Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casting Crowns (album)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 GrahamColm 14:31, 1 January 2013 [1].

Casting Crowns (album) edit

Casting Crowns (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 03:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen of the FA jury, I present to you Casting Crowns - the first (and in my opinion, best) album by the Christian rock band Casting Crowns (hence the name). The album is the result of a truly unique set of circumstances - in short, the band was discovered by a country singer looking to start a record label. The singer was so impressed that he brought in an acclaimed singer/songwriter to co-produce it, and a record label CEO was so impressed that he fast-tracked the album's release. This is all despite the band having no previous touring experience, having a bulky seven-person lineup, and recieving half the usual time for artist development (four months as opposed to the normal nine).

The record, primarily a Christian rock record with a "no-nonsense" lyrical approach, peaked at number fifty-nine on the Billboard 200 and yielded three number-one Christian radio singles as well as a heap of awards nominations. It was critically well-received for a debut album, in part due to its unique lyrical approach and high production quality. Just recently it received a double-platinum certification from the RIAA, making it one of only eight Christian records to hit that status.

Now, on Wikipedia the article passed GAR with flying colors from reviewer/admin Jclemens back in July. I believe it meets the FA criteria - the prose is great, all aspects of the album are covered, it features a slew of reliable citations, it is neutral, and all files are tagged with fair use labels. In short, it is an excellent article on an interesting topic. Toa Nidhiki05 03:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comments
  • The AllMusic review on the album is a glaring omission for the reception section of the article.
  • "Although Casting Crowns defied the norm for bands, having seven members and never having toured before, Provident Label Group CEO/President Terry Hemmings was outspoken in predicting success for the group and made them one of his top priorities." In addition to being a clunky sentence, I didn't get this meaning at all from the source. In fact, one of the actual factual things it does say is that the CEO was friends with the band, which is worth noting.
  • Four samples is a bit much, especially since there are two describing how a pop rock ballad sounds. "Voice of Truth" is the obvious weakest link, but I would cut to two samples, if not one.

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added it, don't know why I didn't have that.
  • Actually the source says Hemmings was friends with Miller, not the band, but the main issue with the citation is that the bulk of that information is cited in citation 4 ("Breaking the Mold"), not citation 7 ("Miller Starts Christian Label"). More or less the point of it was to demonstrate several factors working against the band - their size (much larger than most American rock or pop bands) and lack of touring experience. I've reworded it to note Miller's friendship with Hemmings as well as the addition of Steven Curtis Chapman as co-producer, as well as
  • I wanted to include all singles or radio releases, in part to show the diverse album tone (from acoustic rock to pop rock/AC to hard rock). Showing one simply isn't practical because one song doesn't demonstrate the album as a whole. I'll remove Voice of Truth as it makes there be two pop/rock songs that sound pretty similar in the music section, but I'd prefer the other three stay. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason I am using that source is that I don't have the album notes. I have the physical versions of every Casting Crowns album but this one, which I own digitally and which was bought before iTunes added digital booklets to their albums. I normally cite the album notes (look at any of my other articles), but an alternative source is required for this because I lack them. In this case, CD Universe is an online retailer which sells physical and digital CDS. It has been around for a while and has access to this information, both from Beach Street/Reunion and the liner notes. It isn't ideal and I'd gladly switch if liner notes become available, but I think it is sufficient.
  • JFH is a very reliable source in the Christian industry. It has been around since the mid-90s and is of sufficient clout to record labels secure interviews from a wide range of artists. The website posts reviews and interviews, which adhere to journalistic standards as well as press releases from labels. The former (journalist-quality reviews from a major CCM source) and latter (releases from record labels) are both reliable.
  • I can go back and find them, it is just easier to group them with About. I can get them from the site, as the Dove Awards keeps track of all winners in their archive, but I'll have to dig through cached pages to find the nominations that didn't win since the Doves don't keep a running total on their site. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for CD universe - can you not find someone who has the liner notes in a wikiproject? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will see what I can do about the liner notes - the Christian music project is mostly inactive at this point, but there are a few guys who can help. If I can't find it I'll have to remove the information which would leave a major gap, but if the source isn't reliable I suppose that is what must be done. For JFH, they note what they follow here for reviews - "strict journalistic standards" with their editorial staff being independent of any label or management firm. They are also a non-profit organization. As this album isn't an indie review, their rules for indie albums submissions don't apply. For interviews, their method is to arrange them through the record label, publicist, or management of the band they are interviewing and then to record and transcribe the interview for accuracy (but this doesn't apply to this article). Out of the five JFH sources, one is a review (citation 50). The other four are all repostings of press releases from record labels, which are reliable in and of themselves. Toa Nidhiki05 15:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves - I do think if you can't get the liner notes that CD universe will be adequate, but just barely. The JFH review should be fine as long as it's clearly attributed. It might be best to get the press releases from the record label themselves... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do my best to find the liner notes, I agree CD universe is not fantastic as a source. As for the press releases, I'll see what I can do. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am satisfied that JFH is a reliable source for these usages. I have two of Casting Crowns' CDs but not this one so I can't help with the liner notes. Royalbroil 05:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Interesting article, well-researched and generally well-written. Some comments below:

  • All images should have alt text.
  • Contemporary Christian music should be spelled out before it is abbreviated.
  • The fact that the album "was produced by Mark A. Miller and Steven Curtis Chapman" is repeated several times in the article; this statement should only occur once in the lead and once in the body.
  • Many instances of the word "it" are ambiguous.
  • There should be a comma after "By March 2004", "In May 2004", etc.
  • sinlge → single
  • The first sentence of the "Musical style" section seems excessive to me. Is it necessary to state that "influences from pop music are also present" after having already stated that the album has been classified as pop rock? Having ten references for this one sentence also seems like overkill. Much of this information is duplicated later anyway in the discussion of the individual tracks.
  • Maintain present tense when discussing the qualities of the album. For example, "Some critics noted that the album sounded..." should be switched to "Some critics noted that the album sounds...". The critics noting something is an event that took place in the past, but the album sounding a certain way is ever-present; the album sounds now as it always has, and statements regarding the album's sound should therefore be in the present.
  • There is much overlinking. I would highly recommend using the "Highlight duplicate links" function to identify the excess links.
  • The second chapter in which book of John? There are three. "Where" should also be "in which" in that sentence.
  • Is there supposed to be a question mark after "And if we are the body"? It's a sentence fragment, not a standalone question.
  • Bare surnames should be used after the initial mention of a person's name.
  • The words in quotation marks suggest that they are quotations from a source; these sources should be mentioned in the sentences themselves. Words such as "convicts" and "harmony-rich" are subjective and should not be stated as fact, but as opinion.
  • "Compel" is not the right verb to use at any point in this article. Perhaps "encourage" is what is intended?
  • "fear of sharing the gospel" should be prefaced by the word "their". There is also no need to include the lyrics from the chorus in this sentence.
  • I see the comments above about About.com. Whether you find alternate sourcing or not, the About.com source should be removed; an About.com entry in an academic paper's bibliography would be enough to prevent the paper from getting published.
  • Semicolons are overused.
  • The words that start the "Track listing" section are a sentence fragment and should either not conclude with a period or should be fashioned into a proper sentence.
  • The article is undercategorized.

Neelix (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed most of these issues with the exception of track listing, and categories. With track listing, that is part of the template and isn't something I can change about that without removing it from the template. As for categories, I'm not sure what to add. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the track listing issue. As for the categories, there are plenty to be added. There are genre categories like Category:Christian rock albums, Category:Pop rock albums by American artists, etc. Category:2003 albums can be replaced with Category:2003 debut albums. Category:Albums certified multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and Category:English-language albums should both be added as well. Neelix (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image still has no alt text. Also, several of the quotations are still stated as fact rather than opinion. Specifically, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Musical style" section suffers from this problem, as does the last sentence of the "Tracks 1-5" section. Neelix (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all these issues have been fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining issue I can see is that Reference 52 is dead. Neelix (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All issues I had with the article have been addressed. The article looks FA-worthy to me. Neelix (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Royalbroil

  • I read the article and I am impressed by the prose, neutral tone, etc. First, I'm wondering if Jesus Freak Hideout did a review of the album since most Contemporary Christian Music albums articles have a JFH critique/rating. Second, how did the singles place on R&R (magazine)? We (the people in WikiProject Christian music) discussed the Billboard vs R&R charts several years ago Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Archive 3#Chart stuff and I think that the R&R peak position for the singles would be a nice addition to the article. Or is were the R&R positions used? Royalbroil 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • JFH does not have a real review, no. They have a 'user review' and a really, really short 'staff review' that was posted in 2008 and doesn't really add much. As it isn't a contemporary review I didn't include it. As for the charts, the Billboard Hot Christian Songs and Hot Chrisitan AC charts, as well as the R&R Christian CHR, chart are used in the singles table. Single peaks on the R&R AC and INSPO charts are noted in the 'Release and promotion' section; the former is not listed in the table because the Billboard AC chart is listed, while the latter is not listed in the table because only the last two singles were released to the chart format. Toa Nidhiki05 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support good decisions about 1) to not use the JFH user review and 2) how you used the chart placements between Billboard versus R&R during that transition time (considering that Billboard was too new with Christian charts). Thanks for the explanation. Royalbroil 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after checking for MOS issues, none of concern jumped out. I moved two cites to immediately after a quoted word or words. There was a doubled over period and a misplaced comma. I don't see any issues with overlinking and the article is informative and comprehensive, having a balanced section of critical reviews as well as discussion on the various tracks, the instruments used, who wrote each and the major contributors.--MONGO 15:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Hi Toa, is this your first FAC? If so I'd like to see a reviewer carry out a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing.
  • Tweaked the prose in a couple of places but there's still this in the second paragraph: "Led by lead single..." -- can you rephrase/reword to avoid the redundancy?
  • Pls use consistent ndashes in the Credits and personnel section.
  • While we're at it, why credits and personnel anyway -- one or the other should be sufficient...
  • I was under the impression that succession boxes appeared at the end of articles, not before the References.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had two other nominations, both of which failed due to lack of discussion.
  • Altered to 'first single'
  • Will be fixing as soon as I can
  • Fixed.
  • Moved to bottom. Toa Nidhiki05 11:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks, and I do apologise for not remembering you as I should have from at least the first-mentioned review. In any case, neither of those FACs got as far as a spotcheck of sources so still expect one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem on either count. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done a check for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before, but I'm willing to give it a go. How many sources are normally checked in a spotcheck? I've checked four of the sources, and there are no accuracy problems, but there may be paraphrasing problems in one of the sources. Are the following considered too close?: 1) "fast-track the album's release" (source) and "fast-tracked the album's release" (article) 2) "was outspoken in predicting its success" (source) and "was outspoken in predicting success" 3) "instead of sharing the gospel" (identical in source and article). Neelix (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Neelix, this is why we spotcheck. We should be able to avoid reusing such phrases from the source text pretty well word-for-word in the WP article: "fast-tracked the album's release" and "was outspoken in predicting its success" need to be reworked (the former, presumably, could have been paraphrased as "rush-released the album"); as for "sharing the gospel", not such a big deal IMO but we could've used "spreading the gospel" for variation. Anyway, I've double-checked these examples against the sources myself, and I can see that the duplication is related to fairly short phrases, not entire sentences or passages, which suggests to me that, generally, effort has been made to paraphrase but it's fallen down in a few places. Given that, and the fact that this is not a terribly long article, I'd be happy for Toa to go through it and check for any similar instances, rewording as necessary, after which we'll spotcheck again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are cases where I couldn't come up with adjectives to replace or I overlooked something. I'd be more than happy to go through and fix those. I don't think a spot check would take too long - by my count, 34 of the 59 citations are sources like chart positions, lists, and adds dates that couldn't possibly have close paraphrasing issues because there isn't much (or any) text to paraphrase. I don't think a spotcheck would take very long because 25 citations shouldn't be too much to go through. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – good work, but after such a long running FAC, I didn't expect some of the following concerns.

  • There should always be punctuation after a mdy date, be it comma or period. I.e. "Released on October 30, 2003 through..." should be "Released on October 30, 2003, through...".
  • "Released on October 30, 2003 through Beach Street Records and produced by Mark A. Miller and Steven Curtis Chapman..." – not chronologically coherent. It wasn't released, then produced, was it?
  • Fused participle needs to be reworded: "with instrumentation mainly consisting".
  • Per MOS:NUM, comparable values should be consistently written as words or figures. You can't have both "number one" (words) and "number 59" (figures).
  • "2x Platinum" should be "2× Platinum".
  • Preferably, citations are placed after punctuation.
  • For ranges (eg. "Tracks 1–5"), en dashes are used, not hyphens.
  • Got a source for the track list?
  • Chart tables need plain row headers, per WP:ACCESS.
  • Chart peak tables with different years should not be merged, as this renders them unsortable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed most of the issues except a few. I have never seen any album FA with a citation for the tracklisting unless bonus tracks are listed, which is not the case here, and adding a citation would result in it being before the period due to the Track Listing template. The chart tables already have plainrowheaders, but I have removed the sort function since their really isn't any need for it. As for citations, the ones that are listed before punctuation are done for one of two reasons - because it is a claim that needs direct confirmation or the citation only covers a specific claim in a particular phrase or sentence and adding it at the end would make it seem like it confirms the whole thing. For example:

"Voice of Truth" was written around Hall's struggles with dyslexia and learning issues as a child.[48] Co-written by Chapman, the track is a pop rock[46] ballad,[42] encouraging listeners to tackle their personal fears and replace them with faith.[42][45]

Citation 48 supports the entire first sentence, so it is used there. Citation 46 only supports the 'pop rock' claim, not anything after it, and the claim is not supported by citations 42 or 45, so it is placed there to avoid confusion and provide immediate support for the claim and to make it much easier for readers to confirm it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The track list gives information like lengths, writers, and the order itself of the tracks as they are played. Perhaps, you could cite the CD notes. Per MOS:CHARTS, you should have separate tables for each year. Although I've never used the function myself, the tables should be sortable. I'm fine with the citation locations, given your reason. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can add the Allmusic citation (which is what the information is coming from), but it would place it before the period at the end of the first sentence in that section. I'll work on the charts, shouldn't be too hard. Toa Nidhiki05 20:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can alternatively write out the sentences manually instead, and cite after the period. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through some points. "With the main instruments used in the album being" is still a fused participle, if "the main instruments used in the albums" is altogether a noun. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-checks – Checked 10 citations from five Billboard articles and found one close paraphrasing issue and a few assorted minor concerns. I'd like to see them cleaned up, but there's nothing to make me question the integrity of the article as a whole.

  • Reference 4, use b: A little bit of closeness in the source here, which says "They were being produced by a country artist with no track record in the Christian industry." Article: "and being produced by Miller, who had no track record in the Christian music industry."
  • Reference 4, use d: No problems here. The article's content is supported without close paraphrasing.
  • Reference 4, use e: No problems here either. The statistic is supported by the article and date of publication.
  • Reference 4, use f: This covers the content and is acceptably paraphrased.
  • Reference 4, use g: "sharing the gospel" appears in both the source and article, and could arguably be put in quotations here. Also, the part about the song opening the second half of the album is not supported by the article; perhaps the reference for the track listing could be copied into this sentence.
  • Reference 7, use a: Everything checks out.
  • Reference 10, use a: Given that "a huge radio hit" appears verbatism in the source, I'd argue for making the quote in our article cover more material. At least some quoting is acknowledged here.
  • Reference 10, use b: The sentence is supported with no close paraphrasing.
  • Reference 27: The sales figure is supported by the source.
  • Reference 37: Minor, but the source doesn't say the album sold over 1.7 million copies, just 1.7 million. Maybe you could try adding "about" or similar to indicate that this isn't an exact figure? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, while I'm here, the last source I checked needs an access date. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the issues listed - with the last one, Billboard does round their numbers slightly so I changed it to 'around'. It has sold more at this point (Christian labels don't print 300,000 extra albums because that costs a ton of money), there just isn't any citation to prove the exact sales figure. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Access date still needed for the one source; otherwise the comments appear resolved. Also, I noticed that ref 10 is appearing before punctuation in its first usage (should be after), and the "single was a significant hit at Christian radio" bit is odd; changing the latter part to "on Christian radio stations" should be a sufficient fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62:

  • I'm a bit puzzled by the organization of the Musical style section. Firstly, it seems misleading to divide the album into two chapters unless the artist or other sources have specified that that was the intent. Second, why is there so much more prose about the first half than the second?
  • In the Background and recording section, why is there a huge paragraph followed by a two-sentence paragraph?
  • "student worship band" What is this?
  • "While most artists in a similar situation as the band faced would have received 9 months to develop" I suggest cutting out "as the band faced", as it is clunky and does not add any meaning to the sentence. Also, develop what?
  • "an approach which was described ... as a "no-nonsense approach"" I like peanut butter on my peanut butter.
  • I'm seeing hyphens where there should be endashes, particularly in the Personnel section.
  • The Album charts section is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
  • Did this album get any attention in countries other than the United States?

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In designing that section, I didn't want it to be some huge mega-section so I divided the album in half (10 tracks total, 5 for each section). The album has been described moreso in that the first six songs are CCM while the last four are worship. The reason one is larger than the other is that the first six songs on the album received much more critical attention while the last four were essentially lumped together and not discussed as much individually. I can't really fix that, that is an issue with reviewers not reviewing each song on the album.
  • I see three plausible ways to organize this section. The first is to simply leave it as is, which arbitrarily divides the songs in half, despite there not being any significance to the halfway point in the album. The second is to shift it to a 6-4 split, which is not arbitrary, but which exacerbates the problem of the last subsection being tiny compared to the first one. The third is to simply remove the subheadings altogether. I don't think the size of the resulting section would be problematic, but we could easily make it appear less bulky by moving the Mark Hall image into the Release and promotion section. Does this seem reasonable? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging seems to be the best option to me, so I'll do that here in a bit. The 6-4 setup would be ideal in that it is critically regarded as a major shift in album tone, but the information would just be tiny in comparison to the first header. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged them now.
  • A student worship band is a band that performs worship songs at the youth group of a church, so basically the church band for youth group.
  • Artist development - getting the name out, learning to do interviews, getting used to touring and recording, etc. Most of the time labels spend a while on acts that they want to hit it big.
  • Ah, that is not at all what I had in mind when I read the word "develop", which suggests that some clarification might be needed. Artist development deal might be a helpful link target here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, linked.
  • Redundancy removed
  • I've removed all the hyphens in the Personnel section
  • Not sure why this falls there - weekly and year/decade-end charts are common (if not virtually required) aspects of music articles.
  • As someone with no experience reading or working on music articles, I look at Album charts and see two things that raise an eyebrow: The first is that every entry is from Billboard, and the second is that some of the chart positions are utterly unremarkable. With both eyebrows raised, I think to myself "This is just a meaningless pile of data. This is not what Wikipedia is for." If the album charted on any other lists, I would love to see the mundane Billboard entries swapped out for ones which actually convey some notability. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could remove the year-end ones, but I'd prefer the decade-end and weekly ones stay - I could remove the catalog chart if that makes it better. In terms of remarkability, it isn't really so - the album is more known for its longetivity than its peak (like many debut albums are), but the information itself is notable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on what you mean by attention - in global terms, the UK, Canada, and Australia are really the major countries where Christian music has a degree of popularity, but even there most Christian albums don't chart highly or even at all unless the artist is local (like Matt Redman and Delirious? in the UK and Hillsong in AUS). Casting Crowns did not chart in any other country, but it did receive coverage in Cross Rhythms, a UK publication that supplies three citations for this page. I would imagine other Christian publications in either country might have covered the album as well. Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest doing a bit of digging to find those Christian publications from other countries. It's possible that additional coverage may provide more material on the last few songs of the album, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll love to find some, but I'm not from any of those countries so I'm not sure what their major publications are. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just from the Background and recording section, I raise my eyebrows at "the as-of-yet unnamed record label" (huh?), "However..." and "Additionally..." (these are indicators of poor writing; just leave them out and the meaning is unaffected). I'll try to review the rest of the article but this first sample shows some work needs to be done on bringing the prose to the required quality. --John (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - This candidate has been here a long time, but problems with the prose remain. There is redundancy "The album eventually peaked at number 59 on that chart" and poor grammar "with the main instruments used in the album being guitar, keyboard, and violin." I have decided to archive this FAC and suggest a thorough copy-edit from an uninvolved editor who can bring some strategic distance, before re-nominating. Graham Colm (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2013 (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/Casting_Crowns_(album)/archive1&oldid=1140156139"