Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Built to Spill Plays the Songs of Daniel Johnston/archive1

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [1].

Built to Spill Plays the Songs of Daniel Johnston

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FAC nomination. The subject of the article is a tribute album of Daniel Johnston songs by the indie rock band Built to Spill. The article is short, but I think it sufficiently captures all relevant facts about the album and summarizes reviews from reliable sources. 7szz also contributed significantly to this article, but he has been inactive for a month, so they should receive credit as well if this passes, but I don't want to make them a co-nominator without their permission. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Voorts, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Suggest adding alt text
Done

Have you considered including a sample? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will think on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

Is there nothing about the album's musical themes, or any details about what a particular song is about?
The album is a cover album, so I don't think it makes sense to go into the actual themes of the songs themselves.
With at least 8 reviews I would expect some sort of thematic organization to the critical reception section like WP:RECEPTION. Heartfox (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at rewriting the section, but it's hard to thematically organize things when most of the reviews are about whether the band (a) captured Daniel Johnston's style while (b) making it unique. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Heartfox: have you had a chance to review the redraft of that section? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

indopug

Oppose sorry this is clearly not ready. It's less than 600 words long and even those haven't been copyedited; for example, the lede ends with "The album received positive reviews, with critics praising the band for".—indopug (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Fixed the issue in the lede; I did a copy edit recently but can do one again. Any other feedback? I know it's short, but there aren't many reviews or other sources about the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

Oppose per Indopug. This is not comprehensive. A source that goes into detail about the band's experience with Johnston is summarized as band member Doug Martsch described the two shows as "good" and "weird". As Heartfox notes, no analysis of the music -- the thing most of interest to readers -- is present. Yes, it's a cover album, but cover albums are noteworthy because they are reinterpretations, and multiple sources explicitly discuss the band's interpretation of several songs. Despite the presence of these sources in the article, they're only used for general reception quotes. The reception remains too quote-heavy, though it's better organized than it was. Reviews disagree on how straightforward the band's interpretation of Johnston is -- this can be expanded on quite a bit. It makes significantly more sense to present the reception as 'thematic' (e.g. on this subject, on the choice of what to include, etc) than as straightforwardly 'positive' or 'negative'. Similarly, NPOV is a concern -- reviews are broadly summarized as 'positive' in a way that doesn't seem to fit the more mixed reception in the quotes, rating numbers, or articles themselves. Vaticidalprophet 22:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per comments above. Hog Farm _Talk 21:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.