Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)/archive7

< 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2018 [1].

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) edit

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Alexandra Stan's second studio album, Unlocked (2014), released after her highly-mediatized violent event with former manager Marcel Prodan. I have nominated Unlocked for FAC several times in the past, but the last time it did attract almost no comments, although I had worked extensively on the article's prose. For reasons why I feel like this should become a FA, please see the last FAC here. Thank you as always for comments! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kees08 edit

I intend to review this, leaving a placeholder here so you can remind me (if necessary). Kees08 (Talk) 06:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

  • File:Dance (Sample).ogg - 20 seconds is fine
    • The fair use rationale states: "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus." I am not sure that this rationale fits this article.
DONE! I have changed the rationale somewhat. Is it better now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine Kees08 (Talk)
    • Also, could you get a patroller/admin to add that the rationale is appropriate? (once we have the above sorted)
I have asked an administrator and I'm waiting for a response. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to the quality being reduced, what was it before and what is it now?
It was in terms of the Kbps rate; it now is 62 kbps, while back then it used to be around 120 kbps.Cartoon network freak

(talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks Kees08 (Talk)

Any reason the cover arts are different sizes? I do not particularly care, just curious. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but I could ask someone to fix that if you want to. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, it seems like they are a standard size and then reduced and kept at the same scale. For some reason that I do not particularly care about, that did not happen here. Kees08 (Talk)

@Kees08: I have responded to your comments! Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming an admin gets back to you on that point, the media review is complete and the article passes. Kees08 (Talk) 22:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from Tony1 edit

Lead prose:

  • It may be my ignorance of the field, but do these two propositions belong in one sentence, almost counterposed against each other with "while"? "Several collaborators are credited for the record's production, including Andreas Schuller, Sebastian Jacome, Chrishan Prince, Erik Lidbom, and Gabriel Huiban, while material was developed during the first Romanian international songwriting camp FonoCamp in 2013." If it's not necessary, possibly consider "... Huiban; material ...". Does "material" refer to the music?
DONE! Yes, "material" refers to music. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "material" is too non-specific. Why don't you write what you mean, here? The songs? The music? Please don't write for experts. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be fussy, but the level of certainty in "alleged" applies only to the first proposition; then you continue with high-certainty "facts" that spin off from that low-certainty beginning (hiatus, signed, etc).
"Alleged" is used because we don't know if there was this altercation between the singer and her manager or not. The singer appeared bruised on television back then and kept saying that her manager beat her, but it wasn't confirmed afterwards if her really abused her or not. I guess it would be wrong to to leave the "alleged" out. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you miss my point: your low level of certainty is fine for the first proposition; but then you spin things causally out of the assumption that it was true. Doesn't work. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the issue now. What I really wanted to refer to was the court case between Stan and Prodan that resulted in all those things. Is it better now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it sold around 17,000 units as of September 2014." Bit simpler? "where it had sold around 17,000 units by September 2014. And since the release (we presume in Japan, too) was on 27 August, which part of September are you referring to?
DONE! I'm referring to late September. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But your number is solid hard: to the nearest thousand in the lead, and then (unacceptable), 17, 045 further down; late September is vague. Doesn't the source give the date? This is a problem. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added the exact number of sales in the lead, and in fact it is the number by January 2015 (I corrected that now). A few years ago, I had asked a user who had access to the Japanese Oricon sales database ( see discussion here ) and he told me that the album had sold 17,045 units between its charting period from August 2014 to January 2015. An exact date for the sales isn't available, and I also haven't seen things like "'XY sold X units by 26 July 2018". Am I wrong? Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I know nothing of the field, but "to aid the album" sounds weird to me.
DONE! Replaced with "promote". Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's another one, too. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Can you help me out? Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to mark the duality with "both"? Do you need [comma] performing?
DONE! Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development:

  • "In 2012 and 2013, Alexandra Stan released the singles "Lemonade", "Cliché (Hush Hush)" and "All My People" as intended for her second album." Ambiguous, to me, the "released ... as intended".
DONE! Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, ...". Use "But" here ... so much better for readers, and you know you want to do it. Just not too many sentence-initial buts.
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Japan–only" – what's the en dash doing there?
DONE! Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, "Fixed". Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was made available for sale" – eek, by whom? Why the passive gobbly?
DONE! Replaced with "was released". Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aforementioned" – is this a legal document?
I've seen this word in several other high-level music article, and I think it's a better option than enumerating the singles again or stating just "singles". I also don't know other alternative for this, but maybe you do? Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then do us all a favour and zap it in those other, supposedly high-level articles (plural, you mean?). Why not just remove this urchin? "the singles". The means you know the ones I'm referring to. Don't use ANY gobbledy words: wheretofore, hitherto, etc. Make it PLAIN and SIMPLE. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! ...or 'fixed', anyway lol. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the addition of the aforementioned singles, and was the singer's last album on Prodan's label, Maan Records." Slightly too willing to shove "and" in to join propositions into a sentence. Suggest a dash here: "with the addition of the EEK singles – the singer's last album on Prodan's label, Maan Records."
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 2013, Stan began working with another team, including record producers and songwriters Alex Cotoi and Erik Lidbom, on what would become her second studio album, Unlocked." The first comma could be dumped for flow: there are already plenty. It's long and complex, so interrupt with a pair of dashes? – including ... Libom – .. Do you need to stress the evolution so explicitly (on what would become)? If not, dump three words.
DONE! Fixed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've used spaced eM dashes. Not allowed on WP. Must be article-consistent, whether spaced en – or closed em—. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FIXED! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm finding too many ways to improve the language to Support on the basis of 1a. So I'll Oppose until we expect to see significant improvements throughout. Suggest printing out, red pen, and COLLEAGUES' input please. Tony (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thank you very much for your comments. I've ammended almost everything you suggested to and replied to your comments. I may be wrong, but you have a tendency of being one of these users who just leave an oppose and then never come back to this page again to check the progress; please don't do that! I've been searching for an experienced user to work with on this article for long time, but I couln't find one. Now I'm hoping you are willing to continue your review. Thank you! Best of regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're debating modifications to the instructions, which might place more pressure on reviewers to avoid hit-and-run posts. The purpose of reviewing here is not to be your personal copy-editor, I'm afraid. It's to provide examples of how to improve your writing throughout (YOU do that), and to suggest you need other eyes on it. It's also to show you how to mentor and collborate with other editors in this topic. There are 45 FACs on the list, and lots of FARs and FARCs, too. We are spread too thinly. So ... no. Your job. Quid pro quo with some other editors. Network. The writing is not too bad, but we shouldn't have to point these issues out. So don't stop being critical about writing. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please don't use those gaudy green ticks. It's in the instructions not to. Tony (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I think I solved your issues now. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHECKLIST

  • Quality of prose throughout (1a): Needed tightening up before submission. Learning curve here. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • High-quality, reliable sources used appropriately (1c):
  • Citations consistently formatted (2c):
  • Images/media copyright and policy compliance (3):
  • Comprehensive, appropriate length, neutral (1b, 4, 1d): Looks OK. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follows style guidelines (2): OK Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

In addition to the problems with the prose quality ("Showing Stan sporting a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background, Dimitri Caceaune photographed the cover art for Unlocked."), there are too many Amazon and ITunes sources. --John (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @John:! Can you please explain to me what the problem is in the given sentence? Also, what are reliable online music stores I can use apart from iTunes and Amazon? Is there a policy for that? Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Amazon.com,_Target.com_and_Itunes_sales_pages_as_reference_for_discography should help answer the question. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John:@Kees08: Several iTunes links have been removed and replaced with other sources. However, there are still four iTunes refs that remained, as I could not find a substitute for them. For what I've read in the discussion mentioned bove by Kees08, nor iTunes nor Amazon have been classified as "unreliable", but rather there has been some dispute regarding their reliability, resulting in no consensus. However, multiple users involved in that discussion recommended using iTunes or Amazon if there really isn't any other source to replace that with (which is the case for a few remaining refs here). I think that is acceptable. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the sourcing issue, I just thought I would flag it up as it was raised at one of the previous FACs but not really addressed. As regards the sentence, here's a good way to think about it. Most sentences should have a subject, a verb and an object. In the sentence "John ate the pizza", "John" is the subject, "ate" is the verb, and "the pizza" is the object. Your sentence is constructed in such a way as to hide what the meaning is. We should not do that. You could rewrite this example as "Dimitri Caceaune photographed the cover art for Unlocked. It shows Stan wearing a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background." It would be a lot better like this. There are many sentences in the article which need this treatment before it could pass on prose. --John (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Thank you for pointing that out! I will have another thorough look into the article later and see what I can do. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - It appears that substantial representative prose issues have been identified by two different reviewers. I will be archiving this so you can rework the writing with the help of a good copyeditor. --Laser brain (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2018 (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/Unlocked_(Alexandra_Stan_album)/archive7&oldid=857165196"