Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2019 [1].

Almost There (album)

edit
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m nominating this article again because I think it meets the featured article criteria. The last two nominations stalled due to inactivity, so hopefully the third time’s the charm.

For a brief overview, this is the first album Christian rock band MercyMe released after signing to INO Records. The album was praised by critics and did well in sales almost exclusively off the success of “I Can Only Imagine”, which was a Christian radio hit in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003. It’s been certified 3x Platinum (3,000,000 in sales) as of 2019, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and “I Can Only Imagine” received that certification as well, making it the best-selling Christian song ever.

Pinging all editors involved in the previous FAC noms: Serial Number 54129, Lirim.Z, Nikkimaria, Aoba47, Brandt Luke Zorn, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

edit
  • I don't like articles failing an FA due to lack of eyes. I'll take a look:
  • Not a fan of the "Personnel" subsection. Needs some explanation, rather than just where this comes from. In fact, this is just mentioned again in the ref
  • Is a full table necessary for one figure on number of sales?
    Good point. Pages normally have one but it’s already noted multiple times in the article, and there are not multiple entries, I’ve removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Critical reception, you have [15][11][18][14][55] - 5 refs. Borders on WP:REFBOMB, could you combine these into one reference?

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine. I'm not a fan of a lack of prose for sections, but it clearly meets the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit

I will do a full review of the article by the end of tomorrow if that is okay with you. I am leaving this as a placeholder. I am happy to see this up for another FAC and I hope it gets more attention this time around. I look forward to reading through the article again soon. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (After releasing six records as an unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell records, book shows, and manage themselves.), I would replace the first instance of "records" with "studio albums" as that appears to be the more correct word choice. The word "records" is rather vague so it would be better to clarify that point.
  • I would just recommend using something more precise than "records". "Albums" would work. I have seen the word "records" refer to both albums and singles so that is why I am cautioning against it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part (is the first studio album) as it appears the band released other studio albums before this one so saying it is the "first studio album" does not seem accurate to me.
  • This was the first studio album the band had made, but they had recorded 6 independent albums off of a record label before that. These albums weren’t recorded in a studio (but rather in places like church gymns and the like) and weren’t released on a label. I had generally grouped them as “independent albums” because they aren’t really in the same category, and the band and media generally don’t group them with the band’s efforts that have been released on a label. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still uncertain about this. I would still think that independent or self-released albums would qualify as studio albums. I do not think a studio album just means major-label releases. Also, even if the band recorded in more unconventional places, like a church's gym, they still would have needed equipment to record everything so in effect these spaces became studios. They are not like the high-ended recording studio often used for more mainstream albums, but I would still believe these spaces would qualify as studios. However, I will leave that for other editors to decide and discuss, because I am quite uncertain about it. It is not a major issue for me, and it would not prevent me from supporting this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. If others take issue with this I can revisit I. I will note that Billboard does not identify the independent albums as studio ones; they said the band’s most recent album (2017’s Lifer) is their ninth. If independent ones were included, it would be their 15th. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (appeared on the band's unsigned records), I think "self-released records" would be the better phrasing. Something about "unsigned records" does not seem correct to me.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, move the wikilink for "I Can Only Imagine" up to its first use. The same comment applies to the body of the article.
  • For this (Billboard ranked it as the fourth best-selling Christian album of the 2000s in the United States.), I would wikilink Billboard.
  • For this part (they released their fifth unsigned album,), I would use either independent or self-released rather than "unsigned".
  • I have a question about this part (Although Kipley had been involved on some minor projects). Does the source clarify what these "minor projects" were?
  • I am confused by this portion (According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get the song on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre.). It immediately follows the sentence on "Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" and how much the band disliked it so it is weird that this part makes it seem like the band fought for that song. I am assuming this part is not in the correct spot.
  • I am confused by this part (because they felt the adult had been pushed to an adult contemporary sound.). What do you mean by "the adult"?
  • I would put citations in numeric order.
  • For the first sentence of the "Composition" section, I could see some editors raising concerns about Wikipedia:Overlinking. It may be helpful to bundle the citations together to avoid that. I have always been told to avoid using four citations in a row; three is fine, but I think that is the limit. The sentence as a whole has seven citations so it is quite a bit.
  • For this part (the "guitar nuances" of Scheuchzer), I would say (Scheuchzer's "guitar nuances") instead.
  • For this part (of Scheuchzer to U2's guitarist The Edge), I do not believe "the" of the Edge should be capitalized. The same comment applies for the Cure in this part (the song was compared to the work of The Cure).
  • I would wikilink Third Day.
    Missed this one Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In its 25th anniversary edition, CCM Magazine listed Almost There as one of '100 Albums You Need to Own'.), CCM Magazine and Almost There should be in italics.

I am not really a fan of worship music tbh, but you have done a great job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope this nomination gets more attention in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit
  • That's a very odd referencing system, e.g., one <ref> tag populated with a bulleted list of references that had been used previously. My knee-jerk reaction would be to Oppose, but... why did you do things that way? Was there a reason, or was that the only way you could think of to handle the situation? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bit irregular. The problem is, every time I touch references, I always want to turn them into my preferred style. That would be major surgery. So let's just drop this for now. If the FAC passes, no harm no foul. If it fails, and if you have any desire to do so, feel free to contact me & I'll redo it all from top to bottom. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

I did review the files used in this article in the previous FAC, except that File:How Great Is Your Love.ogg is now in the article instead of File:I Can Only Imagine 2001.ogg. I still am a bit wary of these samples; I don't see how they meet WP:NFCC#8 unless the sample is representative of the whole album. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment! I would say it is quite representative of the album’s sound, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I don’t know if a reliable source is needed for that but the song is a good example of what the album’s median sound and lyrical content is like. Toa Nidhiki05 11:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've had an additional thought here, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I would like to include both samples, but "House of God" is not quite representative of the album. However, I feel the sample is quite useful in informing the reader of just what the band mean when they said they pushed for "House of God" to bolster their rock credentials. Perhaps moving it to "Background and recording" would be sufficient? There it actually serves a purpose for the reader. If this still is not enough I would be fine with removing it, however I would like the "How Great Is Your Love" sample to remain as it is representative of the album. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would help; WP:NFCC#8 is Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (emphasis mine) and I don't see how this would be the case. By the same line of thought "How Great Is Your Love" will need a better inclusion argument than "As the song is the most successful release from the album both critically and commercially, its inclusion is essential to the album and the album's article by extension." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve deleted “House of God” and corrected the description and justification “How Great Is Your Love”. The latter is representative of the album and has been covered by multiple sources, the vast majority of album FAs here include at least one representative sample so hopefully this is sufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 14:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I am not sure if that is reflected in the current article text and certainly isn't reflected in the non-free use rationale on File:How Great Is Your Love.ogg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I still feel there needs to be a sample. Toa Nidhiki05 22:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

Lead

  • Produced by Pete Kipley, the album - some repetition of "the album" at this point. Maybe consider using simply "it", or "the record"?
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After releasing six albums as an unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell albums, book shows, and manage themselves - some repetition of "band". What about changing the latter instance to "they", since it should be clear to every reader who is being referred to. I'd also consider piping to recording contract, for the more music industry-illiterate reader.
  • Four of the songs on the album had previously appeared on the band's self-released albums - less is generally more. I'd consider changing this to "Four songs on the album had previously appeared on their self-released albums"
  • Also, I'd consider ending the first paragraph after the above sentence. The next sentence, Critics have characterized... refereences Critical reception, which is what the next paragraph seems to be focused on.
  • however, it underperformed on the charts, leading to poorer than expected sales for the album - I'd find a way to incorporating the word "initially" somewhere in that sentence if I were you, since the next sentence says that sales picked up on the release of the next single.

Background and recording

  • The band later brought on drummer Robby Shaffer and bassist Nathan Cochran. sounds a little to informal. What about "Drummer Robby Shaffer and bassist Nathan Cochran later joined the band."? It might also help if you specify when they joined the group. The current source (written in 2000) indicates that "Nathan join[ed] the fold over three years ago and Robby a little over two years ago." So maybe something along the lines of "Bassist Nathan Cochran joined the band in 1997, with drummer Robby Shaffer joining the following year." This is absolutely apropos of nothing, but I noticed that the Members section of the band's main article currently has an "additional citations needed" tag. It may be a good idea for you to transfer this reference to that section.
  • In October 1999, they released their fifth self-released album, The Worship Project. 2 uses of "released". The first half of this sentence could be changed to "In October 1999, they issued.
  • All of the other songs on the album were new songs which had not been recorded before. Consider changing to "All of the other songs on the album were new, and had not appeared on any of their previous albums."
  • With the exception of "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm, Millard and MercyMe wrote all of the songs for the album.[7] The band included "I Worship You" after Kipley brought it to them; although the band wanted to write their own material, they liked the song so much that they put it as the first song on the album.[8] This may read better as "Millard and MercyMe wrote every song on the album, with the exception of "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.[7] Although the band wanted to write their own material, they said they liked this song so much that they wanted it to appear as the first track on the album.[8]
  • According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get "House of God" on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre. The first half of this sentence is a bit too informal, so maybe something like "According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to have "House of God" included on the album" would be better. And I don't really understand the second half. I take it that it was the label who were pushing the band a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre? If that's the case, the sentence could probably be changed to: "they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, and felt the label was pushing them too far towards the adult contemporary genre."
  • You picked up exactly what I was trying to get at. This sentence as well as the one above about "Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" both focus on conflicts with the label - the band ceding on including the former, but insisting on including "House of God" because of the label's push towards a more adult contemporary sound. I've added your wordings here verbatim. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hopefully be able to review the rest of the prose tomorrow. But something else I noticed in the 'Track listing' and 'Credits and personnel' sections: you have the first line in parenthesis (brackets). If you want it that way, that's fine with me. Just thought I'd point this out. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the brackets are intentional, although I have no preference as to including or removing them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. I'm happy with the changes you've made this far. Continuing my review:

Composition

  • Almost There has been described by critics as being a worship and a pop rock album. The album was noted as being stylistically similar to contemporary Christian bands like FFH. - some repetition of "being" and "album", and an unnecessary plural ("bands"). Something like "...a worship and pop rock album, and was noted as being stylistically similar to the work of contemporary Christian band FFH." may be better.
  • You could do with describing who Steve Losey is during his first appearance in the article (in this section... and then removing the "of AllMusic" from 'Critical reception and accolades').

Release and commercial performance

  • As a result of the single's radio airplay... - a single can only receive airplay on radio, so the "radio" here can be removed.
  • In 2003, the album again received increased sales as "I Can Only Imagine" received airplay on mainstream radio formats. - What about "Sales of the album increased throughout 2003 as "I Can Only Imagine" received airplay on mainstream radio formats."?

Critical reception and accolades

  • "In the ever–growing genre of modern worship, MercyMe steps up to the plate and drives a home run over the fence". He praised the album as having a "fresh sound", but felt that much of the album was "somewhat low–key." Incorrect dashes have been used here. Change them to -'s (also in In a later review for the album's "Platinum Edition" re–release,... although I'm not sure you even need the "re-release" there).

And that's pretty much it. Sorry for being so nit-picky, but that's just the way I am. I'd be happy to support once the rest of my nit-picking is sorted. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all with me. All the changes should be complete now, Homeostasis07. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Couldn't get near my computer last night. I'm happy with the changes you've made, so will support. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 15:52, 1 September 2019 (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/Almost_There_(album)/archive3&oldid=915231546"