Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eternal Blue (album)/archive1

Eternal Blue (album) edit

Featured article candidates/Eternal Blue (album)/archive1

Nominator(s): mftp dan ^oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings FAC,

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken. I tried to take this to peer review just over a month ago, but I got no feedback and grew impatient. I am confident enough in my work that I can meet the demand of a featured article on the fly with this one. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it. mftp dan ^oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Suggest adding alt text

File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue.jpg needs a specific source

File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue_Alt.jpg: FUR needs expansion

Have you considered including a sample? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki, I hear you. Thank you for your comments!

I normally add alt text but this one seems tough. I'll let you know when I think of something to put there.
By "specific source", do you mean the actual URL instead of just genius.com, or something else?

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales are not my strength but I will reach out and see if someone else can advise me on that. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard, I just don't know what to model after.

I have edited both the rationales, I think the second one might be good? The slipcase cover I looked to another metal FA. mftp dan ^oops 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a sample to add in during the course of the FAC.

mftp dan ^oops 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser edit

Looking good, I have only one substantial concern. The process leading up to the record is extensively and appropriately described, but I would like a bit more commentary on the result. Themes are comprehensively analyzed, but there is room for more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics, with respect to the individual songs.

Lead: Prefer: "Music critics ~~reviewed the album positively, who~~ generally praised its production, songwriting, and musicianship."
Critical reception: for creative works receiving overwhelmingly positive critique I've always found it elegant to include a dissenting opinion to round off the section. This is of course provided that such a dissent has been published and can be considered due, I'm not asking you to invent a dissenting voice (that would likely be a breach of YESPOV)

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:

Resolved the prose comment. You are correct, that text was redundant.
I found it considerably difficult to find anyone (either professional or amateur) who viewed this album as anything less than good when writing this. The closest I could get were a few who recognized it had some shortcomings, but even those critics lauded EB. My GA reviewer suggested I reorganize the reception to some sort of theme to fit guidelines, and I tried to separate these viewpoints into another paragraph from those who took it as gold.

Ok, sounds good. /DB

I am not certain what you mean by "more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics", can you be more specific? Are there questions it leaves you asking, maybe?

mftp dan ^oops 17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. By composition/music I mean (including but not limited to): key, chord progressions, time signature(s), melodies/licks/riffs, instrumentation, solos, drop-d-tuning, production/mixing/post-production. The "composition"-section only comments on the album as a whole. There is some commentary on a few of these aspects with respect to the individual songs, but I think we need more. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable request. Let me try looking through the sources I have in the article already tomorrow night (Mondays are busy). If I don't find anything, I'll give a look elsewhere, but I feel like I would have included that kind of stuff if I'd seen it (though perhaps in fact I didn't). mftp dan ^oops 20:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a concerted effort to address this comment. I don't know if I'm all the way where you want yet, but am I on the right track? How much are you looking for? (Solos aren't really a hallmark of Spiritbox's music.) mftp dan ^oops 00:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. With something this djent-y I'm hoping for some info on time signatures and/or drum patterns, but I'm also open to the possibility that these music journalists skipped that part of their homework. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mike might have said something about Zev's playing in one of the refs I added or expanded with, let me see what I can do. If not, I'll try pursuing something from Zev's words directly. mftp dan ^oops 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, the press really gave Zev the shaft here... Mike talks about his contribution to the album a little bit in the ref to the Michigan Daily, but there's really not anything all that special that he says about it that I think translates well to a Wikipedia article. Pretty much everything is taken from Courtney or Michael, it seems. If there's anything a reviewer observes that's particularly a standout comment, I can try for that, but it's not my first choice.

(Original research here, not for article inclusion, but relevant discussion point: it's annoying too, because you can hear where there's something irregular in this album rhythmically a few times - "Sun Killer" and "We Live in a Strange World" stick out to me, but there's nothing I can personally say about that because my word means jack on Wikipedia. Conversely, if you listen close enough... you can also hear that most of this album is composed in a conventional 4 time. Even through the chaos of "Silk in the Strings", I could make out the intended time because of the drums.) mftp dan ^oops 00:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Jumping in): per WP:PRIMARY, a work of art, music, literature etc. can be used as a source, uncited, for its own contents, as long as those are readily apparent to an audience -- so, for example, we can summarise the plot of a novel without a secondary citation, with the novel itself as the implied source. How far that goes for music is trickier, and other reviewers may disagree, but personally I'd have no problem with talking about a piece's time signature, key, tempo, instrumentation etc. on the same terms. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the thought, at least as far as my Wiki travels have taken me, that doesn't appear to me to apply in music. Keys and time can change often and sometimes it's more difficult to hear, especially in music that's purportedly progressive metal. Are you familiar with Dream Theater? "The Dance of Eternity", though an extreme example, is one which would testify to man's typical fallibility on this issue. It treads too close to OR for my comfort, if I was reviewing a nomination personally. mftp dan ^oops 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Google AI seems to think "Constance" swaps between a 4/4 and a 7/4, which is definitely plausible, though unclear to me. It would be really interesting to note were there an actually reliable 3PS on the subject. I searched for information on this but this FAC is Google's third result. Not a good sign. mftp dan ^oops 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some convention around only writing about the singles? I'm asking because if we include content on other songs we could use this. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that's specifically written out, no. It's usually common to write about the singles because they're a key part of promoting the album. I don't think that you absolutely must include something on every song on the album, but it only helps for more. I certainly am all for adding this. ADDENDUM: Would you like me to integrate the singles' analysis into composition so we could have one cohesive section on the songs, and then I create a section for this album's promotion where the singles currently stand? This way, I could more sensibly add this analysis on the title track. The only downside to this is it might read rather close to critical reception, whereas the chronological way it reads now loans is a little leeway because all the singles were released preceding the album. mftp dan ^oops ~~22:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)~~ 01:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we start including info on songs that weren't released as singles I think it makes a lot of sense to separate the sections, but my preference for that could also be colored by svwiki-convention, which generally separates "music and lyrics" from "marketing and release", and we gotta do what's right by enwp-standards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skyshifter edit

Infobox and lead

The article says that "Eternal Blue was recorded over a period of three weeks in February, and the process was finished by the beginning of March"; shouldn't the infobox say "Recorded: February–March 2021"? Same applies to the lead, which says "The recording was finished by Braunstein in February 2021" instead of March.
The lead lacks much information from the "Background" section, such as how Spiritbox was formed; feel like this is pretty important especially considering this is a debut album.
"Spiritbox relocated to Joshua Tree, California, and completed the songwriting process for the album, which former Volumes guitarist Dan Braunstein and the band's guitarist Mike Stringer produced." — could be reworded for clarity; for example, "the band" could still refer to Volumes. I'd recommend the following: "Spiritbox relocated to Joshua Tree, California, where they completed the songwriting process for the album. It was produced by former Volumes guitarist Dan Braunstein and Spiritbox's guitarist, Mike Stringer."
"five songs became singles" → "five songs were released as singles" is more appropriate
I saw above that "Music critics reviewed the album positively" was removed. I believe a general summary of the album's critical reception is acceptable in the lead; the main problem here is that the article's "Critical response to Eternal Blue was very positive" is not sourced and could be considered subjective/OR. This should be exchanged by Metacritic's assessment of "universal acclaim" (which is currently not mentioned anywhere) and, after that, readded to the lead.
- Actually, I believe the issue I had above was that the way I originally wrote it was clunky and I corrected it so it read better. I am in bed now but I will make these fixes after work tomorrow. mftp dan ^oops 03:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Eternal Blue proved an immediate chart success for the band" is not mentioned explicitly in "Commercial performance"; also, what would be considered an "immediate success"? Would remove as it seems a bit subjective.
- Good catch. It was easy for me to get swept up in a seemingly unprecedentedly good debut metalcore album. Removed "immediate", hope that addresses it.

More comments to follow soon, but first, I'll listen to the album. Skyshiftertalk 01:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for the feedback! mftp dan ^oops 03:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, in order to satisfy the second bullet point, I made a substantial structure change to the lead. As a result, not all of the changes I made are to exact specifications, but I believe that I have addressed everything listed here so far in a way you would find satisfactory. mftp dan ^oops 00:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't listened to the album yet, but I gave "Circle With Me" a listen (because its their most streamed song on Spotify) and really enjoyed it! Definitely going to check more of their songs later. Anyway, I've re-read the lead and read the article up to "Composition". Here's what I found.

Lead

Some sentences throughout the article should be fixed according to WP:FALSETITLE. The very first sentence is an example: "Eternal Blue is the debut studio album by the Canadian heavy metal band Spiritbox." In Background, another example: "members of the American metalcore band".
There is a repetition of "After" ("After leaving [...] After revealing") and "The band" ("The band recorded [...] The band's first). "In advance of the record's release" can be changed to "In advance of Eternal Blue's release" to avoid repetition of "the record".
It still says that "The recording was finished by Braunstein in February 2021". Also, the "March 1" date isn't specifically stated in "Recording and release".
What I meant with the "universal acclaim" thing was actually a change in "Critical reception". "Critical response to Eternal Blue was very positive" should be changed to something like: "According to review aggregator Metacritic, Eternal Blue received "universal acclaim" based on a weighted average score of 84 out of 100 from 4 critics scores". In the lead, you can add quotation marks at "universal acclaim" and mention "according to Metacritic", or change it to a more usual wording like "received critical acclaim".
While the wording was changed, "chart success" is still subjective — what is considered a chart success? Unless sources specifically mentioning this can be found, you should cut this part, going straight into the "entries in eight countries" sentence.

Background

"The singles were all recorded themselves" reads as if the singles recorded themselves, or something. A wording like "The singles were recorded in a do it yourself manner]] would be clearer.
"The band members met Rose only two days (...)" is a very long sentence; I recommend spliting it or at least adding commas.
"Following the album's release, Crook left Spiritbox (...)" This isn't Background; moving it to "Recording and release" would be more appropriate.

Composition

"disregarded genre" → "disregarded genres"
"on what it enjoyed" → "on what they enjoyed"
LaPlante makes use of both screaming and singing throughout the record" → "LaPlante [both] screams and sings throughout the record"
"The bulk of the album's lyrics, which were written by LaPlante, were written about her feelings of frustration and sadness" repetition of "were written"; here's an alternative wording: "LaPlante, who wrote most of the album's lyrics, delved into themes of frustration and sadness."
"changed tunings" → "changed them", avoiding repetition

More comments soon. Skyshiftertalk 00:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]