The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [1].
The Way I See It (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is well written, its topic is fairly notable, and it fulfills FA criteria. Dan56 ( talk) 14:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Images check out; sound extracts I don't know enough about to assess. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn comments from User:Indopug |
---|
Comments My initial impression of this article is similar to that of
OK Computer—it's been thoroughly researched, but is so comprehensive that it gets to the point of being overwhelming for the reader, especially in terms of stats, dates, details and technical language. Examples:
Clearly most of my concerns are WP:FA? #4 as the article definitely goes into "unnecessary detail", apart from being quite technical in places. Also, this causes the prose (a little workmanlike already, but definitely fixable) to be far from engaging (1a). [Note: I'll be off-wiki for the next couple of weeks]— indopug ( talk) 17:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply
|
Initial comment I'm just starting to dig into this article. I'll have a full assessment soon, but I have to say that I'm leaning towards an oppose at the moment due to various issues with redundancy (both in prose and sources), excessive detail, and inappropriate/unsatisfactory usage of certain sources. As I said, I'll provide a full assessment soon, but even though it's becoming clear I cannot support the article at this current junction, all my feedback will be constructive, as I hope all issues can be resolved during the FAC (well, there's one portion that might involve a massive overhaul, but we'll get to that when the time comes). WesleyDodds ( talk) 13:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments: While I think the article is lovely; the very first thing I noticed is the accolades graph, and generally aren't these things suggested to be turned into prose instead? I know it can be hard to make "some publication said so and so about said album and put it somewhere on some list" again and again read interestingly, but it's somewhat jarring in context to the rest of the article.
Since omitting the less notable ones would mean it would fail comprehensiveness, I think there are multiple ways to deal with this. One could simply expand the section with prose, or say something akin to "the album was listed on many top 10 lists" and use a few bullet reference, or move some of citations that listed it amongst the Albums of the Decade to the legacy section. You could also create a subsection dealing with an international reception of the album, using the references from Adresseavisen, Dagbladet, Gaffa, The Irish Times etc, which, as far as I am aware, are all European publications.
Furthermore this always come down to preference, but it's a rather long article, and there are four images used. This isn't a problem if there aren't images to be used, but this album has a long range of influences including legends like Smokey Robinson, Curtis Mayfield and Stevie Wonder and had involvement with Rick Rubin and a bunch of other notable figures. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Follow-up comment Sorry about the delay, but I'll get to detailing my objections to the article later today. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Support The article seems comprehensive and well-written. There were a few nits that I fixed—Time Out linked to the company instead of the magazine, Robert Christgau was cited by first and last name in two consecutive paragraphs—but nothing that should prevent this article from promotion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose I was hoping to only cast a "weak oppose", but given the large numbers of supports already given, I felt it important to firmly declare that there are aspects of the article that are in need of revision before it can be promoted to Featured status. And the more and more I dig into it, the more I wish I had had a chance to peer-review the page first. In short, my oppose is based upon the article not yet meeting points 1 and 4 of the Featured Article Criteria: there are notable issues with the prose, the article is overly detailed in spots, some of the cited material is either not accurately represented or used inappropriately, and summary style needs to be better implemented. Here's a brief breakdown of my main concerns:
Having said all that, there's quite a bit about the article I do like, and all told Dan56 has done a great job so far. But it does require important revisions before I can support its promotion. Good luck to you, and I know you'll do your best. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I have decided that spotchecks are not required on this occasion.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [1].
The Way I See It (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is well written, its topic is fairly notable, and it fulfills FA criteria. Dan56 ( talk) 14:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Images check out; sound extracts I don't know enough about to assess. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn comments from User:Indopug |
---|
Comments My initial impression of this article is similar to that of
OK Computer—it's been thoroughly researched, but is so comprehensive that it gets to the point of being overwhelming for the reader, especially in terms of stats, dates, details and technical language. Examples:
Clearly most of my concerns are WP:FA? #4 as the article definitely goes into "unnecessary detail", apart from being quite technical in places. Also, this causes the prose (a little workmanlike already, but definitely fixable) to be far from engaging (1a). [Note: I'll be off-wiki for the next couple of weeks]— indopug ( talk) 17:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply
|
Initial comment I'm just starting to dig into this article. I'll have a full assessment soon, but I have to say that I'm leaning towards an oppose at the moment due to various issues with redundancy (both in prose and sources), excessive detail, and inappropriate/unsatisfactory usage of certain sources. As I said, I'll provide a full assessment soon, but even though it's becoming clear I cannot support the article at this current junction, all my feedback will be constructive, as I hope all issues can be resolved during the FAC (well, there's one portion that might involve a massive overhaul, but we'll get to that when the time comes). WesleyDodds ( talk) 13:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments: While I think the article is lovely; the very first thing I noticed is the accolades graph, and generally aren't these things suggested to be turned into prose instead? I know it can be hard to make "some publication said so and so about said album and put it somewhere on some list" again and again read interestingly, but it's somewhat jarring in context to the rest of the article.
Since omitting the less notable ones would mean it would fail comprehensiveness, I think there are multiple ways to deal with this. One could simply expand the section with prose, or say something akin to "the album was listed on many top 10 lists" and use a few bullet reference, or move some of citations that listed it amongst the Albums of the Decade to the legacy section. You could also create a subsection dealing with an international reception of the album, using the references from Adresseavisen, Dagbladet, Gaffa, The Irish Times etc, which, as far as I am aware, are all European publications.
Furthermore this always come down to preference, but it's a rather long article, and there are four images used. This isn't a problem if there aren't images to be used, but this album has a long range of influences including legends like Smokey Robinson, Curtis Mayfield and Stevie Wonder and had involvement with Rick Rubin and a bunch of other notable figures. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Follow-up comment Sorry about the delay, but I'll get to detailing my objections to the article later today. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Support The article seems comprehensive and well-written. There were a few nits that I fixed—Time Out linked to the company instead of the magazine, Robert Christgau was cited by first and last name in two consecutive paragraphs—but nothing that should prevent this article from promotion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose I was hoping to only cast a "weak oppose", but given the large numbers of supports already given, I felt it important to firmly declare that there are aspects of the article that are in need of revision before it can be promoted to Featured status. And the more and more I dig into it, the more I wish I had had a chance to peer-review the page first. In short, my oppose is based upon the article not yet meeting points 1 and 4 of the Featured Article Criteria: there are notable issues with the prose, the article is overly detailed in spots, some of the cited material is either not accurately represented or used inappropriately, and summary style needs to be better implemented. Here's a brief breakdown of my main concerns:
Having said all that, there's quite a bit about the article I do like, and all told Dan56 has done a great job so far. But it does require important revisions before I can support its promotion. Good luck to you, and I know you'll do your best. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I have decided that spotchecks are not required on this occasion.