Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/MDNA (album)

< Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

MDNA

edit

MDNA is the twelfth studio album by American singer Madonna, released on March 23, 2012, by Interscope Records. The album was conceived while the singer was busy throughout 2011 with filming her directorial venture, W.E.. It features guest features by female rappers M.I.A. and Nicki Minaj. A pop and EDM record, MDNA consists of upbeat songs which lyrically explore themes of partying, love for music, infatuation, as well as heartbreak, revenge and separation. The album's title is a triple entendre, and its allusion to MDMA drew negative reception from anti-drug groups.

It was Madonna's first release under the 360 deal she had signed with Live Nation in 2007 and the three-album deal with Interscope in 2012. The record received promotion from Madonna's performance at Super Bowl XLVI halftime show as well as the MDNA Tour, the latter becoming one of the highest-grossing tours of all time. Four singles were released—"Give Me All Your Luvin'", "Girl Gone Wild", "Masterpiece" and "Turn Up the Radio". Its first single reached number ten on the Billboard Hot 100 extending Madonna's then record as the artist with the most top-ten singles in that chart's history.

Music critics were ambivalent towards the album, which topped the record charts in most musical markets. Madonna set a new record for the most number-one albums by a solo artist in Australia and the United Kingdom. MDNA was the twelfth best-selling album of 2012 globally, and went on to sell two million copies.

edit | discuss
  MDNA
11 articles
 
  "Girl Gone Wild"
  "Gang Bang"
  "Turn Up the Radio"
  "Give Me All Your Luvin'"
  "Superstar"
  "I Don't Give A"
  "Masterpiece"
  The MDNA Tour
  MDNA World Tour
  Super Bowl XLVI halftime show
Contributor(s): Christian, IndianBio, 11JORN

The article of Madonna's twelfth studio album, its singles/songs and promotional performances, all cover the criteria needed to be promoted to Featured/Good topic. --Christian (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: All the singles and notable tracks, the tour, the tour album, and the Super Bowl performance, all at GA. Looks comprehensive! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: You need to make things more standard either "work and publisher" or only "work". Some articles have both, others don't have both. I would suggest removing the publisher when you have work already. Mainly on the articles of "I Don't Give A", "Masterpiece" and "Gang Bang". I already fixed it on "Superstar". On "Masterpiece", HuffPost contributors must be removed per WP:RSP, "Gang Bang" has the same problem on the external link, so any information related to it must either be removed or replaced. On "Girl Gone Wild" reference 23 has its publisher in all capital letters, reference 39 doesn't have an author or work/publisher, Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork (Website), reference 47 has no date, reference 78 is dead needs fixing, reference 92 has no work/publisher. Moreover, International Business Times and New York Post must be removed/replaced per WP:RSP.
  • Hi! could you please add all the comments so I can fix them all at once? Right now personal stuff takes up most of my time and I'm not as available here on wiki as other times. Thank you!! Christian (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do my best. MTV is always publisher. On "Turn Up the Radio"; Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork (Website), You have MTV News as both publisher and work, which one? Reference 50 you have both publisher and work, source 52 is work, a lot of publisher and work: reference 53-55, 57, 58, MuuMuse → wikilink, 67, 68, 70, 73 and 75. I might have missed some stuff. On "Give Me All Your Luvin", source 13-16 (publisher or work?), Medium is an unreliable source, source 40, 52, 53, 56, on 58 where is the staff/authors? Again 93, 94, 118-120, not sure if Fashionista is a reliable source, but I will take it. Souce 139 and 143 are dead. Basically, the biggest issues are MTV and MTV News. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why the Super Bowl XLVI halftime show article was included here. She performed one song from this album during it. Can you explain it to me? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the The MDNA Tour, there are two PopCrush sources, as well as a HuffPost contributor, and New York Post which are considered unreliable ad must be removed and their info either removed or replaced by reliable ones. Some sources have been questioned but no consensus has been reached or they are walking on thin ice, so I won't address those. Every article has "madonna.com" → Official Madonna website. On the MDNA World Tour, wikilink first instance of The New York Times and unlink the second, Madonna.com → Official Madonna website (19, 23, 28, 29 and 118), remove the location of the Daily Telegraph, reference 25 and 26 missing author, Digital Spy is both as work and publisher.
    MDNA album New York Post and PR Newswire must be removed/replaced per WP:RSP. Madonna.com → Official Madonna website, Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork

Chrishm21 I have pointed out every issue that needs to be fixed. Let me know once you are done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishm21 and MarioSoulTruthFan: Hey, are these comments resolved? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! No the nominator made no effort in addressing the issues so far. Some of these issues include non-reliable sources, which must be addressed before the candidate can become a GT. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'll take a look a help to fix these issues --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been taking a look at your edits and they are outstanding. Nevertheless, you are forgetting to remove HuffPost contributors as they are deemed unreliable by Wikipedia. It works the same way as Forbes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sure, I've been working by parts. I almost finish to clean parameters with the latest article (Super Bowl). And perhaps nominator @Chrishm21: could try to fix the problem with Give me All Your Luvin' and MDNA (album) regarding PR Newswire, New York Post, as well the HuffPost, and Forbes Contributors for all over the articles. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count too much on the nominator as he is very busy at the moment, as it seems. Let me know once you have address all the issues you intend to do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Got it. I've a question about HuffPost: WP:RSPSS says is not allowed to use articles from HuffPost Contributors but staff writers are ok, mainly articles since 2012 (and is the year when Madonna started this era). The only source which explicitly says it was a contributor is this but also used "columnist" and perhaps is Liz Smith. The other sources like this doesn't have author, this is supposed to be from a report of their staff, and this one is penned by WENN. So I guess are ok to use, and if Liz Smith opinion's doesn't fit for an inclusion, should be the only HuffPost source to remove. Let me known. Also, perhaps I will take a little longer with PR Newswire references in MDNA, GMAYL and the Super Bowl, because are used as reference for multiple details. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they belong to the staff they are good to use. However, I clicked every HuffPost source and checked it, and the ones I pointed out are contributors. I forgot to check one but you removed it and it was from a contributor. If you click on her name on the article it does say she is a "contributor"; WP:RSPSS is quite straight forward in that "Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor"." On top of that she is a "gossip columnist", so I really take it with a grain of salt. The one you claim it has o author it is a news first reported from "Associated Press", therefore is fine. Wong is not a contributor, henceforth it is ok to use as it is the other one. Take your time, I have no rush. Just let me know as you finish them so I can cross it here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've finished. There is already a consistency with refs parameters. I also archived urls when applicable, and filling parameters of authorship as well. In regards problematic sources, I already eliminated PR Newswire and New York Post (verified both in prose and with url-domain, eg: Nypost.com). Forbes source only came from their official staff members (actually all from Zack O'Malley Greenburg), and I think the same goes to HuffPost. Only those under the scope of WP:RSP. My last question is about sub-section "Fashion" in Super Bowl XLVI halftime show, when I deleted PR Newswire I tried to replace with another source, the information about: three months, 500 outfits and Akerlund's comment. I haven't found a source, even with advanced Google searches. Not sure, if as WP:GUNREL says about exceptional circumstance, the PR Newswire can be used or is the case as same section advise: If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. Let me know which one could be the usage for this case, and I would reinsert ref or delete information, which doesn't affect article quality. Also, let me know if there is something else I could help here or reinforce. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will check everything and cross stuff I pointed out as I go by. Great job on the refs parameters. I stated Forbes as an example, as it is more common to arise than HuffPost, there is noting wrong with the Forbes source. Regarding the Super Bowl XLVI halftime show, I'm not sure how relevant it is for the this topic, as Madonna only performed one song from this album. Henceforth, I wanted the nominator to explain to me how it is relevant for this topic. Regardless, an exception could be made for Akerlund's comment, as I take no issue with it. The rest of the information that you can't back up, maybe delete it all together and leave some sort of comment there so people won't add info to it. As long as you have at least one RS supporting the claims, it fine. I saw that you added three sources to replace part of PR Newswire. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apoxyomenus: I checked every issued you addressed, amazing work. I just have one question, why is the Super Bowl XLVI halftime show included on the GT nomination? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thanks for your inputs as well. In regards the Halftime show, I guess in readers' mind, is commonly associated with the MDNA era, for the reason its preceded the album with the single "Give Me All Your Luvin'" and had a significant impact of pre-sales for the record in the US and for the single the next week. If is actually not a worthy inclusion, I guess it can be removed without problem without any burocratic process WP:BURO. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I got the idea. Indeed it had its influence on the album and single sales. I asked as other GT topics regarding albums don't include halftime shows. It seems fine as far as I'm concerned. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been   Approved for promotion. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. A bot will promote this topic within one hour. Please double check that {{Featured topic box |title= is exactly what you want the topic name to be, is short, and is unformatted.​ GamerPro64 03:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/MDNA_(album)&oldid=1089336111"