken Bowser! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments from sawyer-mcdonell

[edit]

can't promise i'll give a long review, but i'll look this over. ping me if it's been more than a week! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping as requested. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reminder - i'll give it a look-over tonight :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments

  • (leade) Following the album's positive reception, Robinson experienced a period of writer's block and depression, leading to the seven-year wait for his next studio album, Nurture (2021). - this seems counterintuitive & should probably clarify that the reason for the writer's block/depression was the feeling of pressure; you'd only need to add like 3 words i think
    Done. —TS
  • in general i think the leade could be a bit longer; at 3k words MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests 2-3 paragraphs, so not strictly necessary, but just a suggestion of mine
    Is there anything you'd recommend adding? I had this concern myself earlier but couldn't find much that I could justify adding to the lead. —TS
  • (composition section) Barry Walters of Wondering Sound said that most of Worlds uses "ballad-speed" beats per minute. this doesn't mean anything to me (i don't know much about this aspect of music); is ballad-speed particularly fast or slow?
    Rephrased. —TS
  • (tracks 1-5 section) The next track, "Sad Machine", was the first Robinson had ever recorded vocals for. first track ever? first track on the album? presumably the first, but this isn't completely clear to me as i'm not familiar with this genre or artist
    Clarified. —TS
  • the reception section says it received critical acclaim & positive reviews but about 2/3 of the section is negative or lukewarm reviews; this is somewhat incongruous to me - is a 6/10 "acclaim"?
    @Skyshifter: Sources seem conflicted on this one. How do you feel about switching it to "mixed to positive" and mentioning that critics have mainly acclaimed it in retrospect? —TS
    Done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; changes reverted after further discussion with Skyshifter. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just removed the "critical acclaim" part instead of adding "mixed to positive" to avoid possible OR; keeping just the Metacritic assessment. Skyshiftertalk 21:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't have a ton of commentary for this article, partially because i'm not super familiar with album articles & others have gotten to things before me... but it's also just a really good article! i'll read through a couple more times tomorrow to see if there's anything else needing attention. great job :3 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sawyer! Working on these now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawyer-mcdonell: All comments addressed; clarifications needed on a couple. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with regard to the leade length, i think a sentence or two more about the release & promotion could help beef it up; there's plenty of content in the body section to pull from. however, looking at it i agree that there's probably not more than a few sentences you could add without it becoming trivia. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawyer-mcdonell: Done(?) I've added a little, but was once again unable to justify adding a lot of the more detailed points in the body, which feel out of place for the lead. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks good to me! pending the finishing of the other reviews, no barriers to supporting now, in my view. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elli

[edit]

Missed the OneShot FAC and you've somehow made it to FAC with another piece of media I've enjoyed. Will review shortly. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you add timestamps to the YouTube interview cites?
  • Might be worth mentioning that "Hear the Bells" is a remix of "Bells Of Cologne" in particular (if a RS can be found for that).
    • Added the album's liner notes
  • "The eighth track is "Lionhearted"" think you mean ninth.
    • Done
  • "Shepherdess" isn't mentioned elsewhere in prose. Probably a good idea to mention it in the fourth paragraph?
    • Of which section? I don't think there's much to be added regarding "Shepherdess" other than what is in "Release and promotion". (I've also now remembered to add information about "Hollowheart", which was supposed to be on Worlds.)
    • Added more information about "Shepherdess" and "Hollowheart" in "Release and promotion".
  • The source about the "Flicker" mentions that the scenery is Japanese a few times; seems relevant.
    • Done
  • Could more be written about the remix album?

That's about all I can find. Pretty nice work! Elli (talk | contribs) 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! In progress. Skyshiftertalk 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks great now -- support. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elli! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

Passes; details below.

  • Three of the works of media—one album cover and two song samples—are copyrighted. All three have sufficient fair-use rationales and are either low-resolution enough or short enough to not replace the commercial viability of its songs.
  • All other media present in the article is appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • All images have suitable alt text.
  • Sourcing for each work of media checks out.
  • All media present in the article contributes greatly to its encyclopedic value.

Support on media; great work, both of you! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dylan620! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Are Your EDM and Pitchfork (website) a high-quality reliable source? AllMusic too has some quality concerns. Seems like we are mostly using prominent magazines here, otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a reviewer, I can vouch for the reliability of Pitchfork, which is considered a significant authority in music journalism. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Your EDM source is an exclusive interview with Porter Robinson; WP:ABOUTSELF should apply. Pitchfork is one of the biggest music websites in the world, and their reviews can be found on multiple recent album FAs. According to WP:ALLMUSIC, "There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with in-text attribution." Likewise, their reviews have widespread usage on recent album FAs. Skyshiftertalk 12:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's been a couple weeks and I believe my co-nominator has addressed the concern you brought up. Are there any other comments you'd like to add? Thanks in advance. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing to add. Aside from a standard caveat that I rely on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources a lot in such reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I appreciate the review! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think it would be worth linking electronic music in the lead's first sentence.
    Done. —TS
  • I am uncertain about the "realizing" word choice for this part, (the electronic dance music (EDM) genre, realizing it limited his artistic expression). I think something like "believing" would be better suited for this as it is his opinion. I feel the current word choice present this idea of EDM music being limiting as too much of an objective statement rather than how he felt about it.
    Agreed, it does edge into the territory of making non-neutral statements in Wikipedia's voice. realizing → believing —TS
  • I am not sure if the quotes in the lead (i.e. "beauty" and "emotion") are really necessary and I think there would be a way to paraphrase them instead.
    Done. —TS
  • I am unsure about the prose for this sentence: (He was inspired by elements from video games, anime, and movies, as well as nostalgia, including sounds from 1990s video games.) My specific concern is that the sentence repeats that he was inspired by video games twice.
    Rephased. —TS
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (Described as electropop, Robinson's main inspirations for Worlds). Do you mean that his inspirations were described as electropop? That is how the sentence is constructed right now, but since electropop is in the infobox as the album's genre, I was not sure if it was intended to be a description for Worlds instead. If so, then the sentence would need to be revised.
    Done. —TS
  • I have a comment for this part, (with critics noting similarities to the sounds of M83 and Passion Pit). I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as it is a note that I see quite often on FACs. It is not seen as the strongest writing. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I think it is best avoided so I would revise that out anywhere else in the article.
    I appreciate the note! I believe I've resolved occurences of this phrasing in the article and will keep it in mind for future projects. —TS
  • This part, (a bidding war ensued to determine the label which was to release the record), reads a little strange to me. I think something like (a bidding war ensued to determine which the label would release the record) would be clearer.
    Done. —TS
  • This part from the lead ("The album was promoted with four singles ..." and "and promoted with a tour") has "promoted" used two times in the same sentence. It would be best to avoid such repetition.
    Done. —TS
  • I would rephrase this part, (felt under pressure), to (felt pressured), as the current wording seems a bit off to me.
    Done. —TS

I hope this review is helpful so far. These comments are just for the lead. I will read through the article today and continue my review as I go, but I wanted to post a starting point. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you clarify this part for me, (he decided to create the music he wanted to hear and felt needed to exist)? I am not entirely sure what type of music is being referenced? Based on this section, I understand he wanted to move away from EDM and club music, but I do not really have a handle on what music he wants to make instead.
    This is not referring to any particular style of music but to Robinson's motivations when during the composition process. It was too closely paraphrased anyways, so I've made it a direct quote. Let me know if if still feels unclear. —TS
  • Is this sentence necessary: "After its completion, Robinson named Worlds his favorite project." I would imagine that most artists would say that about an album that they just released or are actively promoting. It reminds me of how "this is my most personal album/song" is often used in similar contexts. It might be noteworthy if he still felt that way or continued to say that years later, but I do not really see the value with just this alone.
    Considering Robinson would change his mind on this point later (predictably, as you mentioned), removed. —TS
  • The beginning of the "Composition" section seems a touch repetitive. The first sentence says the album has themes of escapism and fantasy and the quote in the second sentence repeats that. The third sentence also repeats the focus on fiction, which is also brought in the first sentence. Nostalgia is also brought up in the first sentence only to be repeated later in the same paragraph. I think that it would be worth revisiting the prose in this paragraph.
    In progress. —TS
    Sorry for intruding, but I made some edits that probably solved the issue. Skyshiftertalk 22:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the MMORPG acronym is necessary as it is not discussed elsewhere in the article. I have the same comment for IDM later in the article.
    Removed. —TS
  • For this part, (chose the album title "Worlds"), the album title should not be in quotation marks.
    Done. —TS
  • This part, (Multiple critics noted that the album's sound resembled M83), uses four citations. I think it would be worth considering citation bundling to avoid any concerns over citation overkill.
    I coincidentally noticed that and bundled it just before reading your comment! —TS
  • The wording for this part, (Elissa Stolman wrote to Vice), is a bit off. It reads to me like someone wrote to the publication (lik writing them a letter or something) rather than being someone who works for the publication.
    Thought I'd caught all of these already; done for this one and one more. —TS
  • I have a question for this part, (because it was the first he wrote in a style he considered representative of Worlds). What would this style be? It seems like it is talking around it a bit.
    Done. —TS
  • File:Porter Robinson - Sad Machine.ogg would need stronger justification for inclusion in my opinion. It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and should be use to illustrate a point that cannot be convey through the prose alone. I would suggest only using an audio sample if it is somehow representative of the album as a whole. The WP:FUR says that it is used "to better explain the sounds of the album, which can't be done with text alone", but this should be made more apparent in the caption. I have the same issue with File:Porter Robinson - Lionhearted.ogg.
  • Thank you for addressing this point. The new caption does an excellent job with justifying the sample's inclusion and I appreciate the removal of the second sample if a better rationale for inclusion could not be found. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In progress. —TS
    "Sad Machine" is definitely the strongest sample to keep in the article, so I've expanded the caption to reflect another source's view of its sound. I couldn't find sufficient justification to keep the "Lionhearted" sample, so it's been removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the WP:FUR for the audio samples, I would suggest changing the source parameter to it being sourced to the album.
    In progress. —TS
    Done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, (With a mid-tempo instrumental and "starry-eyed melodic structure", Larry Fitzmaurice of Pitchfork), reads like Larry Fitzmaurice is the instrumental and structure so it should be revised.
    Done Skyshiftertalk 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose still reads awkwardly to me. I feel the current version is trying to do too much in a single sentence. I would make the Larry Fitzmaurice part and the Mike Prevatt part into separate sentences. I think that the prose for the Fitzmaurice bit could use some work in general. I think it is overall wordy. I am referencing this part in particular, (which resembled the "high-wire synth-pop fantasias" of Passion Pit, as it contained a mid-tempo instrumental and "starry-eyed melodic structure"). Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Separated Skyshiftertalk 11:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks much better to me now. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this part, (With "ethereal electro vibes", in the words of Consequence of Sound's Derek Staples, Stolman), as I do not think the attempt to combine multiple critics in a single sentence in this way is really clear. It is also saying that Stolman has these vibes.
    Done Skyshiftertalk 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Hear the Bells" a cover or a remix? This part, (It is a cover, or remix, of a preexisting song by the band), seemingly calls it both, but I believe a cover and a remix are separate things entirely.
    The source says both (though it is strange indeed). I've edited it to "It is based on one of the band's existing songs..." Skyshiftertalk 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems more like a remix to me as he did keep the band's vocals on the track, but I think the current wording is okay as the source is not really clear. Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (A five-minute orchestral track, its first minutes), it is saying the first minutes are a "five-minute orchestral track", not the song itself so it would need to be rewritten.
    Done Skyshiftertalk 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, ( the passage contains "an angry onslaught of dubstep jackhammering", according to Walters), I am not sure that "passage" is the right word choice.
    Rephrased this part a bit. Skyshiftertalk 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage you to re-examine this part. This sentence now repeats "song" and "according to X" twice. I think it is a case where too much information is trying to be presented in a single sentence so I think it would be worthwhile to consider separating them out more into smaller ones. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed repetition Skyshiftertalk 11:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping my review here as I would like to take a small break. This is up to the "Release and promotion" section. I will continue my review once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just wanted to add on that the article does not discuss the album's commercial performance (i.e. chart placement) in the prose for either the lead or the actual article. Apologies if I am missing it. From what I can see this information is just in the "Chart performance" table at the end, but it has to be present in the prose as well. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Skyshiftertalk 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage you to look at FAs about albums to get a better understanding on how this information is incorporated into the article. This type of section should not be at the bottom of the article (i.e. after the track listing and personal sections). Also, the prose needs work as it is rather repetitive, specifically with "charted" repeated multiple times, and it reads too much like a list. This information should also be touched on in the lead in some way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if there's enough commercial performance info to support an entire section, but I'll see what I can do. Skyshiftertalk 23:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now its own section, and I tried to expand it. I couldn't find information regarding number of sales in reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 23:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not saying that the commercial performance part needed its own section. My point was that it was not present in the prose and only shown in table. If there is not enough information to support a separate section, you could collapse into another one. For these cases, I fold the info into the release section, but it is up to you. If it is kept a separate section, it should be moved after the critical reception section.
    To add on to this, this information should be presented in the lead. I raised this point above, but the lead should address the album's commercial performance in a brief part about its chart appearances. Let me know if there are any further questions about this part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved & added info to the lead. Skyshiftertalk 12:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I'll be around in a few hours to address the comments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Songs" section, these parts, ("according to Prevatt" and "according to Buerger") are in the same sentence. I would avoid such repetition.
    Fixed Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify this quote, "indie vocals", for me? I am not sure how vocals can be "indie"?
    This is what the source says: "Layered indie vocals that would be at home in a band like Givers". Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But what are "indie vocals"? Whenever I hear the word "indie" in terms of music, it makes me think of independent artists or independent record labels, but that does not make sense in this context. The source may say it, but it is still unclear to me what is being meant here. Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it refers to indie pop, considering the mention of Givers, a band of that genre. I'll link indie pop to "indie". Skyshiftertalk 11:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link does help so this should not be an issue anymore at least for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For these parts, ("emotional lyrical themes" and "lyrical content"), I'd shorten "lyrical themes" and "lyrical content" to "lyrics".
    Done Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe these two sentences, (On February 10, 2014, Robinson released a promotional video revealing the title of the album. It features a robotic voice saying worlds on loop for ten hours.), can be combined to form something like, "On February 10, 2014, Robinson revealed the album's title in a video that featured a robotic voice repeating worlds for ten hours."
    Done Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you expand on this sentence further: (Robinson stated that he disliked marketing campaigns that were "wishy-washy", and attempted to make all his work "feel pretty intentional".)?
    Tried to connect this sentence with the previous one more. Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (Astralwerks wanted to release "Shepherdess"). Is there any further information on how he was able to convince his record label to release a completely different single? I was just curious as it seems like a big move for someone who just joined the label.
    Couldn't find anything about that specifically. Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, (shortly before the 86th Academy Awards). Is there any connection between the Oscars and the song? It just seems a tad random.
    It's something that many sources mention specifically (and some also mention that the song became a trending topic during the Oscars), so I think it's relevant to be cited. Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at the sources, specifically (this one), I get the reading that people were surprised that this song was trending even though a bigger event (i.e. the Oscars) were happening and would seemingly be the focus of the night. Robinson's tweet also seems to reflect this as he was more surprised than anything. I understand sources cover this, but when I first read this part in the article, it seemed random and made me pause to question it. I believe the prose should more clearly say why this is relevant. Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added that the song was a trending topic during the event. Skyshiftertalk 12:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "was released" is repeated twice in this part, ("and was released elsewhere a day later" and "was released on May 21"). There are similar repetitions in later paragraphs.
    Fixed Skyshiftertalk 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify this sentence for me: (The album's visuals were illustrated by the artist David Aguado.)? I am not entirely sure what "visuals" means in this context? Music videos? Album artwork?
    I've removed this part as I think it is too much information for Worlds Remixed. Instead, I've added the information that David Aguado did Worlds's artwork with Robinson. Skyshiftertalk 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it makes sense to have information about Worlds Remixed in this article. It does not seem that Worlds Remixed is notable enough for its own article so I think this information would be relevant here. I just think that it needs to be clarified, not removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Skyshiftertalk 23:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Tour" subsection seems rather short. Why not combine this into the overall "Release and promotion" section instead? That section already uses a photo from the tour anyway.
    I'd like to keep this separate because otherwise this would break the section's chronological order, as it mentions dates such as October when it was announced in May; could be slightly confusing Skyshiftertalk 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will leave that up to you. I would like to not that this section comes after a short paragraph about a potential tenth-anniversary release in 2024, which was announced in 2020 so it is not exactly in chronological order, but I understand what you mean. Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; what I meant is that the order in which the events appear within both sections are in chronological order. Skyshiftertalk 00:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still not convinced to be perfectly honest. It is such a short subsection that it does come across a bit tacked-on. The image from the actual tour is not even present here (and it makes sense as there is not room for it). But again, I will leave it up to you and what other editors have to say about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done after further discussion with Skyshifter. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, (In May 2014, Robinson announced a North American tour for Worlds, which spanned from August 28 to October 18). The citation is to the announcement that these dates will happen. Do you have a citation for when the tour was actually happening or after it wrapped to just confirm these dates actually happened?
  • The article talks about the announcement, the premiere, and the release for the limited edition box set. I do not think the announcement adds much and the later two points could be combined into a single sentence. Something like: (A limited edition box set of Worlds premiered on NPR on August 4, 2014 before its full release eight days later.)
    The box set wasn't premiered on NPR. The premiere and release date sentences refer just to Worlds. Skyshiftertalk 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification and apologies for my confusion. I still do not see how this sentence is notable enough for inclusion: (In July, Robinson announced a limited edition box set of Worlds containing bonus remixes and tracks.) How does it help readers to know when a limited edition was announced? That part seems unnecessary to me, especially when the article does not say when this limited edition was released (unless I have overlooked it). Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I couldn't find the box set's release date, but I think it's still important to cite that information because we have its track listing in the article. Skyshiftertalk 00:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be confirmed that the box set was actually released if a release date is not available? The article only has a citation for the announcement of the box set without any further citations (unless I am overlooking something) and that is an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found primary souces confirming its existence [2] but not sure if it's appropriate to add them. Skyshiftertalk 12:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is appropriate in my opinion to at least verify the existence of the box set. You could also cite this archived version from Robinson's official website (here) if that is preferable. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Skyshiftertalk 23:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, (what Robinson had accomplished with the album and his motivations for it, Robinson's development in the future), repeats "Robinson" in a way that reads awkwardly. I would avoid that
    Did Robinson's → his, not sure if that works. Skyshiftertalk 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical reception" section has parts on negative reviews for the album, but these are not mentioned in lead.
    Done Skyshiftertalk 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide any further information from the sources in this sentence: (Paper's Matt Moen and Billboard's Krystal Rodriguez and Kat Bein said that Worlds was a "game changer")? How was the album a "game changer"?
  • Do you think that these red links (Rob Mayth and Electric Mantis) would be notable enough to receive independent articles? Red links are valuable, but I just wanted to double-check that they do have potential for articles.
    Apparently not, according to my search. Skyshiftertalk 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be consistent with using title case for citation titles. For instance, it is not used in Citation 60 or 71. I have similar comments for the "Video sources" subsection.
    Is this something required for FAs? I promoted one that mixes title case with sentence case. Currently I'm just using what the sources are using. Skyshiftertalk 23:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is required, but it is best to be consistent throughout your citations. It is just good practice in general. This is very nitpick-y so apologize in advance, but the citation titles do already have stylizations for Wikipedia. The album is italicized, which is not done in the actual sources so it is not a case where the exact format and everything is carried over and preserved directly from the source. It is not a major point, but I think it is worth considering. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd prefer the current version. Regarding italics, I think it is a smaller change when compared to capitalization. I've checked a few other recent FAs and while some did change the capitalization, others also applied italics to the title when appropriate, but didn't change the capitalization. Skyshiftertalk 21:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These comments cover the rest of the article. Apologies for doing this relatively late in the FAC, but I am going to oppose this on 1a of the featured article criteria. I think the prose needs work, which would be best handled in something like a peer review. I would still be more than willing to look through responses and strike my oppose if the prose improves. Apologies again. Aoba47 (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Aoba. No need to apologize! If anything, I appreciate your candor and for having the guts to rain on our parade, so to speak. I'm sure Skyshifter will continue to chip away at your suggestions, and I'll be back in a day or two when I have a bit more time on my hands. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I really do appreciate it. Take as much time as you need. I hope that you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I believe everything has been addressed! Skyshiftertalk 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this. I will strike my oppose. I do have one more comment though. Throughout the article, there are instances of a quote being followed by "according to X" or "in the words of X". I get that it is done to avoid repeating "X critic says Y opinion", but I am uncertain about its usage. It could just be a matter of personal preference, but I find the phrasing a bit awkward. I will leave that up to you though. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments! Skyshiftertalk 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to the both of you for being a bit less active on this nomination than I would have liked; real life had to take priority for much of the last week. Thanks for your review, Aoba, and if you're still interested, we would welcome any additional comments to get the prose to a place where you'd be comfortable supporting this candidate. I'll keep scanning the prose for awkward phrasing of the kind that you've mentioned. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the responses. I do not think that I will have the time to continue my review. Apologies for that. My comments should not hold back a potential promotion as I am no longer opposing the FAC and I can see and appreciate the work put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "noting similarities" → "note" is not a neutral phrase per WP:SAID as it implies that something is true when this is a critical opinion. Also check for this elsewhere in the article.
    Did a pass of the article and fixed this wherever I could find it. Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to address. —TS
    "multiple critics noted that the album's sound"
    "Prevatt notes the use of"
    "Critics noted that this"
    "Prevatt noted similarities"
    @Heartfox: Done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who praised its innovation" → get this out of wikivoice by changing to "who praised it as innovative". Also in the critical reception section.
    Done. —TS
  • "notes that he wrote around 50 tracks for the album" → "notes that he wrote" is superfluous; "he wrote" is fine. Same with "He explained that he admired", just say "he admired".
    Done. —TS
  • "which were later narrowed to 12" → that were recorded?
    Not mentioned in the source, but this is referring to the 12 tracks which appeared on the album. Rephrased slightly. —TS
  • "hadn't" → had not, per MOS:CONTRACTIONS
    Thought I'd fixed all of these! Done. —TS
  • What is the WP:IMAGERELEVANCE of the photo of Robinson in the composition section? Seems better for background IMO
    I agree, but moving the image to that section seems to unavoidably cause text sandwiching issues no matter where I place it. Let me know if you have any suggestions on this. —TS
  • "these games provided, Star Wars Galaxies (2003) in particular, → these games, Star Wars Galaxies (2003) in particular, provided
    Done. —TS
  • "This was how Robinson chose the title Worlds" → Can this be a little more formal
    Done. —TS
  • Try to cut down on the quotes in the last paragraph of the Tracks 6–12 section and maybe elsewhere per WP:OVERQUOTING. There are currently more quotes than sentences here.
    Done. Let me know if there are other spots you think need work. —TS
  • "Robinson did a North American tour" → needs a better word than "did" such as "performed on a"
    Done. —TS
  • "On October 2, 2015, Porter Robinson" → why full name?
    Not sure; removed. —TS
  • "his development in the future 'should be fascinating'" → this seems like something that can be easily paraphrased
    Done. —TS
  • quoteboxing an opinion as is done in the legacy section is not really neutral
    Hadn't considered that angle, but I agree; removed. —TS
  • the live url of Las Vegas Weekly is dead
    Archive link updated and |url-status= switched. —TS

Best, Heartfox (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Heartfox! All comments in progress. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was interrupted in the middle of addressing these; I'll get back to the review tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: All comments addressed, with a couple questions and follow-ups needed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heartfox (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Heartfox! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • References: article titles, those in quote marks, should be consistently in either sentence case or title case. You currently have a mix. How they appear it their original is irrelevant.
  • "and recognized a promising career for Robinson". It is not possible to recognise something which has not yet happened. Perhaps 'and forecast a promising career for Robinson' or similar?
  • "Worlds was well-received by critics ... though others felt ..." If it was not well received by all critics the first part needs to be 'was well-received by most critics' or 'was well-received by many critics' or whatever. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog! Working on your comments as well as Heartfox's above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (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/Worlds_(Porter_Robinson_album)/archive1&oldid=1235873333"