Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (album)/archive1

< 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [1].

Laborintus II (album)

edit
Nominator(s): Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is actually the second nomination for this article; the title has been moved around a few times over the years (and I wouldn't be surprised if another move is suggested here again). The previous nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (2012 recording)/archive1. The main concern, aside from questions of titling and an odd interlude on whether this article constitutes commercial prejudicing, seemed to be whether I had accurately mirrored the sources used--between that review and a few subsequent re-readings of everything used I am confident that there should be no misunderstandings of the source material now; however a source review would be a good way to start this off. I'm also well out of the loop as regards FAC and haven't nominated an article here in a number of years, but hopefully it's like eating a bicycle. Bear with me if I'm rusty. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates in this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Aoba47

edit
  • I am uncertain about the placement of the "which..." dependent clauses in these two parts, (Luciano Berio, which featured lyrics taken from) and (Members of the Dutch choir Nederlands Kamerkoor, which performed in the recording,), since they are directly after a person and not an object. I think the second example should be "who" instead of "which". I could be overthinking it, but it was something that caught my attention while reading through the article.
    I've amended the latter but would be unsure of what would be right for the former. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence could be right in its current wording. I honestly need to dust up on certain parts of grammar. It was just something that I noticed while during through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I was wondering if there is a set structure for the "Release and reception" section? I was just curious because the last two paragraphs seem a little random in terms of critics and quotes. I am not saying there is anything wrong, but I would like to know more about the organization.
    The intended structure was one paragraph on release (dates, charting, etc), then the remainder on critical commentary; the second and third paragraphs are largely ordered based on when I found the sources and so there's no reason why they couldn't be reworked if necessary, although I would still lead off with Metacritic as it does the job of summarising things. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. When I read this part, it seems like the second paragraph is more about positive reviews for the album and the third paragraph is about the mixed-to-negative critiques. Because of this perspective, I was somewhat confused while reading the last two sentences. The Q sentence seems quite negative, but then I am honestly uncertain of what to make of the Spin quote. Is "orchestra/tape collision crisper" a negative response/description to the album? The Spin source is extremely short, but I think the "narrated by a rock star prone to screaming" part may be more applicable here so it is a clearer critique of the album that fits within the paragraph's preexisting structure. Let me know if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-written the Spin review accordingly; on re-reading it I think I misread the sense of the (admittedly quite terse and fragmentary) original words. Let me know how that looks now, and whether you would want the paragraphs involved to be re-ordered. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is understandable as I had to re-read the Spin review a few times to make sure I really understood their opinion. I would honestly be interested to read one-sentence reviews for other albums; it certainly an interesting approach lol.
    From my understanding of Mike Christie's comments (and feel free to correct me) is that he was suggesting just having the publication name in the prose so it would be something like (The A.V. Club called the album "challenging, uncompromising, and bordering on inaccessible") without the "review" part explicitly put in the prose.
    After re-reading this section again, I have noticed that the sentence structure is pretty uniform throughout so it may be helpful to change it up to keep a reader more engaged in the content. I get this note quite often during my own GAN / FAC reviews. Apologies for the amount of comments in this part. Once these changes have been made to the reception section, I will re-read the article again and most likely support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoba47 Your opinion on either the current version of the section in the article, or the alternate version presented on the article's talk page, would be greatly appreciated. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping, and apologies for not being as active on here. I just wanted to step back to allow Mike Christie's suggestions to be addressed without distraction. I think the alternate version on the article's talk page is the better of the two (at least in my opinion). I think that version provides a stronger narrative and helps me, as a reader who never heard of this album and is generally not familiar with this genre of music, have a clearer understanding of its reception. Great work. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've replaced the existing section with this version now. Mike Christie, do you feel that this version meets what you were looking for too? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I hope I've addressed everything for you suitably. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one last question about the "Release and reception" section, and then I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

Comments. So far I've just looked at the release and reception section, and I agree with Aoba47 that it's not quite there yet. I'd suggest eliminating the rating numbers from the prose; they're in the table at right, and they make the prose much more difficult to read. Personally I'd cut the names of the reviewers themselves if they're not notable in any way; their names are available via the footnotes, and most readers won't care that it was e.g. Thom Jurek who wrote AllMusic's review. I think the thematic division between the paragraphs works well, but I'd like to see more integration of the opinions in each paragraph into an explanatory narrative that gives the reader a sense of the paragraph. WP:RECEPTION talks about an "A said B" problem; you don't quite have that here, but particularly in the first paragraph the opinions and quotes are conveyed in a rather listy way, rather than being used to illustrate a point made by a narrative sentence in the article's voice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a start on reworking this section, but I just want to be clear before I do--is the best practice to ascribe any quotes directly to the publication in this case (ie to AllMusic rather than the named reviewer, for example)? If so I can start on this now. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's my personal preference; I don't know that I can claim it's best practice. If you decide to keep the names, I won't be opposing on that basis. The reason I like to cut them where possible is that it makes it much easier to write sentences that flow naturally; interjecting both name and source publication into every sentence with a quote or opinion makes it jerky. If you can make the prose flow more smoothly while leaving the names in, then that's fine. And of course any reviewer who is notable as a reviewer should probably be named, regardless; I don't know if any of these are in that category. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an initial pass at this approach here but am open to further amending it. I may have leant quite heavily on the word "review" as it now seems to have lost all meaning, and am happy to hear any objections or suggestions. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have some further comments, but I'll put them on the article talk page, and we can work on it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll just say that as a prolific editor in music articles, I’ve never had anyone say that reviewer names need to be omitted. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a high-quality article for an album, film, song, or video game that just doesn’t name reviewers. Attributing directly to a publication seems unwise. My most recent FA, Almost There (album), names all reviewers. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not common practice, but why do you think it's unwise? What does the reader lose if the reviewer names are not included, at least when the reviewer is not a name that anyone will know? It's in the citation, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The revised reception section is much improved. (Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, by the way.) I have one minor point below, which does not affect my support.

  • Berio described the main structure of Laborintus II as a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" (exemplified by the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville): the reference to the Etymologies is not going to be very helpful to most readers. You might consider a footnote as well, explaining what Berio meant.
  • You have "focussing", which is a British English spelling; wouldn't it be more natural to have this in American English, since Patton is American?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hadn't really considered the subject American but it's a minor fix to use AmEng anyway. As for the footnote, anything I could add would probably fall into OR territory so I've reworded the aside to gloss what Isidore's book is a little more readily. Thank you again for your help in improving this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome; it was an interesting read, though I have to say the sound sample decided me not to listen to the whole thing! Both points above now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

edit

Gonna give this some input as well to get a fresh face here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • One thing I'll note here is that, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, this article should only have a maximum of two paragraphs as it is under 15,000 characters. This should be pretty easy to do, though.
  • One minor change I'd make is move the mention of its release date from the third paragraph to the first; see Almost There for how an example of that might look. It might be worth mentioning the record label that distributed the album as well.
  • Citations in the lead are generally frowned upon; it's not a dealbreaker, but generally speaking if it's cited in the lead it should be in the article, so there's usually no need for this. I believe this information is already cited, so the citation could simply be removed.
    I've removed the citation (it was there due to a direct quote) and have tried two different re-orderings of the lead's content here and here. Which would you say is the better summation in two paragraphs? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current version looks quite good. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • One general inconsistency I've noted is that some sentences have the period outside the quotation marks while others have it within them. This should be modified to where they are all consistent - either all have them outside or inside. I believe the rest of the article uses them outside the quotations so it might be easier to just fix the outliers.
    Amended. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • I would attribute the Allmusic review to the author, Thom Jurek.
  • There is a semicolon between the reviews for Spin and Q. This should be a comma.
    Fixed the second point; as to the latter, I had planned to redraft this section a little based on the above review and discussion at the talk page, which has leant towards omitting reviewer names. I have no strong preference either way on this if you wish to disagree with that discussion. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s interesting, I’ve never seen any sort of consensus anywhere to not name reviewers. I disagree with that idea. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing

These are the issues I've found on a first read. Overall a short but seemingly comprehensive work - I'd support on prose if these issues are corrected, Grapple X. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed much of your points and sought some further input on a few. Thank you for having a look at this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I’ll jump in on the reviewer comments above but I’d be willing to support on prose grounds, presently. Also, no pressure but if you have any time, would love any input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)/archive1. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil

edit

I enjoyed reading the article, and looking up on youtube; wow. However it does need a good head to toe on prose; to take an example that stood out from my last skim: "From a whisper to a shout, the words carry a variety of emotional tones as the work progresses" - this seems as if lifted from a press release, certainly not encyclopedic language, and very different in tone for the preceding and later sentences. This disjoint occurs through out the page, and on that basis oppose for now. Grapple, in my best 90s leaving cert irish - cur i gcoinne :). ps, what is meant by "the main structure"? Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take another comb through the prose today but FA-level formal prose has never been my forte. Would it be advisable to list it with the GOCE in the mean time? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also in relation to your last question; I had meant "the bulk of the composition", as in, the majority of it as opposed to specific passages or moments. How would you prefer that to be phrased? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would canvas for copyeditors. Re phrasing, "From a whisper to a shout" is a bit poetic/sounds like an advert, and frankly suspect wrt copying sources. Certainly raises a red flag. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can take the point re: tone but compared to the source it's derived from (AllMusic), I don't really see the red flag as to copying (That sentence is based on "...alternately authoritative and declarative, reflective, romantic", "He shouts, whispers, declares, and intones", "They chant in unison, they argue; they accent the dramatic tension in the music"). Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in this anymore. None of the alts are any good, maybe even worse, the oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a copy-edit of the article to hopefully smooth out the prose. If you have any other actionable concerns I would be happy to address them, otherwise I would at least ask that you retract the baseless "copying" remark as it understandably rankles to be accused in the wrong. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More for the attention of any coordinators assessing this, the article has since received a copy-edit and I have specifically gone over the passage highlighted above to redraft it as well. Net changes can be seen here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose stands. "Berio described the main structure as a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" (exemplified by Isidore of Seville's seventh century encyclopaedia Etymologiae), using Dante's themes of "memory, death and usury".[3] " is incoherent, to take a random sentence. What is a "catalogue" in this context (an example is not a definition), and then why say 'also' in the next claim - "have also cited usury". Are these connected? Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music incorporates elements of jazz[2][9] and 20th-century avant-garde - avant-garde what. That's a very broad term applicable to almost every musical type. Why two cites for "Jazz". Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These are from glances. I really dont think this is ready for FAC, and suggest withdrawal and a rewrite. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To save yourself time and edits, I shall not be engaging with you or your suggestions further until the above insinuation is retracted; there shall be no withdrawal as other users have proven perfectly helpful without personal attacks and I would prefer to keep the candidacy open to allow for more input from good-faith editors. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For archaeological record, the PA mentioned came about from questioning the origins and encyclopedic value of the phrase ""From a whisper to a shout, the words carry a variety of emotional tones as the work progresses". To say nothing about the poetic flourish, why "as the work progresses". My overall impression us that the nominator doesn't understand the material, least of all the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit
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/Laborintus_II_(album)/archive1&oldid=954177717"