Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon/archive2

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) 10 June 2021 [1].

Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon edit

Nominator(s): You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 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. To the other two FAC coordinators. I have contacted Gog the Mild and they said it was okay to nominate the article a little earlier than the two week period. I would also like to thank Gerda Arendt. If it was not for her I would not be taking this article to FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Check that all images have alt text
The FUR for File:Shootforthestarsvirgilcover.png is based on the image being in the infobox; it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I have changed the FUR for the original ugly version of Pop Smoke's album cover and added alt texts to all the images. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new FUR is insufficient - that big red "purpose must be stated" should be dealt with, and given the details of the image's creation we probably need to also identify the work from which it derives. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria how does it look now? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the image is based on a pre-existing photo not by the graphic artist, correct? What is the source of that? And what benefit specifically does the reader derive from seeing this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I have removed the image. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman edit

Interesting read! Did not see anything worth opposing. 웃O O 04:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake edit

Resolved comments from K.Peake

The article mostly looks great, but I do have a few concerns:

In the lead, usages of "the album" and similar terms are too close to each other; I would suggest changing "three songs from the original album" to "three songs from the original" for a starting point. The others to fix would be changing "Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon" to "it" at the point where the genres are listed, cutting "After the album was complete" down to "After the completion", using the title instead at the "sequencing the album" point, writing "upon release" and "the production" instead in the critical reception sentence to avoid being too wordy, changing "The record appeared on several publications' lists of the best albums of 2020; it was" to "It appeared on several publications' lists of the best albums of 2020, including being" and mentioning the title again at the start of the commercial sentence.
LilBaby and DaBaby are different people, so add the connective between their names and use "are" instead of "was".
WP:METRO specifies that Metro is considered unreliable on the main website like you have cited, so replace or remove this and the source shouldn't have passed GA. Furthermore, Earmilk, Rap-Up and The Source are acceptable sources for GA, but can you make any arguments for them being high quality FA sources? --K. Peake 08:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake: I have reworded the lead and removed Metro, Earmilk, Rap-Up and The Source. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot better, but I would suggest adding info from a different source about the lyrics of "44 Bulldog". --K. Peake 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake There is no other source talking about the lyrics of "44 Bulldog". Do you support now? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do since not every song's lyrics need to be discussed when it is an article about the album; fantastic job here! --K. Peake 10:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda edit

Thank you for praise I hope to live up to. I support the article per my comments in the PR and FAC 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moise edit

Oppose for now. Gerda asked me to look at this. If you can improve the Critical reception section, it will go a long way to bringing the article closer to FA level. Refer to WP:RECEPTION if it's helpful. But in a nutshell I would give the following advice (some of this I'm copying from another review I did, but it's relevant here too):

Try to paraphrase half or more of the direct quotations.
Try for a little more variation in sentence structure. Most are currently "Reviewer—of/from publication—verb—review." (The sentence that starts with "Reviewing Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon for Entertainment Weekly" is one exception I noticed.)
Organize the review content into big themes (or largely related comments) by paragraph. See the Reception section of A Crow Looked at Me or Pod (The Breeders album) for ideas.
Within the paragraphs, try to group the comments even further. It gets repetitive if it's always only "A said (or a variation on this verb) ---. B said ----. C said ---." (one sentence per reviewer/idea). Are there things people said that are similar enough, or share some elements, whereby you could combine two or more reviews into a single sentence? For example, "Both X and Y commented on such-and-such aspect of the album; X additionally noted/opined that..." Or "Some reviewers found that (such-and-such). X elaborated that..." Maybe the reader doesn't need to know every nuance of what each reviewer said. To find points to combine, if necessary you could also look at details the reviewers said that are not currently included in the article; there might be other usable tidbits in their reviews that can be clumped into mini-trends? Both of the articles I mentioned above have examples of different kinds of sentence combining; The Breeders Tour 2014 has a shorter reception section but also has some ideas for this you could look at. (OK, two of the articles above are ones I worked on, but I'm just citing them because I'm more familiar with them and it's quicker than me hunting down examples that I'm sure exist in other FA articles.) I hope these suggestions are helpful. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: You can go ahead and close this now. I think the article is good at GA level. My teenage mind is not good enough to get this to FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 10 June 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.