Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2021

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [1].

Love for Sale (Bilal album) edit

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my third nomination of this article, on an album of sentimental value to me, but not at the expense of more important things in your lives. Thank you 😌 isento (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per unresolved issues from the first nomination. Sources like Genius and The Shadow League fail the "high-quality" part of criterion 1(c). — Bilorv (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per unresolved issues from the second nomination, with particular reference to the sourcing. ——Serial 17:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also unsure as to whether these requests ([2],[3],[4]) are the good-faith neutral notifications mandated by WP:CANVAS. ——Serial 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Special:Diff/1024814865, but I got one of these messages here for the second nomination and I didn't think it was canvassing. They're just requests to review (not to blindly support) and I'm guessing they're just picked out of people recently active at FAC. — Bilorv (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it was the tone of the messages, rather than to whom they were delivered, that raised eyebrows. ——Serial 09:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to concerns about the reliability of sources and unresolved issues from prior nominations. It does not look like the concerns raised by Ealdgyth were entirely addressed. I'm also appalled at the behavior of the nominator; they dismissed valid concerns as "controversial" and blamed Ealdgyth for "derailing" the first nom when they had a second nom earlier this month. I'm inclined to oppose this as there was nothing controversial about the SR in the first nom and all of those concerns should be addressed, as well as the numerous ones listed in a new SR below. NoahTalk 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricane Noah: It seems like the nominator has rage quit. Looking at his contributions, he has blanked his user and talk page after Bilorv's opposition. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Will take a look at this. First aspect will be source reliability and formatting. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes an anonymous piece from Soulhead high-quality RS
  • What makes Beats, Boxing, and Mayhem high-quality RS? (the Abdusalaam, Ismael piece, presumably the interview is mostly fine as a primary source)
  • What is John Simon Daily, and what makes it high-quality RS?
  • Got some doubts about SoulBounce being high-quality RS
  • Bamalovesoul appears to be a blog, does the author have any sort of credentials?
  • It looks like Prefixmag has staff pieces and non-staff pieces, how well does that source vet the non-staff pieces?
  • What makes New Black Man (in Exile) high-quality RS?
  • "Chestnutt Hill Local" should only have one t, it looks like.
  • The Shadow Tier appears to be a blog-level sports site, what makes it high-quality RS for music?

Once these get figured out, I'll do some spot checks for source-text integrity and copyright. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am swiftly archiving this per the several well reasoned opposes above. The usual two week wait before a further nomination will apply. Can I recommend a visit to PR before renominating. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [5].

Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon edit

Nominator(s): Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut posthumous studio album by American rapper Pop Smoke. It was executive produced by American rapper 50 Cent after Pop Smoke was murdered at the age of 20 during a home invasion. After months of researching the topic, I think it is FA status. I would like to give a huge thanks to Gerda Arendt after she helped me with the peer review. Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For full disclosure, this is TUB back under a different name. Their userpage is currently marked "semi-retired". (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • Two very quick comment before I do a full review: The release history table is missing release dates and regions
    • CD: July 31, 2020 (Germany)[6]
    • Dlx. 2xCD: November 20, 2020 (Germany) [7], South Korea (January 22, 2021)[8]
    • There a bunch of different release dates in Japan, including a casette version not mentioned at all[9]
    • I would just check some countrys record store, to see if some are still missing.
  • I don't see a reason for the deluxe edition album cover. It is basically the same. See Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra album cover and WP:NFCCP. More comments soon.--Lirim | Talk 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lirim.Z: I have to disagree with you on that. The deluxe edition is not the same as the standard edition, if you compare these two album together, they are different [10] [11]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAmazingPeanuts: The Deluxe ed. cover is a dove carrying the rose from the Standard edition cover. The template states, in accordance with the guideline: "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included."--Lirim | Talk 04:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lirim.Z: Okay, thank you for pointing out, but will it be okay to add the |caption= parameter with a note for the deluxe edition cover? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless it clearly doesn't meet WP:NFCC which requires significant increase in reader understanding. There's sourced commentary on the original cover but not the deluxe one. (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lirim.Z: How does the release history section look? Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hi reviewers, I've just begun the copy-edit of the article the nominator requested at the GOCE Requests page. This will probably take me a couple of evenings to complete and reviewed text may change during this time. I'll post again here when I've finished my c/e. Please check the article's edit history for progress and feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My c/e is now Done. Thanks for your patience. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: It looks like there has been no review in almost two weeks. Do you think this should be closed? Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shoot for the Stars, should I take that as a request for withdrawal? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild give it like 2 or 3 more days to see if it gets any comments. And if it doesn’t. Just archive it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2021 [12].

Milton Friedman edit

Nominator(s): BasedMisesMont Pelerin 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Milton Friedman. I am nominating this for FAC because I have worked diligently on this article. I have added quite a bit of relevant media, added a massive new slew of sources that make this article extremely reliable, added several new sections including a criticism section to ensure the neutrality of opinions (which has been a complaint on the page). I have also fixed all mistakes in conventions, spelling, and other things. I also made the article pleasing to look at, and I am most certainly proud of this work. Please take away this proudness if necessary. I have checked the criteria. The prose is well-written (already was), and thus I did not feel a need to improve it. The article is supported by numerous pieces of media which interact well with users, and the amount of information is certainly sufficient for a FA. Thank you for your comments! BasedMisesMont Pelerin 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 edit

Hi BasedMises, thanks for nominating this article for FAC. Unfortunately, I suggest that this article is withdrawn from FAC at this time and a peer review be opened instead. At 101kb of prose size, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be split. I also notice some paragraphs do not have a citation at the end of them, something I consider a prerequisite before nominating for FAC. Some other concerns are unnecessary information (like his height in the Personal life section) and numerous short paragraphs that should be merged together. Since lots of the information will be changed or removed before it is FA ready, I think it would be unfair for a reviewer to read through the whole article right now. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Thanks for the comment. If possible, I will resolve all of that. I believe that the height is necessary considering he is considered to be among the shortest economists ever, and would certainly make for a good DYK. I will try shortening the prose and merging sections. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 03:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Significant issues with sourcing abound here. Will divide the issues into different types
Formatting
  • "Chicago Remembers Milton Friedman, Sanderson, 2012, [1]" - You'll want a better way of including the url than slapped on at the end, the publisher needs included, and Sanderson's full name needs provided.
  • Page numbers needed for Van Overtveldt
  • Page numbers needed for Friedman 2018
  • Publisher, page number, and date needed for Krugman 1995
  • "Who's who in American Jewry. 1980." - needs page number, publisher, isbn, etc.
  • Ref 28 to Ebenstein needs page numbers; also, don't use all caps for titles
  • "Incomes from Independant Professional Practice, 1945, Friedman, Kuznets" - needs publisher, page numbers, author's full names, etc.
  • "Beznoska, Martin; Ochmann, Richard (2012). "Liquidity Constraints and the Permanent Income Hypothesis: Pseudo Panel Estimation with German Consumption Survey Data"." - lacks a publisher
  • " "Rose Friedman, Economist Partner of Husband Milton, Dies at 97 - Bloomberg". web.archive.org. November 5, 2013. Retrieved May 20, 2021." - web.archive.org is not the publisher, Bloomberg is
  • " Optimum Quantity of Money. Aldine Publishing Company. 1969. p. 4." - Needs the author
  • "Friedman, Milton. Inflation: Causes and Consequences. New York: Asia Publishing House." - needs page numbers
  • " Hamilton, Earl J. (1965). American Treasure and the Price Revolution in Spain, 1501-1650. New York: Octagon." needs page numbers, and I don't think a 1965 source is good for citing "Friedman was best known for ..."
Reliability
  • "Maureen Sullivan (July 30, 2016). "Milton Friedman's Name Disappears From Foundation, But His School-Choice Beliefs Live On". Forbes" - Appears to be a Forbes contributor piece, so probably not reliable per WP:FORBESCON
  • " "Right from the Start? What Milton Friedman can teach progressives" (PDF). J. Bradford DeLong. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2008." - This is a book review by DeLong, on what appears to be DeLong's personal website. The formatting suggests this may be from some sort of journal, though. More needs to be known to determine if this is self-published
  • What makes Corporate Finance Institute high-quality RS?
  • Investopedia is not good enough sourcing for FA
  • What makes The Daily Bell RS?
  • What makes The Daily Hatch RS?
  • What makes The Money Masters RS?
Other
  • Ref 14 is actually an uncited note
  • "Friedman's on the Military Industrial Complex - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved January 8, 2021." - Unless we can demonstrate that this video is of a non-copyrighted broadcast, this likely fails WP:COPYLINK, as this is just to a random YouTube channel, not a likely copyright holder

Oppose - I've looked at only about half of the inline citations, and it is just a total mess. Formatting is completely inconsistent, most books lack page numbers, a number of sources are week or unreliable, and I didn't even look at the latter half of these, and it is clearly a mess. This needs a very detailed peer review before it will be ready, as the sourcing currently is pretty far from FA standards. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- per above comments I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements (and a Peer Review) take palace outside the FAC process, after which you could consider another nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2021 [13].

2020 US Open (tennis) edit

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Grand Slam tennis tournament that took place in August and September 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) in New York. I worked to improve this article both at the time it occurred (to get it approved at ITN) and over much of the month of March during its GA review (many thanks to Sportsfan77777 for that). It is currently one of two GA tennis tournament articles (the other being 2009 Sony Ericsson Open), and the only FA tennis tournament article is 1877 Wimbledon Championships, so I figured trying to get another one there wouldn't hurt. This is my first FA nomination, and I was mentored by Casliber prior to this nomination (see here). I'd appreciate any and all feedback I can get. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. However, you should only be using |upright= to scale images, not fixed pixels which cause display to be suboptimal depending on the device and settings. See MOS:UPRIGHT. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

  • review MOS:DTAB for table formatting. They're missing row and column scopes, row headers, and some lack captions.
  • the images need alt text. Heartfox (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox, alt text has been added for all images, and row/col scopes, row headers, and captions have been added to all tables. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator

The tables, paragraphs of prose, and image seen in the "Players" section here were removed with this edit by Fyunck(click). Regardless of my support of or disagreement with these edits, I am bringing them here to avoid any confusion as to why this part of the article, which was advised to be added in the GA review, has been removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • An image was inadvertently removed but has been re-added. The "Players" section has been re-added but trimmed for duplicate info in prose, and Covid-related material has been placed in the Covid section. The "Singles players" section is per consensus, and seed chart removal is per consensus. I hope that helps with the understanding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by Nick-D Just a few comments mainly on the COVID-19 section:

  • The first sentence of this section is a bit over complex
  • "described as a "bubble within a bubble" by players" - this is odd given that no 'bubble' is previously described as being part of the COVID safety protocol (the term usually refers to a group of individuals who don't mix with people outside the group)
  • The para starting with 'In the event a player was deemed a close contact of someone who had tested positive' is problematic. The second sentence implies that a change in policy took place, but the source doesn't support this - it actually says that requiring a 14 day period of isolation was the standard protocol required by the health authorities, and is discussing how this was applied for some specific cases (with the players being named).
  • "thus impacting their ability to continue competing in the tournament." - surely it ended their ability to participate?
  • " Additionally, the men's singles third round match between Alexander Zverev and Adrian Mannarino was delayed for three hours due to a "collaborative dialogue with health officials"" - it is not clear what this means.
  • The geographic region the statistics for viewership noted in the second para of the 'Broadcasting and viewership' are for section is unclear - is this just for the US? Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

More than two weeks in and this has yet to attract a general support. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next two or three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving as mentioned above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2021 [14].

Hughie Ferguson edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Scottish footballer Hugh Ferguson. A prolific goalscorer from an early age, he scored freely throughout his career and was one of the most noted forwards of the pre-war era, but probably never gained the distinction he deserved. Probably the most notable achievement of his career was the winning goal in the 1927 FA Cup Final that secured the cup for Cardiff City. However, his career ended tragically when he returned to Scotland in 1929 before committing suicide shortly after, which has been attributed to his fears over his declining abilities. As always, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility: the table needs a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a table caption for this, but this is the standard layout as laid out at the WP:FOOTBALL MoS that is used on every football article we have. This has gone through FAC on a number of occasions in the past. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

More than two weeks in and this has yet to attract a general support. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next two or three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I am going to regretfully archive this. Given the lack of commentary, the usual two week wait before a further nomination will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 May 2021 [15].

Russian Revolution edit

Nominator(s): Caustic3 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... The radical changes in the Russian Empire in the backdrop of the first world war. These changes have been gradually taking place since the Assassination of Tsar Alexander but the First World War exacerbated them. The impact of the Russian Revolutions of 1917 both the displacement of the Tsar and the rise of the Bolshevik Party have had tremendous consequences both positive and negative on human history.Caustic3 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Disputed statements from February 2018. Unsourced statements from August 2020. DrKay (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there are several area that require citations. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose would recommend first putting in citations to reliable sources for all content, then taking to GAN (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- archiving partly per above comments, and also on procedural grounds as the nominator appears to have no edits to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 May 2021 [16].

Columbia University edit

Nominator(s): alphalfalfa(talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Columbia University, the fifth oldest institute for higher education in the United States and a member of the Ivy League. Founded in 1754, by Wikipedia's reckoning 96 Nobel laureates are associated with the university. It's been a while since a university has been elevated to featured article status so the criteria are a little unclear, but I've been cleaning up this article over the past few weeks and I think it could be FA quality. alphalfalfa(talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Some parts of the article are overloaded with images, not all of which are providing encyclopedic value. Try to avoid just using images for decoration. Make sure that they're relatively close to where they are relevant (ideally explicitly mentioned in text) and avoid sandwiching them.
  • File:Columbia law madison.gif dubious licensing
  • File:Almamater.jpg When was the statue erected? US freedom of panorama doesn't include statues so you have to have a tag showing the statue is out of copyright
  • File:ColumbiaMedicalCenter.jpeg Uncertain that this is uploader's own work as claimed (getting an aerial view of NYC is non-trivial and there's no EXIF)
  • File:GehrigCU.jpg What's the original publication date of this image?
  • This isn't part of the FA criteria but a lot of the images aren't great quality (low resolution, tilted, etc.) and you could probably find better ones on Commons (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and rearranged/replaced the images to better suit the article. As for your licensing concerns, File: Columbia law madison.gif was pubished in 1904. [17], p.335. The Alma Mater statue was published in 1903, and so should be public domain. As for the Lou Gehrig photo, I can't find when it was originally published, but it was taken in 1922 and seems to be widely used on the internet (I've found multiple sites selling prints of it?). If I can't figure out whether it's public domain it can be removed.alphalfalfa(talk) 18:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you know it's free, it has to be documented in the image description. I've now added the book to the Columbia law image. Many copyrighted images are "widely used on the internet"; you need documented evidence that it's freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Not a full source review, but the refs are not consistently formatted and there's a heavy reliance on official university sources. Using templates such as {{cite news}} can help achieve consistency.
  • These refs[18][19][20] are underutilized and may help discuss university's influence from an independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Regarding your {{or}} tag for the Columbia University Press logo,[21] this logo appears to be the original logo of it. But my evidence is that they used it on their publications in 1895 (example: [22]), which is the first year they were in business. Is that sufficient, or is that still WP:SYNTH? DMacks (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stating something like, "This is the logo used in 1895, the first year of operation" is probably preferable. Make sure that it's supported either in the image description or citation (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the image is mis-placed topically: that publisher is not a student organization. As a notable academic-related unit, I think this publisher should be mentioned somewhere in the article but I don't know where. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Z1720 edit

I'm sorry, but I am going to oppose at this time. I commented at the PR, and although most of my concerns were addressed, the nominator did not respond at the PR so I did not know that they were ready for more comments. Some concerns I raised at the PR were image sandwiching and the fact that every paragraph needs to have a citation at the end of it, and these concerns have not been fully resolved. I am happy some splitting of the article has happened. Other sections can be completely removed from the article as being promotional or unencyclopedic, such as "Debate and Model UN" or "World Leaders Forum". Some sections are too long and need to be summarized or split into smaller headings. Since a lot of work needs to be done on the formatting and structure of the article, I think it would be unfair to have someone review the prose at this point.

I suggest that the nominator find a mentor to help give comments on the article and bring this back to FAC when the above concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Z1720, and the sourcing issues raised by Buidhe. At the moment I would suggest withdrawal, as the issues are more extensive than are likely to be resolvable within the timeframe of an FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2021 [23].

Taylor Swift (album) edit

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flash back to 15 years ago, Taylor Swift was a nobody until she released her self-titled debut album, a somewhat starry-eyed yet ambitious country music hopeful. Although sonically burdened by fillers, the album showcases the early talents of Ms. Swift as a confessional songwriter with a knack of crafting the biggest pop hooks. Listen to "Our Song", and you will understand.

The article had passed GAN in March 2010, but I noticed it has since been filled with a considerable amount of original research and unreliable sources. I rewrote the whole article, and had it peer-reviewed. Fresh off the peer review, I now believe this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. Any comment on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Best, HĐ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Taylor Swift (album)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱 edit

  • Ref 16 is missing a date. I know that's because it's another one of those sources that decided "[insert number] years ago" is a valid enough credit of the date, but there is the "view-source" feature on your browser for you to find the publishing date. In this citation, it's June 3, 2010. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added date. Thanks for pointing that out! HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say that the prose is interesting, engaging, and understandable, but I do have a comment about its organization.
  • There are sentences throughout that discuss Swift's role in the country scene as a teenager, some of which seem to be equivalent and should be merged in some way. For example:
    • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously because of her young age: "Basically [they] all went, 'Ah, how cute ... Go home and come back when you're 18.' "[6]" and "According to Borchetta, industry peers initially disapproved of his signing a sixteen-year-old singer-songwriter.[9] The Associated Press reported that a Nashville senior talent manager said: "Tell her to get back in school and come back and see me when she's 18, and bring her parents," which received local press coverage.[33]"
    • "She was rejected because record labels believed the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl, which Swift firmly disbelieved.[5][6]" and "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity.[33][45] However, industry experts did not expect a teenage artist to replicate the success of LeAnn Rimes in the 1990s, and country radio focused on female artists over 30 for advertising reasons.[34]"
      • I trimmed down the "Legacy" section so that it would not repeat what has been said in the previous sections. Let me know what you think. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm... I see where you're going, but I don't think removing the AP quote entirely from the article is the solution. Like I said, I think merging it with a similar quote in the background section about Swift being instructed to wait until she was 18 would be better while at the same time not leaving out a part of the literature on the album
        • However, I'm noticing a bigger issue with the Legacy section. It doesn't feel so much like a Legacy section but rather an analysis of parts in the music industry at the time. While interesting, it doesn't scream "later years" to me as "Legacy" would suggest. Only the last sentences suggest anything of a legacy on Swift's career: "The autobiographical narratives on Taylor Swift defined Swift's songwriting over the next decade,[28][29] which Billboard noted to inspire a new generation of aspiring singer-songwriters who compose their own songs.[102] The album's pop crossover sound laid the groundwork to Swift's country-pop discography, whose chart success straddled the perceived boundary between the two genres.[103][106][107]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wrote the "Legacy" section to assess public reception of the album that could not fit in other sections (per WP:MOSALBUM#Controversy or legacy sections). I renamed this section to "Impact and legacy", however, for readers to have a clearer image of what this section intends to do. HĐ (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston from Pitchfork described the album as an honest record about teenage perspectives, as opposed to the manufactured albums that "weighed down former teen sensations"."" This seems to make showcase another differentiation in Swift's role in the industry, in addition to being a teen in the country scene, and sounds like it should be in the legacy section instead of a reception section that shows opinions of the album quality itself.
    • In that sense, should all retrospective reviews be moved to the "Impact and legacy" section, given that they all regarded this album in the context of the industry at the time? Alas, I think relating this album's success to Swift's difference in the industry is somewhat fine for critical reviews, given that contemporaneous reviews from Country Weekly or PopMatters commented on Swift's pop crossover and how it made Swift stand out from previous country singers. HĐ (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Our Song" and "Should've Said No" reached number one on the Hot Country Songs.[65] With "Our Song", Swift became the youngest person to single-handedly write and singe a number-one country single.[68]" Since the previous sentences already use the format of "This song went to number this, this song peaked at number that," I would get varied with the prose and write the two songs" "topped the Hot Country Songs chart, making Swift the youngest artist to single-handedly write and sing a number-one country single."
  • Wouldn't it confuse readers with which single Swift achieved the feat though? HĐ (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhh.. OK, point taken. I keep my commenting about making sure prose isn't too repetitive, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, what's up with that "e" at the end of sing?
  • Although "Music" is interesting and well-organized and easy to navigate, are we sure there's more than just one academic to represent here? I know Taylor Swift is one of the most notable artists of all of history, so I would imagine even her first album, while maybe not as-reviewed as her later works contemporaneously, has a ton of retrospective analysis that goes beyond what's currently cited here. I'll reserve judgement since I haven't done in-depth research on the topic, plus, since the album is self-titled after the artist, it would be a major nightmare to try to look for sources given that just searching up "Taylor Swift" brings up mostly results about the artist instead of the self-titled album.
  • There are retrospective reviews, but they mostly focus on the lyrics. It's hard to find one that focuses on the music. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, in Reception, are we sure those were the only contemporaneous reviews for the album? Are we especially sure those are the only retrospective opinions on the album?
  • Thus far, they are the retrospective opinions I could find. I wouldn't say they are the only reviews, but they come from reputable music sources and are representative enough of the overall critical consensus of this album. HĐ (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section could be a little less quotefarm-ish too
  • I reorganized the section a bit. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a cite formatting inconsistency? The CMT source in ref 3 has its publisher name as just "CMT," with "News," in the title field, yet in all other CMT cites the publisher is presented as "CMT News" with no "News" in the title.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changed all to "CMT News" for consistency. HĐ (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, prose quality appears to be good if requiring some fixes, and the sources appear to be all reliable, but I am a bit skeptical about its completeness given my comments above. I could be wrong, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your concern over the limited number of critical reviews, but it appears that this album did not receive much professional rating--it does attract retrospective mentions, but they are often mentioned to relate to the relevance of Swift's following albums, rather than this album per-se (like how the NYTimes briefly mentioned this album, but I don't think it counts as a full review). After another round of source review, I am pretty confident that all appropriate sources for "Critical reception" have been included. HĐ (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanxAnthro just checking to see if you feel able to support or oppose. Obviously there is no obligation to do either. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap! I was in the midst of reviewing this? My apologies, the writing and editing other film articles and reviewing of other articles got me carried me away, and I memory just... forgets things, you know. Well, now you know why there are to-do lists. Just trying to keep myself active, that's all. Anyway, here's a second read-through

Lead
  • "She signed with Sony/ATV Tree publishing house, and signed with" "Signed" is used twice in the same sentence
  • "The album was produced by Orall and Nathan Chapman, the latter of whom has sole production credits on all but one track, "The Outside"." While I understood this easily, how this is formatted feels weird. I would write it like this: "Most of the album was soley produced by Orall, the only other producer being Nathan Chapman on "The Outside""
    • Eh... it was Chapman who produced most of the album. But I see that it could be seen as convoluted, so I trimmed it down.

Otherwise, lead gets the job done very well

Background
  • Watch out for instances repeated words in the same clause or sentence throughout the body. For example, "record labels for a record deal."
  • "would not listen music" I thinking a "to" is missing here
  • A couple details don't seem to be needed: "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion," "Swift's love for country music alienated her from her peers." I don't know how these details impacted the journey to get a record deal to make the album. It seems the only important details here was that she returned home to learn to play guitar, that her US Open performance got her noticed to get a deal, and that her family had to relocate to write and record the album.
    • "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion"--I think this highlighted how unusual for a musician to take lessons from non-professionals; "love for country music alienated her from her peers"--this is later discussed in the following section where one of the album's songs, "The Outside", was inspired by the event. I think these details, while miniscule on surface, do add something to understand Ms. Swift's burgeoning career from such a young age. HĐ (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the followup comments. Please let me know if the article needs more work. Best, HĐ (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanxAnthro, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, was switching between doing other articles and reviews. Anyway...
More comments
Background
  • "job position" Redundant. these two words mean the same thing
Development and production
  • "described as her first impression of country music" "Described" seems like an odd word choice. I would use describe for statements analyzing other things, but we're stating a fact here, not an analysis.
  • I'd recommend this for looking at the entire article. Watch out for fluffiness. I haven't seen it prominently so far, but I found a fluffy area in this part: "practice writing with experienced Music Row songwriters.[17] Among those whom Swift worked with, Liz Rose". I would shorten this to "Among those was Liz Rose, who became" Little more concise, and its established just the sentence before she's one of the Music Row songwriters, so it works.

👨x🐱 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Swift had productive sessions with Rose because she respected her vision and did not want to put her in the "Nashville cookie-cutter songwriting mold"." This might get a little high-level, but hey, that's featured articles for ya. The source does say the sessions were productive due to Liz Rose letting her do what she wanted, which is in the article. However, I not seeing how Liz Rose's desire to not have Swift's be cookie-cutter in her songs affected productivity, in the source or in the article.
    • Quoted: "I tried to make it better and mold it and hone it, and hang on there and write it down; that’s why it worked with us. I really respected and got what she was trying to do and I didn’t want to make her write in the Nashville cookie-cutter songwriting mold."--HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another not-in-citation-given scenario. "They met for two-hour writing sessions every Tuesday afternoon after school" Where is this in the Rolling Stone article being cited for this? All I found was Liz Rose talking about two Swift songs not even on this album.
    • Oops... I copied-and-pasted that from Taylor Swift article; was pretty sure it was verifiable given that FA status, but hey, I'll be careful next time. HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another spotcheck fail. "After performing original songs at a RCA Records showcase, Swift was held off an official record deal, as the label was not confident in Swift's self-written material." The NBC cite only mentions RCA twice, in stating they noticed her following vaguely-described "rehearsals", and that they "shelf[ed]" here. It never explains an "RCA Records" showcase or RCA's reason for rejecting her.
    • I interpreted that from "I played them a few songs. And they said that they wanted to sign me to a development deal. ... But at the end of that year, a major letdown. RCA took a pass on Taylor." Probably "showcase" is not the best word choice, so I'll reword that.--HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the EW cite in the same section (Ref 23) states she voluntarily got out of the tale, while the sentence states the deal removed her: "At 13, she signed a development deal with RCA Records, working with that label’s Joe Galante and Renee Bell, a couple of legendary figures in town. But when the deal came up for renewal after a year, she opted out, because she felt she’d have to record outside material if she got to the point of cutting her debut."
  • Wait, there's a sentence that states "She decided to part ways with RCA" (hey, that rhymes).
  • Also, the sentence "RCA wanted to wait until Swift turned eighteen," is cited with Ref 23, and I find nothing stating this in that Ref. I did find in the NBC News cite that that RCA wanted to "keep me in development till I was probably about 18" (Swift's word) but it stated nothing about RCA wanting to work with other songwriters.
    • Swift did say she feel that RCA wanted her to sing songs by others--and in the EW piece it also stated that Swift was strong-headed to record her own material, which was atypical to the common route of popular singers. Does that sound like SYNTH or OR?
      • "Swift did say she feel that RCA wanted her to sing songs by others" in which cite? 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Entertainment Weekly: "But when the deal came up for renewal after a year, she opted out, because she felt she'd have to record outside material if she got to the point of cutting her debut — and at 14, she was already married to the idea of only recording material she had a hand in writing"--HĐ (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm noticing these spotcheck errors this quickly into the section, and I don't even have the book source with me to read..... that's not a good sign
    • You can freely access the book on Google Books--there is free preview. I don't think these errors (except for the "every two hours every Tuesday" part) are serious as they do stick to the original wordings, but with slight misinterpretation (like how the writing sessions were from Swift's perspectives). HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She recalled in 2009 on The Daily Telegraph:" --> "She recalled in a 2009 interview"
    • Why? HĐ (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the date of the interview is the most important, not which source it came from, plus we have the citation for readers to look at if there curious of the publication of the review. Plus, less fluffy review. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three-percent stake" Make sure to link or explain WP:JARGON, including when it comes to finance
  • More fluffy areas I noticed.
    • "Of the eleven songs that made the cut of the album's standard edition" probably should be "Of the standard edition's eleven songs"
    • "Big Machine presented Swift with potential record producers to record Taylor Swift.[8] After experimenting with different producers," probably should be "After experimenting with potential producers offered by Big Machine,"
    • Hi HumanxAnthro, as much as I value your comments, could you conduct a full review one-by-one before proceeding with another review? I'll address your comments once you have a full read-through of this article. Best, HĐ (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. I'll add the comments but won't add a signature since that would be annoying, so I'll let you know when it's complete. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (Side note
can I just say I've been bopping to "Picture to Burn"? That song is a total banger)
  • "Recording took place during a four-month period before 2005 was over" --> "Recording took place during a four-month period near the end of 2005". It's less awkward this way plus isn't as at a risk of being a WP:COPYVIO.
  • "The result is straightforward lyrics, which The Daily Telegraph noted to be "brimmed with an earnest naiveté". Daily Telegraph source does not describe the lyrics as straightforward, and I don't know how naviete leads to straightforwardness, whatever that means, in writing.
    • They described the lyrics as "startling frankness"; HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within the extends from high school hallways to rural backroads," Source cited: "its small town setting extends only from high school halls to front porches and rural back roads," I find the article text too close to the source. Again, possible issue of copyvio
    • As long as the copyvio bot does not detect copyvio potentials, then I think it's okay. Plus the wording is rather common--unless it is something more of an opinion, then that's another situation; HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which fosters a contemplative nature." I think "contemplative" is a little too vague in comparison to what the Billboard source describes, in that it states Swift views the themes out of a "searching naivety." I think indicating that contemplativeness is done out of naivety would be truer to the source.
    • "Swift claims the power to grasp the excesses of feeling and emotion surging through day-to-day life and settle them within the coherent space of her own thoughts, so as to be re-examined and reinterpreted at quieter, contemplative remove." Reworded. HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swift modified the lyric to "That's fine; You won't mind if I say."" Put period outside of quote for partial quotes.
    • I think it's a full sentence. HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HumanxAnthro: Thanks for the comments... but I wonder for how long will this last? HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanxAnthro, do you have anything further to add to this review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my delay yet again. I think I might have ADD and I don't know it. Hehehe. Anyway
Lyrics
  • Article text: "according to Swift, "Tim McGraw" was inspired by McGraw's 2004 song "Can't Tell Me Nothin'"". The source actually states it is the favorite McGraw song Swift sings about, not just that it was inspired by it.
  • I find the prose in this section very good but a little choppy in places. Plus, the repeated sentence structure of "[Short sentence]: [Quote]" gets repetitive, especially since it leads to a over-dependence quotes. For example, does the inspiration for "Our Song" really need to be presented in a quote? Seems pretty simple to paraphrase.
  • I'll echo yet again to watch out for any fluff. Again, I'm not noticing a lot, but I found this: ""Teardrops on My Guitar" was about her experience with a classmate whom she had feelings for, but this classmate was in love with someone else." Probably could be, "Tearsdrops on My Guitar" is about Swift having affections for a classmate that loves someone else."
  • I should add ref 8 reveals where Swift's observational method of the lyrics came from, which was from writing "The Outside".
Music
  • "Another album review on Rolling Stone, meanwhile, felt the songs were inflected with rock". This does not indicate disagreement that it is a country album; the source cited for this (Ref 50) states the artist filled the void for "catchy honky-tonk hits for the red state soccer moms", and describes the album itself as having "trad-country instruments". Also, the author of the source uses the "rock-informed" description for all of Swift's catalog (at the time the source was published), not just the album.
  • I see no description of teen pop in this section, but there are sources I found that describe this album as teen-pop, such as Ref 32: "That’s because Swift’s perspective was as much teen-pop as it was country -- she sang of crushes parents, and schoolyard social dynamics, and her contemporaries included Miley Cyrus and Avril Lavigne as much as they did Rascal Flatts and Little Big Town."
    • I don't think "perspective" is equivalent to "music". HĐ (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many professional, reputable music sources like Billboard will write in very creative ways, and thus use non-encyclopedic descriptions, such as here. When this part says "Swift’s perspective," the "perspective" is the album. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The explanation of "crushes parents and schoolyard social dynamics" is self-explanatory. HĐ (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which gives the song a catchy tune." Are we sure this is not POV?
Release and promotion
  • "Taylor Swift was released on October 24, 2006, through Big Machine Records." EW cite only gives the release date, doesn't give label. I know it's pretty much common knowledge that all her works before Lover were released by Big Machine, but you still need a reliable source cited that states the label.
  • You sure Allmusic is the only source to find for "Tim McGraw"'s single release date? I think Allmusic's editorial reviews are HQ reliable and shouldn't be questioned in the first place, but their reliability has been contested in terms of the other data they present. The most common details Allmusic pages give that have their reliability contested is genres and moods, but I don't know if their release dates have been questioned. When I wrote another music article, the only source I could find for Adventures in Modern Recording's original release date was Allmusic as well.
  • "She included hidden messages with hints at the subjects of her songs in the liner notes, a technique that she also executed on her subsequent albums." Ref 31 states her album liner notes in general have hidden messages, while Ref 54 gives an example of something that doesn't scream "hidden" to me: "in her liner notes, she writes, "To all the boys who thought they would be cool and break my heart, guess what? Here are 14 songs written about you. HA."" Honestly, I don't think what Ref 54 described was a hidden message, as I think Ref 8 did the job of describing the only type of hidden message that was in the liner notes.
  • This might get picky (but then again, that's commonplace at FA), but none of the references citing the performances state they were done to promote the album. Most of them happened in 2008, around the release of Fearless, adding evidence to this. Only the performances brought up in Ref 61 happened around the release date, and even then it's WP:Original research to assume the performances were used for promotion. Ref 63 doesn't even indicate a performance, just an interview. Maybe the performance is in the video, but Archive.org links don't really do a good job at keeping video files alive after they're deleted.
  • Same deal with the opening acts.
  • On the other hand, ref 8", cited for "To maintain her presence on country radio, Swift embarked on a radio tour during a six-month run in 2006" actually states the radio tour was done to promote the album; it never indicates that she did it just to keep her presence on radio. Maybe this Swift quote in the source, "I wanted to meet every single one of the people that was helping me out", suggested that, but that's not definite.
  • "Her online marketing strategy boosted the album's popularity among teenagers and young adults." This again might be nitpicky, but (1) the cited source states the MySpace promotion worked with "teens", not teens and young adults (2) "boosted the album's popularity" is not only vague but also under-represents the specifics provided by the source. The EW source reveals the MySpace page's reception was "market research" for radio stations of the song, and that is what influenced the radio stations, which would otherwise not want to play "Tim McGraw" with only their own non-online knowledge), to play Swift's music. Swift's manager Rick Baker says it best in that source: "‘You’re saying researching is telling you it’s not doing that great, but here are 85 people who are telling us they love your station because you played ‘Tim McGraw.’ What MySpace and online told radio stations was: She’s already familiar to your audience. And radio loves familiarity."
  • The source also doesn't specify if this radio play or the MySpace blog affected the album's popularity. It probably did the artist and the singles released, but for the album, that's not indicated. Did I miss it in the source?
  • "Throughout 2007 and 2008, four more singles supported Taylor Swift: "Teardrops on My Guitar", "Our Song", "Picture to Burn", and "Should've Said No"," the cite does mention "The album spawned five Top 10 singles", but "Picture to Burn" is not mentioned as one of them, neither does it state they were released in "2007 and 2008". I know other articles, such as those about the songs, provide the dates of release, but you still need citations for these.
  • Oh, OK. The citation for this sentence only had the fourth page in the page= field.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: I click on the archive link, and the page appears only to disappear less than a second later and turn all white. Is it just my browser
Critical response
  • I find this section also well-written, but as I've said before, watch out for fluff. For example "Reviewers were impressed by Swift's maturity while retaining a sense of youthful innocence in her lyrics," Is "a sense of" needed? Couldn't "youthful innocence" just be youthfulness? The Palm Beach Post quote also repeats what the previous sentences stated.
  • "Robert Christgau rated the album a "cut" score ((choice cut)), and selected "Tim McGraw" and "Picture to Burn" as highlights.[75][note 1]" Why state a review rating in the prose when there is an album ratings template to list that and a note to indicate what the rating means? Additionally, the paragraph this sentence is in is about opinions on Swift's pop aspects on the album. How does this sentence add to that.
  • Awards are not parts of a subject's critical reception.
  • Additionally, I strongly doubt most of the awards listed here (apart from the CMA Album of the Year nomination) were for the album. The NYT cite for the Grammy nomination does not state she was nominated for Best New Artist for her work on the album; it just lists the artist. The EW cite only states the album introduced her to the world, and her fame led to those nominations, not that the nominations were specifically for the album. Other sources, such as articles about the ceremonies and awards, also do not reveal these accolades to be for the album.
Commercial performance
  • "The album reached its peak at number five on the chart dated January 19, 2008, sixty-three weeks after its debut week." If the week prior was the highest in sales for the album, what was the sales number for the week of its peak ranking? If the source doesn't say, that's fine. I just think that it would be good to clarify that since it's an oddball thing the week with the highest sales wouldn't be the week it peaked in number position.
  • The first paragraph is well done, but the second to third paragraphs suffer from too many short sentences and repetitive prose ("By [this date]" "Was certified [this medal] by" and "peaked at" are repeatedly used).
  • "It appeared on albums charts in New Zealand (peaking at number thirty-eight),[99] Japan (fifty-three),[100] Ireland (fifty-nine)[101] and Scotland (seventy-one).[102]" We have a "charts" table for this, plus they're less significant than the performance in the other countries since they weren't certified or sold well there, so this is redundant.
  • Watch out for WP:COPYVIOs in representing text from sources: "kept selling at a fairly consistent pace" is exactly what the source says.

👨x🐱 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @HumanxAnthro: Hi, I will address your comments once you have done an exhaustive review of the prose, to save time for both parties. HĐ (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

I am primarily leaving this up as a placeholder. I am having some computer difficulties at the moment so I would likely be able to do a full review sometime next week at the earliest. Apologies for that. I had participated in the peer review. I have noticed the above conversation on coverage and I was curious if you looked through Newspapers.com for contemporary reviews? Here are some clippings of 2006 reviews that I found on Newspapers.com that I believe would be helpful (1, 2, 3) as it would address the above concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 for the information. I had not been aware of the website Newspapers.com, so it is indeed helpful to learn more about contemporaneous reviews of this album. Will add them into the article shortly. HĐ (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized, does this website require paid subscription? I tried another round of search but it said something about the premium site... HĐ (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers.com does require a paid subscription, but you can get free access to the site through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. The application process is super simple and I was able to get approved and have an account within a few days. I know that it is a little annoying to do this since I know you are planning on retiring in the near future, but I think it would be helpful for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I submitted my application via the Library Card Platform. Hoping to gain access within the next few days--HĐ (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best of luck with it and let me know if you have any questions about Newspapers.com. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a feature where below each image, you can see the text transfer of the newspaper for free. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I believe that you have added more contemporary sources to the article, but I just wanted to double-check with you about the progress of this. If you are done with this part, then I will continue my review sometimes in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have received my subscription to Newspaper.com, and am trying to retrieve more reviews to make it 10 (which is the maximum number allowed for critical reviews). Although I could retrieve some results, it says "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page". Does this happen to your Wikipedia Library Subscription as well? HĐ (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the update. I have never received that message so I cannot be much help with that. Apologies for that. I am sure you can reach out to an editor who is more familiar with this or send an email to the Newspapers.com support team. Best of luck with it. I will complete my review sometime later this week. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the article for promotion. All of my comments were addressed in the peer review stage and I believe that the article is ready for promotion, especially after SNUGGUMS' thorough review below. Great work with the article, which is a major nostalgia trip. I was just starting high school when this album came out and it gives me a minor headache to think about how much time has passed since that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS edit

Since getting this page up to FA will most likely be your last major contribution to Wikipedia before retiring, I'll give you a parting gift by assessing it. I'm kicking things off with a media review:

That portion of the article passes, and I'll be back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved
  • The "one song" from "Orrall produced one song, and Nathan Chapman produced the remaining" in the lead should be mentioned by name ("The Outside"). Also, this setence structure gives a misleading impression that it was the only track Chapman didn't do any production for.
    • An "additional producer" is fundamentally different from a record producer. It's hard to explain, but they are different in nature. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How in the world are those not the same? The word "additional" indicates there were multiple producers involved. On another note, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that all single release dates should be cited, whether in infobox or article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure, but at Template:Infobox album#producer this distinction does exist--I'm guessing "additional producer" signifies one that does not produce the track as a whole, but only contributes to a small portion. The album booklet also says that Orrell is the producer of "The Outside", and notes Chapman as "additional". HĐ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known what Faith Hill documentary made Taylor decide to move to Nashville? I couldn't find its title here.
    • This source mentions that it is a VH1 documentary, no exact title was given however. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sole writer of three and co-writer of eight" sounds like it's missing "a" before "co-writer", or perhaps you could say "co-wrote eight"
  • If you can find out which specific months in 2005 this album was recorded, then I'd add them
    • Nothing thus far. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is "He produced all songs but one, 'The Outside', which was produced by Orrall" unsupported by the attributed ref, but the tracklisting credits contradict that "all songs but one" bit. In reality, that's just the sole track Chapman didn't produce on his own.
  • "every time he hears their mutual favorite Tim McGraw song"..... a name would be nice
  • Rolling Stone doesn't specify what "I'll tell mine you're gay" got changed into. Also, you're missing "like" within the "I love a line in a song where afterward you're just ... burn" quote it mentions, and the "burn" shouldn't be italicized.
    • The changed lyric is mentioned in the latter source, I believe. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just found the revised lyrics here. Thanks for pointing that out. My comments on the "burn" quote still stand, though. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The burn is italicized in the quote.. do you think it is appropriate to de-italicize it? HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hit" from "a crossover hit at pop radio" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
  • "a number-one country single" makes it sound like "Our Song" was the first song in country music to top the Billboard Hot 100 or another nation's primary chart (it peaked at 16 in the US, which I feel is worth a precise mention). You should be more precise and say this actually was the first to reach the summit of the Hot Country Songs.
  • The attribution for generally favorable reviews and "keen observations and perspectives" seems like WP:SYNTH. Pitchfork actually writes "Taylor Swift was beloved as much by Southern teens as by critics, for its ear for detail and prickliness". To my shock, I couldn't find any Metacritic listing for the album, or I'd say use that. I still recommend looking for another piece.
    • "keen observations and perspectives" may be undue, but do you think another way of paraphrasing should be acceptable? I'm thinking of "capturing emotions with vivid details in her songwriting". HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor Swift actually stayed on the Billboard 200 for 277 weeks, not just 275.
    • That's probably a glitch. Chart history says 275. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I'd replace the used link with this chart history URL you've provided here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I kept it to add info about the date as of when it logged such weeks. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd keep Australian certification details with the country's chart numbers instead of placing New Zealand charts in between them.
  • Are any opening sales figures outside of the US known?
    • Thus far, not really... especially with such low positions. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure whether you can access it (requires a subscription), but apparently the album has sold 167,000 copies in the UK.
  • "over 5.534 million copies worldwide" is quite outdated, and that's especially obvious by how the American numbers alone have already surpassed this amount
  • "Impact and legacy" sounds repetitive. Just use one term or the other in its section title.
    • "Impact" is for the album's reception that is outside critical and commercial data/numbers, and "legacy" is for the album's reception years after its initial release. While these are not mutually exclusive, as I explained to another editor above, I think this title is appropriate. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music journalists attributed the album's success to Swift's songwriting and online marketing strategy" sounds like it's more relevant for "Commercial performance".
    • I feel like placing it here would be more appropriate, as it includes critical commentary on why the album was particularly successful and not the chart/sales data numerically. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already obvious that Chapman was a producer for "The Outside", so it's needlessly redundant to single him out in "Track listing" with a "additional producer" note.
    • Per my previous comment. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure "Notes" should be placed as a subheading under "References"
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as an ambiguous section title when that can also potentially refer to works written by a subject. I recommend renaming it.
    • Should "Literature" be appropriate? It's kinda funny as when I FAC'ed 1989, the section had been named "Cited literature" before some editor told me to rename it. I'm open to discussion however. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot to add the author name (Hoda Kotb) to Ref#19

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Let me know if you have any follow-ups! HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Just a few things left to do other than removing italics from "burn" (where those were used for emphasis when those should be saved for identifying titles of works within Wikipedia entries). You still need to add sources for single release dates ("Tim McGraw" is the only one to currently cite such detail), UK sales should be added to "Commercial performance" (not just talking about certifications), the "favorite Tim McGraw son" is fine to identify by name here when that wouldn't take up much space (you can fill in a..... Blank Space there :P), and using something like "Print sources" or "Book sources" when renaming "Bibliography" will suffice (I've never seen "Cited literature" before and that feels a bit repetitive when you already have a "citations" subheading). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, I believe :) HĐ (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support following article improvements. Another job very well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review edit

  • "Tim McGraw" excerpt is missing timed text.
  • Notes "section" at end of track listing shouldn't use semi-colon for bold (MOS:PSEUDOHEAD). Why not move it to the notes section in references? Heartfox (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan edit

I will add some comments soon. Admittedly, "Style" is my favorite Taylor Swift song. It will be fun to learn about this album as I am not that familiar with it :)--NØ 04:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not seeing the relevance of her birth year. Mentioning the age at which she wrote her first song might be better, knowing Swift I'm sure this information is available somewhere.
    • The article later mentioned that Swift first wrote songs at 14 with "The Outside"--which is included in the album. But given that this paragraph introduced a young Swift, even before she wanted to write songs, I wouldn't include that. Removed birth year however. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl" -- Not sure but removing "the" might read better
  • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously" -- I am unsure about "the" here too
    • I keep "the" because I think "record labels" had been indicated in the previous sentence. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" -- Opt for the year or the age, but I think mentioning both is a bit redundant. "a city close to Nashville, the following year" would work too as the 2003 US open is mentioned in the preceding sentence. Also, MOS:NUMERAL does allow spelling integers greater than nine, but I usually go for numerals. This is optional, of course.
    • I think "the following year" may rather be nuanced, so I like to keep it explicit as "2004". I think "a city close to Nashville" alone may be kind of vague? so it's fair to keep it as Hendersonville imo. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't asking to remove Hendersonville. I meant to frame the sentence like this: "To assist Swift's artistic endeavors, her father transferred to a job position in Nashville, and her family relocated to Hendersonville, a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" (the stricken part being removed).--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter; she was the youngest signee in its history" -- I think this would be fine if simplified to "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter, the youngest signee in its history"
  • Omit "Sony/ATV" from the following sentence as it is obvious. "After being signed, Swift commuted from Hendersonville to Nashville every afternoon. "Established" sounds like an opinion so that word shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice.
    • Changed to "experienced". HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She recalled:" -- In what year? Should be mentioned."
  • "He has sole production credits all songs but one" -- I am sure the word "on" should be there before "all"
  • "Teardrops on My Guitar" was about her experience with a classmate whom she had feelings for, but in turn was in love with someone else." -- Was she in love with someone else, or the classmate?
  • A source should be included directly after every sentence that includes a direct quote
  • Still no source after "tractors and hay bales because that's not really the way I grew up"--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rick Bell from Country Standard Time described the album's sound ... Jon Caramanica from The New York Times described the album's sound" -- Try a wording variation here.
  • "Another profile on Rolling Stone" -- Not sure that is the right word to use. Maybe "another author", "another article", etc.
  • Billboard is not a part of the Hot Country Songs chart's name. I would word this sentence as "the single peaked at number 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number six on the magazine's Hot Country Songs chart". Also, I think "the" should only be used if you are including "chart" after its name. Correct: "on the Hot Country Songs chart", "on Hot Country Songs", Incorrect: "on the Hot Country Songs"
  • There's still one instance of "of the Hot Country Songs".--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if including "Pop Songs" in the bracket after Mainstream Top 40 adds much to the reader's understanding. You could pick one of the two titles, whatever it was called at the time.
    • I think it's fair to keep the two, as "Mainstream Top 40" is the chart's official name in press briefings, but "Pop Songs" is a common name as published for public viewing. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, thanks for the explanation.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics commented on the album's pop sensibility—Country Weekly and Rolling Stone" -- Shouldn't this be "Neal and Rolling Stone"?
  • "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston" -- "Retrospective review" does not need a mention two sentences in a row.
  • I think readers would be curious at what position it appeared on the Billboard 200 during its highest sales week.
  • Shouldn't "Gold", "Platinum", etc have their first letters in capital? Funnily, I only started doing this after reading "Blank Space" lol.
    • You're right. Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Platinum is still lowercased in the lead.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to RIAA certifications exclude the word "certified", but it is included in the link to List of music recording certifications. Any particular reason?
    • Can't think of any particular reason... but I don't think this would impact readers' understanding lol. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity" -- Does the source mention any by name?
  • Probably fine without.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established Swift as one of the few teenage female artists to be equally successful with male counterparts in a format dominated by men" -- Since there is just one source after this, shouldn't it be attributed? Looks like a subjective opinion.
  • Do you think Jim Malec should be named here?--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she also relied on social media to promote her subsequent releases, which brought her a loyal fan base" -- While true, I fail to see how this has much to do with the impact and legacy of Taylor Swift as an album.
    • I think it is fair to mention that here, given that this album was the stepping stone for Swift's future releases up until 2020. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all the comments from me.--NØ 07:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the comments. I have responded to them above. Let me know if anything needs further work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, I believe :) Thank you for the quick response! HĐ (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I now support.--NØ 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • I don't necessarily doubt its reliability, but is there a better source than a gallery from the New York Daily News? I'm unsure if that format is the best for BLP statements. If you think The Guardian ref suffices then I'd just stick with that
    • The Guardian does not specifically mentioned "performing arts", so I'd keep the NY Daily News. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the reliability of Country Standard Time, MusicBrainz?
    • Country Standard Time seems fishy as it is (I think) a self-published source ([24]). I was pretty confident about MusicBrainz, but since it is user-contributed, I have removed the source. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 77 author-link=Jeff Tamarkin
  • no other immediate issues with other sources' reliability; appropriate for a country album.
  • failed verification for fn 46. If you're getting it from The Tennessean then I would just put The Palm Beach Post in italics in the agency parameter, and link to the Newspapers.com clipping, or cite the original review here.
    • Linked the Newspaper.com clip. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's not required but if you access Newspapers.com then you should probably link to a clipping of the article so anyone can easily access it. For example, fn 80
  • I did not immediately find any additional reviews on Newspapers.com not already included in the article
  • not seeing fn 58 reflect the info cited from it
  • you can replace fn 59 with fn 1
  • didn't really do spotchecks
  • fn 134 doesn't work; I suggest archiving the other links as well to prevent future link rot.
  • I am seeing additional Japanese releases here and here. Heartfox (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see they are additional/re-stocked releases (the original release dates are from 2008/2009), so I wouldn't add that as a new release in the Release history table. Other than that, I have responded to your comments above. Thank you so much for the ref review! HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Heartfox, I'm just checking on what the current status of this review is. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggested replacing AllMusic ref for "Tim McGraw" release date with fn 1 as I would consider Billboard more reliable than AllMusic; that comment was not replied to let alone addressed, nor was the issue with fn 134, which is now fn 131. I would also suggest adding via=Newspapers.com in citations with links to those clippings to be clear it's not the newspapers' websites being linked to. I do not see any track listings/correct dates in the Barnes & Noble fn 57 link. Maybe it changed, but again there's no archived link. Heartfox (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's weird for Barnes and Nobles... I changed the link regardless. I think AllMusic is appropriate for music release dates, and I am quite hesitant to recycle one source for multiple accounts. I tried to run the IABot but it is not working... or is it because I don't have the correct link to the tool? If you happen to have access to IABot, could you give me the link here? Best, HĐ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe IABot is down so you may have to do it manually.
        • What's wrong with using the existing Billboard ref though? You recycled it for two different singles. The AllMusic ref was retrieved in 2010 when the Billboard article hadn't been written yet. If we're going by the "high quality" criteria, are you saying AllMusic is as high quality as Billboard?
          • I think AllMusic is usable for release dates information--I have not seen any complaints regarding its notability or reliability significantly.. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding Barnes & Noble, the length of the tracks are not given, and are these two separate releases or one with both bonus tracks and videos? The source looks like it's one release. It is also not apparent that the last two tracks are videos. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is one release. I changed the ref to the album liner notes. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I will say this passes the source review unless others have comments/issues/disagreements. I would not oppose based on the sources. I think IABot is back now so I would suggest using it for the article. Heartfox (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the accessibility review above, HĐ didn't wanted to add TimedText to the "TimMcGraw" sample because it might be considered a NFCC violation (even though the article passed a media review by SNUGGUMS and Nikkimaria didn't have any outright objections and just linked to a discussion saying it looks be okay), but "Picture to Burn" does have TimedText, so I am confused how it would be okay for one sample but not the other. Heartfox (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed Nikkimaria's response--and while I don't have anything against adding TimedText, I just think that given the two samples' purposes--one to demonstrate the lyrics, and one to demonstrate the melodic qualities--I don't think a TimedText to "Tim McGraw" sample would enhance readers' understanding per NFCC. I hope it makes sense... HĐ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but I don't understand how the "Picture to Burn" sample is "to demonstrate the lyrics"? The caption "instrumented by plucking banjos, "Picture to Burn" was described by Rolling Stone as a song that "perfectly captures the mindset of a teenage breakup" doesn't have to do with the lyrics, and the prose about the lyrics are not the lyrics included in the sample. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't "the mindset of a teenage breakup" related to the lyrics one way or another? On another note--I was not the one who added TimedText to "Picture to Burn" sample. It was there from the beginning. So it's not like I added the TimedText to one sample to make it look good, and ignored the other. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @HĐ: Apologies for interrupting this discussion, but wouldn't it be easier to just delete the "Picture to Burn" TimedText so that both samples are consistent. From my understanding of this discussion (and feel free to correct if I am wrong), that seems to be the issue so the easiest solution to me would seem to be just deleting the TimedText from one of the samples so both do not have any. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since there is more than one argument for the inclusion of TimedText, I have added for both of the samples used in this article for consistency. Thank you for your comments. HĐ (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM edit

Lead

  • "signed with... signed with" repetitive.
  • Honestly don't think we need to link basic words like "guitar".
  • "Certified 7× Platinum by" seven-times
  • "traditional radio promotion" that's easter egg, just say "traditional country radio promotion"
  • "who had been mainly consisted " -> "which had mainly consisted"
  • "developed an early interest" when? What age?

Background

  • "the capital of country music" according to?
  • "distinguish herself from other aspiring country singers" but she already had, she was a teenage girl?
    • There is an explanation right after that sentence. HĐ (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "herself, and learned to.... " too many run-ons in this sentence and we don't need to link guitar.
  • "the 2003 US open caught" capital O. And which Open? There are a few to choose from. How did she get that gig?
    • The US Open for tennis. Little background info is available. I assume it was thanks to her parents, but still that is OR. HĐ (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development and production

  • Faith Hill is overlinked.
  • "Sony/ATV Tree publishing house " in the lead "publishing house" wasn't part of the pipe. Be consistent.
  • "at age fourteen to " she just signed with RCA on a development contract aged 13, what happened there?
  • "signed ... signee ... signing" repetitive.
  • "afternoon to practice with" I guess you really mean practise.
  • "experienced Music Row songwriters" unclear to me what this means, is it part of the record label?
  • "she respected her vision" who respected whose?
  • "editor. ... She had" apply MOS:ELLIPSIS please.
  • Just for my clarification, the deal with Sony/ATV wasn't a record deal?
  • "on The Daily Telegraph" in, it's a newspaper.
  • Bluebird Café formal name has an accent.
  • "Of the standard edition's eleven songs" this is some jump from signing the deal/3% stake etc. We've forgotten we were even talking about the album...
  • "publishing company Swift was at" pretty grim prose.
  • "commercially released studio..." hyphenate commercially-released here.
  • "but ultimately accepted" accepted what? they were hiring him, right?
  • "conceptualized what her songs should sound like:" -> "conceptualized how her songs should sound:"
  • "be and ... what instruments" MOS:ELLIPSIS again.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request edit

  • @FAC coordinators: Given the sluggish progress and my diminished commitment, I would like to request for withdrawal. Hopefully other editors may take this to FAC in the future. Best, HĐ (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear that as it seems in reasonable shape but you must do as you feel appropriate. If the nom was newer I might throw it open to the floor to see if anyone wanted to take over now but given its age I think probably best we do close it at this point, and if you or someone else want to to pick it up again later, that's great. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2021 [25].

AMC AMX III edit

Nominator(s): CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fancy mid-engine sports car made by the United States Automobile manufacturer American Motors Corporation (AMC). CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and recommend withdrawal Referencing needs a lot of work, both in terms of formatting and use of unreliable sources/OR with various self-published websites and photographs of cars all being cited to support text. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- as well as Buidhe's concerns, I note some statements that are not cited at all, and others that editorialise, e.g. "What is certain is that in the summer of 1970 AMC..." So as well as improving sourcing, a good copyedit is probably in order, it might also remove seasonal references like the one in this statement. After that I'd recommend trying peer review before considering a re-nom at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2021 [26].

Typhoon Emma (1959) edit

Nominator(s):  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a typhoon in 1959 that struck Okinawa, causing some damage to the territory. It was not the most damaging storm in the season, nor was it the most damaging storm to hit the islands in that season. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

Will be leaving comments soon. NoahTalk 21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • and sustained winds of 55 km/h (35 mph) 1-minute winds? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9–10 knots (17–19 km/h) Conversion to mph in the parentheses after the km/h one? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 990 hectopascals (29 inHg). conversion is not specific enough, please make sure two decimal places are shown. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 970 hPa (29 inHg) Conversion to inHg isnt specific enough. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to a Category 1 add a noun after Category 1. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 knots (20 km/h) mph conversion. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (60 nmi) Could you mention this is 70 statute miles? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 195 km/h (105 kn), estimating surface winds of 240 km/h (130 kn). Mph conversions. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to a Category 3 noun needed after Category 3. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 960 hPa (28 inHg) same pressure issue. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 35 kn (65 km/h) mph conversion. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 995 hectopascals (29.4 inHg) Could you add a second decimal place to this one? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Fixes should be complete, thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

I am not super accustomed to reviewing (or even reading) these types of articles so apologies in advance if any of my comments are about super obvious points.

  • The lead's first sentence identified this typhoon as "strong". Is that a category given this type of storm? I am only familiar with the Atlantic hurricane season and the hurricane categories so I do not know how typhoons are measured.
  • Technically not, but it is implied that a category three equivalent storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale is strong considering the range of winds. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions something called "closed circulation". Would it be possible to add a link here for readers like me who are not familiar with this kind of weather terminology?
  • Why is Emma put in italics on its first mention in the lead and the body of the article?
  • For this part of the lead, several ships were damaged or sunk by the storm, do we have a more exact number?
  • There are three different numbers in the impact section, reporting by three different sources. I don't think there is an exact number of ships damaged or sunk. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first sentence in the "Meteorological history" section, I would specify the year. This information is made rather obvious in the lead and the infobox, but I still think it would be helpful to point out in the first sentence for readers who jump right into the article.
  • Okinawa should be linked here (as it was southeast of Okinawa) as it is the first mention in the article (and I do not believe it is linked in the article at all and is only linked in the lead and infobox.
  • I have a question about this part, causing a postponement of a baseball game at Paseo De Susana Ballpark due to wet field conditions. Why is it particularly notable for inclusion? The postponement of a baseball game just seems rather trivial to me, particularly when it is not directly stated if it is an important game.
  • Yeah I put that in before I found an exact rain total for the area, don't think that sentence is necessary now. Removed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clarification question about the two missing Ryuho Maru crew members. Have they been declared legally dead in absentia?
  • I could not find any news reports on what happened to those two after they went missing. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would view the following link (territory) as an Easter egg as I do not think the link is clear even with context.
  • I moved the link back a few words, should I link it with something else instead? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two comments about this sentence: A habu, along with other types of debris, washed into the camp. I was unfamiliar with the word habu and I think this part, along with other types of debris, gives off a misleading impression of what this is. Maybe it is just me, but I do not associate a type of snake with debris. Also, why is one snake appearing in the camp particularly notable for inclusion?
  • Removed the snake, but I think the floodwaters and the debris is still worth mentioning. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, was restored to the islands after late on November 13, seems grammatically incorrect, specifically the after late part.
  • I am not really understanding the point of the "See also" section. Why are these three specific cyclones relevant enough to list here?
  • Well before the navbox at the bottom existed, I was planning on linking other similar storms from the season. Don't think that's necessary now. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be all of my comments. My review is entirely focused on the prose, as I will leave all other matters to editors who are more experienced in this field. Once everything has been addressed. I will be more than happy to support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Every problem has been responded to. Thanks for the review, and I hope you have a great weekend too! Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Willbb234 edit

  • in addition to those caused by the damage is singular, so 'those' should be changed to 'that'.
  • while crops in the territory were damaged this seems vague. could you provide something to quantify the damage, such as costs or area damaged?
  • There's no exact number given by source, and it only says the crops were damaged in the territory. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • reported for American military installations change 'for' to 'on', 'by' or 'at'.
  • and Kadena Air Base listed a damage total of $219,586.50 (1959 USD) I suggest changing this to such as Kadena Air Base, where the total damage was worth $219,586.50 (1959 USD).
  • Minor impacts... what do you mean by this? Are we talking about damages or just that the typhoon passed this area? 'Impacts' seems rather vague.
  • I'm not sure why you have placed a figure for the damage in the infobox. This statistic is only from the damages at the air base and I'd only give a figure here if there has been a good estimate of the total damage. The total damage from what I gather was likely a lot greater so saying it was simply greater than $219,587 might be misleading.
  • 18:00 UTC of November 6 west of Guam I'm not sure why you need to give its location as you state in the previous sentence it was moving west-northwest past Guam. You should also change 'of' to 'on' for all the time and dates in this article, see articles such as Typhoon Haiyan and the specific policy is at MOS:TIMEZONE for correct formatting.
  • increased strength to increased in strength.

Sorry, but I am going to have to cut this review short as I feel it is a way off meeting 1a of the Featured Article Criteria (more specifically the prose is not of "professional standard"). I'm not going to list all the issues there are in this article as I think it would be better to get a copyedit from the WP:GOCE or otherwise re-write the article. For now, I will oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Fixed every issue mentioned. Let me know if you want to finish the review, you've already reviewed a good part of it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox edit

  • "closed surface circulation" → would benefit from link/explanation
  • Guam missing a link in "meteorological history". Heartfox (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

I agree with Willbb234 that this isn't currently ready for FAC. It needs a thorough copy edit for grammar, tense consistency, jargon explanation and - most of all - flow. There is, IMO, too much to do to be dealt with at FAC, lenient as I usually am on bringing nominations up to scratch here.Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Well, then it's probably time to close this FAC. I'll bring the article to GOCE or A-class review for copyedits and other things, but that will probably take some time. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2021 [27].

Dhoby Ghaut MRT station edit

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a major MRT interchange station in Singapore. I have worked on the article in 2020 and managed to bring it up to GA standard in October that year. Since the GA review, I have further expanded and touched up the article with new information I have managed to come across, especially the artwork section. I have brought it up for Peer review and it has also been copyedited to meet FA standards.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Both images in the history section sandwich the infobox in violation of MOS:IMAGELOC
  • All images appear to be freely licensed. Nice pics! (I notice you took them yourself). (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I recently failed a GAN on a Singaporean MRT station due to copyright concerns, and this article has similar issues where wording has been lifted from websites or lightly paraphrased. I conducted spot checks here, and while the references to sources where text can't be copied and pasted were fine, many of those to websites where text is in html or similar failed. The following are those examples, and given my fairly high strike rate here I am concerned that there are likely to be others.

  • "Atrium@Orchard is the first commercial development to be fully integrated with an MRT station" - almost identical phrasing to the source
  • "This integration allows land use to be optimised while increasing the convenience and accessibility of public transport." - very lightly paraphrased from the source
  • "the interchange station garnered an "honourable mention" at the 7th Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Design Awards" - uncomfortably close to the source, despite it being easy to re-word this
  • "Combining Delia's ceramic works with Milenko's earthy mosaics" - ditto
  • "reflect Singapore's and the region's cultural richness and artistic heritage" - ditto
  • "Certain motifs, symbols and colours are repeated so the various independent components of the work remain thematically united" - ditto (this is basically the same words as in the source used in a different order) Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you (I am actually the same editor for that Singaporean MRT statio you have reviewed, btw). Can you suggest how to rephrase the following you mentioned? I will work on these.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the risk of being unhelpful, my suggestion is to re-write these and any other closely paraphrased sentences in your own words. As with the GAN, I would also urge you to closely check all of the text for close paraphrasing and to be highly mindful of this in the articles you develop given it may be a common risk with them. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • But not all text can be rephrased, like "reflect Singapore's and the region's cultural richness and artistic heritage" or "ceramic works" and "earthy mosaics". To me these seems to be technical phrases and expressions that cannot be easily rephrased in other words. I can try "reflecting the richness of Singapore's and the regional culture and artistic heritage." and "ceremics" and "mosaics". I will at the same time seek help from other editors on this.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • There should be no difficulty rephrasing those two examples, and this would result in stronger text - the first example is corporate-type language, and the second is unclear (what's an "earthy mosaic"?). Precise terms for things can be re-used, but put the descriptions in your own words. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be agreement that significant parts of this article require rewriting to avoid over-close paraphrasing, although discussion as to just what extent. That being the case, this would seem to be clearly not yet ready for FAC. Are there any comments around this before it is archived? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shall withdraw the nomination then, and will work on the article another time. I have no wish to further work on it.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait never mind. I will let others comment on this before withdrawing and closing it.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am archiving this to allow further paraphrasing to take place to, hopefully, get the article into a FACable condition. The usual two week wait before further FAC nominations can be made will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility: the infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I plan to comment here later. I have commented at this article's peer review, so I'll look for other things that may potentially need to be improved. Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [28].

Greed (game show) edit

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the short-lived Fox game show Greed, which was considered to be the network's answer to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It was hosted by Chuck Woolery of Wheel of Fortune, Love Connection, and Scrabble fame, lasting for roughly eight months from November 1999 to July 2000. The article just passed a GA nomination last month. I've brought a handful of game show articles to FA status before, but it's been a few years since I've been at FAC, so any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments

I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I do not return to post my review by this time next week, please ping me. This article brings back fond memories of watching GSN reruns with my mom when I was in middle school. I just have one quick comment right now. The part about Jerry Springer being a host needs a citation as it is currently not supported by anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I am curious on why citations are used in the infobox rather than putting that information in the article with the citations there? Either way is appropriate, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind this choice.
  • It looks like most of the information in the infobox is not supported by a citation. This includes Bob Levy being the director, the Fox Television Center being the location, Floyd Ingram being the editor, and the names of the distributors. This information should be supported by citations.
  • There are a handful of references in the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire article (a GA) that simply cite "End credits lists of appropriate U.S. Millionaire episodes." Would something similar be sufficient here? I'd imagine it would be difficult to find anything else since the Internet was in its infancy in 1999 and most webpages dedicated to the show are long gone... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding, it is better to cite this information through other sources rather than using the episodes as primary sources. You only mention webpages above, but have you looked into newspapers, magazines, or books? Newspapers.com is a good source for newspapers. In the past, I have found this kind of production information on past shows in these sources. This show was run on a major television network so I would imagine this information can be found somewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I've checked Newspapers.com the best I can and cannot seem to find a thing about any of these four things. I went back and watched the premiere episode and verified Levy as the director (at 1:26:49 here), so I've gone ahead and used the cite episode template for that one and removed the others where a keyword search came up empty. Let me know if you think this can be resolved better. In the meantime, I'll get to work on the rest. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am honestly uncertain about this. I would not have any issue with sourcing this information through episode (especially since they are readily available for viewing), but I would like to hear from other editors as I am not experienced enough in this matter to confidentially say one way or another with certainty. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I'm the nominator so I shouldn't have the final say, but I've always been under the impression that it's a primary/secondary sort of scenario? Citing the episodes is essentially using a primary, direct source, which from my experience is allowed when necessary, albeit better if it can be further backed up by secondary sources if possible. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is a primary/secondary scenario. I have seen instances where primary sources are acceptable and other instances where it was not accepted. The likely answer is it depends entirely on context, with secondary being preferable but primary being acceptable if there are not any sources available. I guess I am more surprised that there is not a source that lists the production credits, when I have found similar credits for obscure shows that do not have full episodes anywhere on the internet. But, it is likely judged based on context, but I would feel more comfortable getting more feedback if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's completely fair. I admittedly have minimal experience with Newspapers.com, but the few sources that did turn up for me in my keyword searches were mostly just TV listings. Google and the Wayback Machine turned up very little as well. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formally known as bit in the lead reads somewhat awkwardly to me. I think this information may be better represented in a footnote rather than as a parenthetical in the first sentence. That way, you can also include a citation to support this alternate name.
  • This part from the lead, that premiered on Fox on November 4, 1999, and last aired on July 14, 2000, with a total of 44 episodes in one season, seems unnecessarily wordy. I would condense it down to something like the following, that aired on Fox for on season between November 1999 and July 2000. I do not think the amount of episodes or even the exact premiere and finale dates are notable enough to be mentioned here.
  • I have a comment related to this part in the lead, with Mark Thompson serving as primary announcer. I would avoid that kind of sentence construction (i.e. with X verb-ing) as it is normally discouraged in FA writing.
  • I have two points about the tagline in the lead. The citation seems unnecessary to me. I have rarely seen citations used in the lead of a television article (and in those cases, citations are used to support controversial or contested information or when quotes are absolutely necessary or very beneficial to the reader). If the tagline remains in the lead, I would mention it in the article and cite it there. But that leads into my second point. Is it necessary to have the tagline in the lead at all? I have not really seen taglines used in television article's leads and this one does not seem particularly noteworthy to me.
  • In the lead, I would link ratings and timeslot. Most readers will likely be familiar with these things, but I think it is always beneficial to remember readers who may not be that familiar with more television-specific jargon.

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I only have relatively nitpick-y comments for the lead, but I do see some sourcing issues with the infobox that should be sorted out. Thank you to Nikkimaria for doing the image review below. My review will be mostly focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to hearing further suggestions for improvement. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I will try to post my full review of the rest of the article sometime later this week. I have one more comment. If you are citing resources in foreign languages, I believe it is necessary to provide the English translation of the resource's title. There is a parameter for this in the citation template. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the "Gameplay" section would be in present tense rather than past tense.
  • It has been a while since I have seen this show so my memory is very hazy at best. I am not really sure what this part means, the contestant with the guess farthest from the correct answer was eliminated How can you be the farthest from the correct answer? I would think you are either right or wrong without any grey area in between?
  • The answer was always a number between 10 and 999. So for example, if the exact correct answer was 100, there's a good chance a contestant who answered 500 would be furthest away of the six. I think I've hopefully clarified this a bit in the gameplay section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of surviving contestants, I would use remaining contestants as the current wording sounds odd in this context.
  • The word "contestant" is used a lot in the article. I understand why given we are talking about a game show, but I think instances like the first paragraph of the "Qualifying round" cross over into excessive, especially where it is repeated twice in the same sentence.
  • Removed a couple, let me know if you think more should be done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I would recommend avoiding the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as seen here, with the contestant who had the closest guess becoming the team's captain. I would look through the article as a whole to find any instances of this and revise it.
  • Again, I have not seen the show in a while, but I vaguely remember the caption sometimes consulting with his or her team about whether or not they should quit or progress to another question. Would that be beneficial to point out (if it is true of course)?
  • While the other contestants are free to make their case, but the captain still ultimately makes the decision on their own. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, he/she was given a guaranteed, reads a little awkwardly as I believe this is the only time you use these kinds of pronouns in the article so it seems to go against the style already established in other areas of the article.
  • I do not think this part, each team member again individually decided to quit with their share of the team's collective, makes sense as the previous sections mentions that the captain can quit not the individual team members. I would also say can decide to quit instead.
  • I am uncertain what this sentence means: When the program became a permanent series, the top prize was changed to a flat $2,000,000. What do you mean by "a permanent series"?
  • Just means it was picked up by Fox for the remainder of the season and for more than the first few episodes that were rushed to order to compete with Millionaire. Woolery briefly mentioned this at the end of the last episode before they changed the top prize to a flat $2,000,000, which is when it was first called "Greed: The Series". --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the part about who beat Warren's record needs to be a separate paragraph.
  • Please clarify in this sentence, It was considered to be Fox's response to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire., how is doing the considering. Was it television critics, audiences, people at the network? It is too vague right now.
  • Do we know what day and time this show aired?
  • Thursday nights at the start, though it eventually became Friday nights to avoid going head-to-head with Milionaire. I think this information is reflected in the production section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the tagline not used for the show? The way that it is worded right after what the show would have originally been called gives off the impression (at least to me) that the tagline was also not used in the final product.
  • Woolery occasionally referred to it on air (e.g. "Welcome to Greed, the richest, most dangerous game in America"). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part has not been addressed. I do not think it makes sense to pair the tagline in the same sentence with the initial show title as it gives off the impression that both are ideas for the show that ultimately did not make it in the final product. Since they are separate ideas without any real connection, I would advise you to separate them into different sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the short, one-paragraph subsections in the "Production" section as it does make the information rather choppy. My primary concern is more so with the "Set" subsection rather than the "Audition process" one.
  • I have a comment about this part, noted the inspiration from science fiction in his set, specifically from Star Trek and various castle settings in other video games. Given how it ends (i.e. and various castle settings in other video games), I think this could give off the wrong impression to an unfamiliar reader that Star Trek is one of these video games. I would solve this by just saying in video games.
  • I would be careful of how quotes are used in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. Both the Pierce and Millman sentences used long quotes from their sources and I would limit the length of the quotes used and paraphrase more to give a better understanding of what the critics are saying.
  • I am uncertain about the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the "Reception" section (i.e. Favorability for Greed improved over time.) as "over time" implies to me a longer time span than only a few days. For instance, Pierce's review was published on November 10 while two of these "later" reviews were put out on November 17 and November 18. I think a better topic sentence can be used here, particularly one that more clearly represents this part of the lead, others believed Greed to be the more intriguing and dramatic of the two programs.
  • Could you expand on the Caryn James sentence? The "a success for Fox" quote is not particularly helpful so I would remove it and instead expand on how this show was more dramatic.
  • For small quotes like this ("has fared passably well."), the punctuation should be on the outside of the quotes. Punctuation should only be on the inside of the quotes when citing full sentences
  • Does Berman provide an explanation on why he would like the series to be revived? I would think there is more information here since he wrote an entire article about it.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Also, a friendly reminder that two of my previous points (citations for information represented in the infobox and the translated titles in the citations) need to be addressed too. Have a wonderful rest of your week and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I believe these have all been addressed, let me know if you find anything else on the second run-through. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses and apologies for the length of the review. The article looks very good to me. I am on the fence about the use of the Jerry Springer image, but since that passed without any issue in an image review, it should be good. I would like to wait to hear other editors' opinions on if episodes can be used as the primary sources for production credits. I personally do not have any issue with it, but I would like to hear other people's opinions before formally supporting. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After taking a day to reflect on this, I have decided to support the article for promotion. I trust that the nominator did their best to find secondary sources to support the production credits so I think the use of primary sources (i.e. episodes) should be okay. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Quick question: Where was Furman & Furman 2000 accessed? Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I own a personal copy of the book. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999. Each contestant enters their answers using a keypad in front of them." → failed verification
  • Removed, noting that it was on a keypad is probably excessive anyway. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim "Six contestants are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999" is not apparent in the book pages given. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning with the show's April 28, 2000 episode (the first episode of Super Greed) and continuing for the rest of the show's run, the qualifying round was eliminated," → but how can you cite one episode and not know it was Super Greed before/after then?
  • "although some of the episodes that aired in June 2000 still featured the qualifying question" → only one episode is cited
  • Reworked this section, only the college episode is fully available on YouTube so it's tough to verify the rest. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From April 28 to May 19, 2000, the show was known as Super Greed." → only the April 28 episode is cited.
  • You can move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
  • fn 43 is by Zap2it, so I would put that in the agency= parameter. It also has a dateline of Los Angeles, so I would add place=Los Angeles.
  • "reruns of Greed have been broadcast on Game Show Network (GSN) at times since January 2002" → but the source is from 2002, how can it be "since"?
  • Tweaked, ref indeed only verifies GSN acquiring the show in the first place. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 2 date differs from website.
  • I have no idea what the deal is with this one. The date in the url is reflected in the citation, and the context of the article makes it clear it was written in 2000 rather than 2005, so I went with the former. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes Mental Floss worthy of citing in a FA?
  • As I can recall, I've never had any pushback on it myself, though I've replaced it with a source from The Atlantic. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warren was the program's biggest winner ... and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time; combined with an earlier six-figure winning streak on Sale of the Century in 1986" → not in source.
  • "Warren was the program's biggest winner with $1,410,000 and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time" → Is it explicitly mentioned in the episode that he was its biggest winner, and that he was the biggest U.S. game show winner of all time?
  • Woolery only mentioned on air that Warren had broken the record for biggest game show winner of all time, which obviously means he would have been Greed's biggest winner too. Since no one after Warren won the $2,000,000 prize, Warren ended up being the program's biggest winner through its conclusion. This LA Times source appears to mention Warren as No. 4 all time while Ken Jennings was on Jeopardy!, would this be sufficient for citing him as Greed's biggest winner too? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of the same problem with "Daniel Avila was the only contestant to reach this level, risking his $200,000 individual winnings to play for the top prize (which had been increased to $2,200,000 as it was during Greed's progressive jackpot shows) on the episode that aired on November 18, 1999" → it can't say "only contestant" but cite one episode.
  • The DeMichael book notes that only one contestant reached this level, though it does not explicitly mention Avila by name, so I reworked the phrasing around it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it can be cited for Greed's biggest winner.
  • "won $1,765,000" → source does not give the figure to thousands.
  • "Warren's record was shortly thereafter as David Legler won $1,765,000 on NBC's Twenty One" → sources do not mention Legler beating Warren's record. Someone else could have beaten it in the interim.
  • Same LA Times source I proposed above mentions Olmstead and Toutant at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, followed by Legler at 3 and Warren right behind at 4. Both Olmstead and Toutant's wins happened after Legler, which would imply Legler broke Warren's record. I think we could use this source for both of these above two points, but wanted to explain my reasoning here and get the green light from you before doing so. Would this work? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
  • suggest moving fn 32 to end of sentence
  • fn 33; is there better source than something that looks to be self-published
  • This is tricky because Thompson was pretty much under the radar on Greed, never referred to on air...this is the only source I could find. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would need to be removed unless a better source can be cited.
  • Is this not a case of primary sources being better than no source at all? It's clearly Thompson's voice, not to mention he was with Fox for several other programs at the time, some of them game shows. If this is the difference between a support and an oppose I won't let it stand in the way. But I feel removing it entirely would be like omitting Johnny Gilbert from Jeopardy! or Rod Roddy from The Price Is Right. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it meets WP:ABOUTSELF unfortunately, because it involves a third party (an employer). Is he not listed in the credits of the show?
  • It's crazy but unless I've overlooked it in the credits of episodes readily available, I don't believe he was. Fortunately, I believe I have a TV encyclopedia source that credits Thompson, which I accessed through a Google Books search and have brought into the bibliography. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Los Angeles Times, New York Times refs look to be url-status=limited
  • Tried changing this but it came back as an invalid parameter on my end? I assume it's because non-subscribers only get a limited number of free articles, but when I went to change the status to limited, it gave me an invalid message in the references section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies; I meant url-access, not url-status. This also applies to The Atlantic. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ProQuest links are url-access=subscription.
  • fn 41 is from a WP:FORBESCON, and is more opinion than fact I think, so I would only use it for his opinion in the reception section. Are there other sources that point to Gail Berman?
  • Haven't seen one yet but I'll check, I'd imagine there might be something that discusses the general shift in Fox's strategy even if it doesn't mention Greed explicitly. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the Forbes contributor citation from statements about third parties. The article in The York Dispatch is by the Los Angeles Daily News so that would be the agency= and it has a dateline of Pasadena, so I would add place=Pasadena, California. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " as Greed was created before Berman's time at the network" → no source given
  • "Greed premiered with a 4.0 rating in adults 18–49" → not in fn 76
  • I highly suggest providing complete viewership/ratings for the premiere (and finale if possible). For example, this Newspapers.com clipping shows it got 9.86 million viewers, which is more useful than "nearly 10,000,000".
  • Done for the premiere, will check the finale (though it should also be noted that there was nothing particularly special about the last episode due to the show's abrupt cancellation). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Did it air outside of the United States?

  • Not to my knowledge, the format was licensed internationally but I do not believe the American version was broadcast itself. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I saw a piece on ProQuest that it aired on Global in Canada. Maybe try searching again. Also for the ProQuest links you only need to do https://proquest.com/docview/<the document number>/ and you can remove all the excess wikipedialibrary.idm stuff, as well as [FINAL Edition] from the title as it's just the newspaper edition not the actual title of the article. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there are sources in The Wikipedia Library that have not been consulted. For example, this USA Today article has valuable background/production info but is not used in the article. There are also many unused reviews which would enhance the critical reception section. I will have to oppose because I don't think it is well-researched enough and there are issues with text-source integrity. I would not consider this article "complete" at the moment. Heartfox (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for your review. I'm sorry to hear you don't think this is well-researched enough, especially since I've done just as much (if not more) research for this show than any of my other game show FAs. That's not to say there isn't more out there, of course, so I'll do my best to see what else is out there and hopefully change your opposition into support. I do, however, hope most of the text-source integrity issues have been fixed now and that I can clean up the last few shortly. Feel free to give this a second look to see if my changes have indeed addressed your concerns. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please take your time and I will come back in a few days and respond to the comments and probably leave more. I anticipate my oppose will be temporary. I am checking Furman & Furman at archive.org, and unless it's a different edition, some statements in the article still don't match the book (so maybe I would just cite the premiere instead for those basic facts if they aren't in a secondary source). Heartfox (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Thank you for your patience. I believe I have addressed the final few bullet points, and I would appreciate a second look to ensure I didn't miss anything. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find some more reviews. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck comments addressed and replied to other ones. I am also noticing there is not specific source for the program last airing on July 4? The cancellation date is not necessarily the last broadcast date. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the 14th? I have another book source that lists July 14 as the end date, I'll go ahead and add it in as I continue to address the rest of these points. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I think all the points have been addressed (or at least noted) now. Ready for another look to see what still needs to be done. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Further updates made, many thanks again for your patience. Hopefully we're getting close. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the original comments have been addressed, and I've struck my oppose. I'm not sure about the reliability of the DeMichael book to be honest; what is Marshall Publishing and Promotions? I'll reread the article and leave more comments soon. It looks much better so far! Heartfox (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Marshall is admittedly a smaller, independent publishing company, although a) I've used the book for a GA or two before and b) I've never had any problems, nor I have I discovered any factual errors (intentional or otherwise) in the book. Glad to see all the issues from the first read have been resolved for now. I look forward to further comments and suggestions for improvement. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • some sources have publishers while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.
  • Could you possibly be a bit more specific here with which sources need them? I thought I remembered hearing a while ago that "The New York Times Company" wasn't needed in the publisher field for NYT refs due to the redundancy. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Daily News, NY Post (also needs a link), Dayton Daily News, maybe the international ones idk

* some works cited more than once have links while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.

  • Think I got this taken care of, let me know if I missed anything. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there alternatives to the New York Post sources? It would be better to use something else in an FA given WP:NYPOST.
  • Replaced the one but not sure I can get that quote anywhere else, I'll see if I can find anything though. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* looks like fn 61 work has an article, Dagbladet Information, fn 65 Walla!, fn 67 Asharq Al-Awsat, fn 73 Aftonbladet.

  • is there a sentence in fn 67 that points to a Lebanese version? I had trouble finding it with Google Translate.
  • I could have sworn I saw Lebanon somewhere...it was listed as the greater Arab World originally with this ref, I've gone back to that for now.
  • Asharq Al-Awsat should be italicized and there's also a dateline and author in the article but to be honest on Google Translate it didn't mention anything about a version of Greed, unless I'm reading it wrong. I would just remove it at this point as it's not very clear what country it pertains to or if it existed, unless an editor who reads Arabic can translate it properly.
  • " If the captain quits after any of these four questions, the money is split evenly among all five team members. Giving/accepting a wrong answer ends the game and forfeits all winnings. The team member in the lowest position (farthest from the correct answer when a qualifying question was played) gives the answer to question 1, and each question after that is answered by the member in the next higher position." → there's no citation at the end
  • The Furman & Furman book refers to the lowest positioned contestant as "contestant number four," and so on from there. I've cited the book and moved the ref to the end since there would have been three of the exact same ref in the paragraph, let me know if you want this tweaked further. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something is not explicitly stated in the book then please just cite an episode or something; I don't have time to check every sentence. The whole paragraph is not verifiable on page 36.
  • Went in and added more inline citations, hopefully making the verification more explicit. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* "otherwise, the challenge winner keeps their original position within the team." → no citation

* fn 16 is cited twice in one paragraph but it's the only source in the paragraph

  • Tweaked, again, let me know if you want this differently. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the critical reception section is shorter than it could be.
  • I feel like we've got a good handful here already, I'll see if I can track down a couple more later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really only six reviews from critics (not counting Philbin or Berman which aren't really reviews), which isn't that much. I would say 10 is a better number. Heartfox (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments above; these are the last ones. Heartfox (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thanks for the follow-up. Done some, will come back to the others later this weekend. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

More than three weeks in and only one general support: this does not look like a building consensus to promote. Unless there is more interest in this over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hello, and thank you for the note. I have actually got a lot going on the next couple of weeks, as well as a family member whose health has taken a turn for the worse recently. With that, I'm thinking it might actually be best to go ahead and archive this now so that I have no time pressure to address Heartfox's final concerns and build up the reception section a bit more, then I can go ahead and renominate when time permits for me. I think this would also ultimately result in a stronger article in the final product. Would this be alright? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, and seems a sensible approach to me. Heartfox is a good reviewer and may well be amenable to working on this off FAC if you thought that might be helpful. In case it applies, the usual two week wait for a new nomination would be waived. Would you like me to close the nomination as withdrawn? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Close as withdrawn is alright with me, and while I appreciate the waiver for the two-week wait, it will probably take at least two weeks before I launch a new nomination. With how much I have going on in my personal life, not having the pressure to look after an FAC would actually work out pretty well I think. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [29].

Royal Calcutta Turf Club edit

Nominator(s):  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating the article, as I couldn't complete it last time due to being tested positive for COVID. I have tried to solve the issues mentioned last time (except 1-2 things which I am currently doing).  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from buidhe edit

  • Image licensing looks satisfactory. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria edit

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "Horse races were initially organised for the British cavalry" - this is implied by the text but not explicitly supported
  • done: Changed races to events  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same issue exists with that, though: the text says horse events were popular with the cavalry, and then goes on to say organised races were held at Akra, but doesn't explicitly say that they were organised for the British. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RCTC-organised races were among the most important social events of the bigwigs' calendar" - source?
  • "At the opening of the Christmas..."  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sentence states that Christmas race week was an important social event; it does not say that races (plural) were "among the most" important. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Calcutta Derby Sweeps, organised by the RCTC, was the world's largest sweepstake in the 1930s" - given the note about potential miscalculation, is this claim adequately supported?
  • FN29 doesn't link to anything
  • What makes racingpulse a high-quality reliable source? puronokolkata? Bhattacherje? Golf Doctor?
  • How to determine a source as high-quality reliable source?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'PuronoKolkata' article is backed by sources. Racingpulse is managed by journalist. 'Golf Doctor' is from The Charlotte Post.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Golf Doctor source is supporting a historical claim rather than any sort of contemporary account for which a journalistic source would be more likely to be presumed notable. Being managed by a journalist doesn't automatically make something reliable. Regarding puronokolkata, how do we know that sources have been correctly interpreted? What is the expertise of the author? Are there fact-checking procedures in place? And what about Bhattacherje? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basu has a typo in location
  • Sorry, couldnt find the mistake.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has the name as 'Kolkota' while all others use 'Kolkata'. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • done: Corrected  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When are you including publication location?
  • Was unaware of this.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Sources - sometimes you're including "The" in the alphabetization and other times not
  • The newspapers.nl.sg links don't appear to be working
  • There are no citations to the Obituary in the Sources list, and the link is broken.
  • done: removed it.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

There seems to be little sign of this gathering a consensus to promote. If it has not attracted more interest by the time it has hit the three week mark I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [30].

Love for Sale (Bilal album) edit

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating after a controversial source review derailed the previous nomination, which had garnered a good amount of supports otherwise. I replaced a few of the contested citations after that nom ended, but mostly I'm just interested in seeing how this pans out with someone else reviewing the sourcing this time... isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per my past support. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ouch, I was going to contribute a review of some sort but after seeing why the article failed last time, I have no inclination to do so. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱 edit

  • A fascinating record that I'd love to see promoted to FA. I read the previous nomination discussion, and I understand it got pretty contentious over certain things about sources (and at another point a topic that wasn't even related to the album), so I'm not intending to step on anyone's feet. However, two major issues are already present to my eyes.
    • The first paragraph of the background section is an overly-long paragraph of the artist's early life that establishes nothing relevant in relation to the rest of the content about the album. This is also a CONTENTFORK issue as all of this stuff is not only in the bio article of the artist, but also in the background section of the article about his previous album (which I think works better there). I feel starting the background at the time he was signed to Interscope and released his first album would do it.
    • I feel the "Music and lyrics" subsection isn't the best written. I think it's pretty good but it can feel like an indiscriminate list of critical opinions with no connection to each other at points.

More comments soon. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all right. I can see how the background section could use some trimming. I'll work on that. And I might see how parts of the other section feel that way, but you gotta name some examples so we're on the same page about it. Looking forward to your comments! isento (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the background section, but I've kept the notes on the Soulquarians, Glasper, jazz-voice training, etc. There are connections to these topics later on in the article. isento (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything more to add, buddy? @HumanxAnthro: isento (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments coming, but there's one thing. Add a page number(s) to Reyes source and replace url with link that actually directs to the page the article start. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks man. I've added the link and page numbers. isento (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @HumanxAnthro:, just checking in with you, because of that note below. isento (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be afraid. I'll just renominate. isento (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [31].

Willa Cather edit

Nominator(s): Urve (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Willa Cather, an author who lived with her domestic partner, Edith Lewis, for a number of years in the twentieth century. She is best remembered for her plains novels, making Nebraska visible to the world, though she also wrote historical novels in France and the American Southwest. She won a Pulitzer Prize in literature for her World War One novel, One of Ours. Urve (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Infobox says she was born in Gore, text says near Gore - which is correct?
  • FN1 is malformatted
  • FN6: The Mower's Tree is the work title, but the specific article being cited has its own titled, plus a date that is missing from the citation
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
  • FN17 is missing date
  • Willa Cather Archive is the website, not part of titles, and be consistent in whether you include publisher with these
  • Be consistent in whether you use title or sentence case for work titles
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
  • FN23: given work title is a publisher. Check for other issues of this type.
  • FN21 is missing publisher. Ditto FN102, check for others
  • Fn35: are you citing the actual letter, or the introduction? The citation is unclear
  • Fn36: Home Monthly should be italicized. Ditto Red Cloud Chief in FN29, check for others
  • FN37 has the title plural, and I don't see that author credit there?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

Stopping for now and oppose - lots of formatting cleanup needed, please check throughout. Happy to revisit once that's been done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Citation is what I am weakest at; usually use the preformed gadget, but as we can see, that leaves a lot to be desired. It will take a while to go through this so I will start working when I can. (I wanted to eventually switch to the shortened footnote system because of ease eventually, and I think this is a good time to do so.) Urve (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will leave a review once Nikkimaria's comments are addressed. I have not worked on this type of article in the past, but I have very fond memories of Willa Cather as I studied Death Comes for the Archbishop for one of my graduate-level English courses and wrote a paper on one of its characters (Magdalena). I hope that I can help with this article as I am interesting in reading it and learning more about Cather. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Buidhe edit

I just noticed that the article states "Cather's lifelong conservative politics" in wikivoice with a note "Not all critics see her 1930s political views as conservative"—this is not acceptable as it likely distorts NPOV. If Cather's audience perceived her as conservative, that should be stated but maybe more of the nuances can be covered in the text. It also raises the question, conservative how? (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a special distinction here because of her earlier life and ~1940 politics (letter about Mussolini in 1938 for example; some sources discuss this but I need to check again). Should be repaired when available. Urve (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close edit

I am moving and for unrelated reasons won't have access to most of the sources used in the article for around a month. That seems unfair to those who are offering to review. Source restoration will take a while too while I go back and reverify everything. (Last I checked it was fine: Acocella is the only major issue, but she is not sourced for her now-fringe views.) Very sorry for the total waste of time for everyone else. Requesting to close whenever someone has a chance. Urve (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2021 [33].

Battle of Saseno edit

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an ongoing effort dedicated to Venetian naval history, this article is about the destruction of a Venetian trade convoy by the Genoese, via a clever ruse, during the War of Saint Sabas. It passed GA and the MILHIST ACR last year, and I feel confident that it is quite complete and ready for its FA star. Constantine ✍ 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "The cost of the convoy's loss to Venice was estimated at 100,000 Genoese pounds.". The text gives this as the value of the captured materials and ships - not the total loss
  • Be consistent in how citations to notes are formatted
  • Many of the sources cited are quite old - what sort of searching has been done for more recent scholarship? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. I looked at this at ACR and suspect that you may be correct about its readiness. Let's see what I can find to nit pick at.

  • All entries in info boxes should start with an upper case letter.
  • Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should use Lang templates, not just italics.
  • "near Saseno island off the coast of Albania". Why the lower case i?
  • "With its victories in the Battle of Acre in 1258 and in the Battle of Settepozzi in 1263". Delete the second "in".
  • "commerce raiding against the Venetian merchant convoys." I think this would read better if you deleted "the".
  • Can we have some in line background on that quote. Who was Camillo Manfroni and when was it written for example.
  • What is the copy right status of that quote?
  • "since the fall of the Latin Empire in 1261". A little more explanation perhaps? That is going to mean little to most readers.
  • "the spring trade convoy to the Levant now represented Venice's "main overseas trading enterprise". MOS:QUOTE states "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in the original), which this would seem to be.
  • "In spring 1264, "in order to crush the Venetian enemies and to ensure the well-being and defend the Genoese sailing in different parts of the world" ". As immediately above.
  • "and had been built by public funds". I think you mean something like 'and their construction had been funded by public subscription".
  • "Grillo was forced to move to Porto Venere, at the southernmost extremity of Genoese territory, and there wait until the fleet was made ready; and he was also assigned four experienced sailors as councillors, with the added task of keeping an eye on his conduct, among them Ogerio Scoto and Pietro di Camilla." Recommend replacing the semi colon with a full stop.
  • "Coupled with news of extensive recruitment of mercenaries in Lombardy, this news worried the Venetian authorities". Is it possible to avoid using "news" twice?
  • "the usual sea lanes". I am not sure what you mean by this. Is it the same as 'trade routes'?
  • "Grillo quickly became aware of the Venetian fleet's moves". I think that some of the speculation on this could usefully be moved into the main article. It is not exactly tangential stuff. For example, I don't understand how news can have reached him of "the Venetian fleet's moves" faster than the fleet itself was moving. And what does "quickly" mean in this context?
  • I have got to the end of "Grillo deceives Barozzi" and have counted seven quotes in 1,200 words of prose - including the quotes. This seems to me to be pushing "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text ..." past breaking point. It is normal to paraphrase sources into Wikipedia's voice.
  • "appears to have sailed slowly". Why would he do that? Regardless of his perception of threat.
  • Why do the Venetians have "armed soldiers" while the Genoese have "marines"?
  • Why were large ships with 40 armed men on board "on match" for other ships with 50? I assume the answer is in their being "swift and agile", but how did this translate into a combat advantage?
  • "valued at more than 100,000 Genoese pounds, an enormous sum for the period". Anything to put it into context? Maybe as a proportion of one state's annual income or something?
  • "altogether of all". One of these is redundant.
  • "the Venetians were deprived altogether of all commerce with the east for that year"; "to escort the previous year's returning convoy back to Venice". There seems to be a contradiction here.
  • "it was not finally ratified". What does "finally" add?
  • "coerced both to sign a five-year-truce". What happened at the end of the five years?
  • "the Genoese admiral may simply have availed himself of a network of agents along the coasts of Sicily". How would these hypothetical agents obtain intelligence on a fleet which never got within 500 km of them?

An interesting story, nicely told. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Unfortunately it seems that the nominator hasn't been editing at all since the day of this nomination; unless someone is willing/able to take over the nom it may need to be archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Nice artwork, will have a look soon. At first glance, Guelph appears to be a duplink of Ghibelline. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Nikkimaria notes, the nominator has been inactive since the day this nomination was posted, more than three weeks ago. So regretfully I am going to have to archive this. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2021 (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/Archived_nominations/May_2021&oldid=1025227018"