Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
[edit] Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
Self-nomination. This article has had a massive expansion during the past month. It also had a rather uneventful peer review; it's currently listed as a GA, and I'd like to know what people think about FA status, especially since we have a lack of featured articles about albums. ShadowHalo 08:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Object per 1a, and per what I said at PR. At the end of the articles there's a table under "Charts" which violates 1a, and as this is FAC and not FLC it can be turned into prose. The redundant info is already in "Sales and chart performance", so isn't even needed. Why's it there? There's no valid reason. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the article, as it's fine overall. LuciferMorgan 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having a table instead of prose does not preclude an article from being FA. Lots of recent FAs include tables; the first three in this month's log I clicked were Adam Gilchrist, George VI of the United Kingdom, Flag of Portugal and all have a table that could theoretically be converted to prose (yet works better as a table). Andrew Levine 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- My criteria concern is actionable per criterion 1a which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose" so yes I can object based on this. Tables don't work better at all and in this case it's totally redundant as it's just duplicating info already in the article, and because nobody has raised it in past FA noms of this month doesn't mean it can't be raised here - Raul's the one who deems whether an article passes / fails, so take it up with him. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe your concern is actionable, though I do disagree with it. From what I've seen the point of tables of chart positions is to give readers an idea of the chart performance using a simpler layout as well as to give more detail than may be reasonable with prose. For example, the prose may say, "In Europe, [album/song] reached the top twenty in France, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands". These are all major music markets, but giving exact chart positions in the prose itself would likely result in poor, choppy prose. The way to fix this would be to include other information such as debut date, debut position, peak date, duration, etc., but this ends up in a huge section that goes into too much detail for the reader to follow. With a chart, the important information can be conveyed without going into unnecessary details. If there's substantial discussion regarding the chart here, it may also be worthwhile to amend (or propose amending) the MoS by starting another discussion afterward at Wikipedia:Record charts. ShadowHalo 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that your interpretation of (1a) is a novel one; I just took three examples but there are literally over a hundred FAs which have passed with tables. This is not just a few that have slipped through the cracks. Requiring "brilliant prose" does not mean "the article must contain nothing but prose" but "the prose must be brilliant." The redundancy should be fixed by eliminating the prose, not the table. Andrew Levine 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with Lucifer on this one: chart performance is relevant data and there's no better way of presenting it than in a table. Not a support as I haven't read the article yet. --kingboyk 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Charts don't work better for the presentation of numerical information? I would disagree pretty sharply with that. A chart seems ideal. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- My criteria concern is actionable per criterion 1a which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose" so yes I can object based on this. Tables don't work better at all and in this case it's totally redundant as it's just duplicating info already in the article, and because nobody has raised it in past FA noms of this month doesn't mean it can't be raised here - Raul's the one who deems whether an article passes / fails, so take it up with him. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having a table instead of prose does not preclude an article from being FA. Lots of recent FAs include tables; the first three in this month's log I clicked were Adam Gilchrist, George VI of the United Kingdom, Flag of Portugal and all have a table that could theoretically be converted to prose (yet works better as a table). Andrew Levine 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A little of both Overall, I think it's a standout as a really good album article, and it's better than it deserves to be, since the album itself is nothing special. I would be OK with giving it a star, but I have a few minor complaints, though:
- There are a couple red links, I think. That is easy to take care of.
- Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but some statements seem to lean more to Stefani's side than not. For example, "Cool was very well-received by critics". No citation for this, and the article for the song itself doesn't give that much to back it up.
- The track listing should probably be made into a chart, instead of just plain text.
- A bit more helpful information in various sections. would be good. Info on the songs that weren't released as singles, and awards and accolades in a bigger variety of categories, are examples of this. Also, the article doesn't answer something I have been wondering since I first hearing this- why is there no Parental Advisory sticker for the album, when some of the tracks are just total cussfests? It would be good to answer this.
Anyways, nothing that really stands in the way of promoting this. Again, it's strange there is so much to write about for an album that is comprised mostly of inane lyrics and irritating vocals and beats. Still, the article isn't bad. Covering info on the album a little more than this would be a good idea, though. 2Pac 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can address some of this tonight, but I want to make sure I know exactly which changes to make before I do so. I think "Hollaback Girl" is the only track that contains profanity (though it does go all out), but so far as I can tell the album itself didn't attract much attention for profanity (see this review). Are there other specific instances of POV in the article? I've added two citations for "Cool", but the lead for Cool (song) states, "'Cool' received praise from pop music critics", so I don't see the problems in the article (especially some of the strong negative reviews). Oh, and I can take care of the red link pretty easily; I think it make #1 in the UK, so it should be easy to find enough info for a stub. ShadowHalo 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've created Why You Treat Me So Bad as a stub; I can't find any other red links in the article. I can't find any POV problems, and I think the Harajuku Girls and Critical reception sections deal with the subjects pretty accurately and neutrally. I've converted the main track listing into a table and added the producers for each song. I did a search for any more awards and accolades, but there don't seem to be many others, most likely because it takes a few years for albums to accumulate any (other than the annual events like the Grammys). Also, I'm not quite sure how one would go about describing the other songs. I started writing a section on the songs in general, but there's substantial overlap with the Singles section (worsened by the fact that the six singles came from the first eight songs). Any suggestions? ShadowHalo 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since I wasn't quite sure what you meant about doing the non-singles, I made a userfied version at User:ShadowHalo/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (without samples and cover per WP:FU). Is this closer to what you had in mind? ShadowHalo 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've created Why You Treat Me So Bad as a stub; I can't find any other red links in the article. I can't find any POV problems, and I think the Harajuku Girls and Critical reception sections deal with the subjects pretty accurately and neutrally. I've converted the main track listing into a table and added the producers for each song. I did a search for any more awards and accolades, but there don't seem to be many others, most likely because it takes a few years for albums to accumulate any (other than the annual events like the Grammys). Also, I'm not quite sure how one would go about describing the other songs. I started writing a section on the songs in general, but there's substantial overlap with the Singles section (worsened by the fact that the six singles came from the first eight songs). Any suggestions? ShadowHalo 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment- There's a small error. The section about sales indicates this album debuted higher than any of Sefani's No Doubt albums. That's incorrect, as Return of Saturn debuted at number 2 on the Billboard charts. WesleyDodds 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's odd. I added that based on this source, though you're absolutely right that Return of Saturn debuted at number two. I'm guessing the phrase "scores a bigger opening week than any No Doubt record ever has" means in terms of sales, not chart positions. Either way, I've simply removed that part since it's not explicitly stated. ShadowHalo 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose, weak writing.(Oppose withdrawn per improvements.) I'm afraid it's quite unencyclopedic to write as if from inside Gwen Stefani's head. "Stefani considered...", Stefani was "unsure", "Stefani felt..." "Stefani decided that she was comfortable" (sheesh!), etc. I see that sources are offered for these statements, but the sources don't know either. Tthe fact that they claim to know just shows what feeble sources they are. I can't really blame you for using feeble sources, since there may well not be any other kind, but please don't use them to make this kind of claim. What the sources can know, at best, is that Stefani or her agent or ghostwriter said she considered, felt, was unsure about, was comfortable with, etc. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
- Is there a better way to address the topic though? The worst stuff isn't included at all (like repeatedly having emotional breakdowns), but I can't find any better way to word what's there. WP:RS seems to state that these sources work: "For example, the diary of a famous politician (a primary source) would probably be reliable as source for a statement of opinion." I do see what you mean about it being personal, but I think that's just the subject matter. Most of the issues with creating the album were personal ones: she kept breaking down crying, she couldn't write anything for six months, etc. These are things where a primary source such as an interview is necessary; I don't see any other way of writing about or sourcing how the album was created. ShadowHalo 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not objecting on the basis of the sources being poor (that they're poor comes with the territory for album articles), so quoting WP:RS to prove they're good enough is a bit of a straw man. You can't evaluate the sources in isolation from how you use the sources: to supposedly verify the strictly unverifiable, the content of Stefani's mind. The analogy with using "the diary of a famous politician (a primary source)" to verify the politician's opinions is rather remote. Your sources aren't diaries or primary sources, they're promotional material — they're part of an industry. And my quotes above aren't about Stefani's opinions, they're taken from narratives about how (it is claimed that) she felt or thought or reacted. It's necessary to say who claims she felt that way, because nobody really knows how she felt. I'm not doing some subtle epistemological objection here; I actually find it unlikely that Stefani had those simultaneously over-simplified and over-dramatized feelings, that she experienced that emotional narrative. I suspect the published accounts you cite were written because they're the kind of drama fans like to read. But of course I can't know either, and I'm not asking you to remove it, I'm asking that the text takes a distance to it instead of presenting it as gospel. Even if it's cumbersome, an encyclopedic account needs to say, at a minimum, that "according to x, Stefani felt", or "In an interview in y, Stefani is quoted as stating that she felt", or some such. I know those examples are ugly, sorry. I don't know how to fix it either. But if there isn't a better — more encyclopedic — way to address the topic, the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
- Okay, I think I see what you mean now. I've rephrased the problematic parts. I left the part that said "considered recording material that modernized 1980s music" though. Nearly every review (separate from interviews) stated that it sounded like 80s music, so implying that she hadn't actually thought about 1980s music when making the album would be misleading. I didn't put "according to" or "in an interview in" because, as you stated, that sounds pretty ugly. But I did put that she "stated" or "later stated" these things since that's the accurate way of putting it. ShadowHalo 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not objecting on the basis of the sources being poor (that they're poor comes with the territory for album articles), so quoting WP:RS to prove they're good enough is a bit of a straw man. You can't evaluate the sources in isolation from how you use the sources: to supposedly verify the strictly unverifiable, the content of Stefani's mind. The analogy with using "the diary of a famous politician (a primary source)" to verify the politician's opinions is rather remote. Your sources aren't diaries or primary sources, they're promotional material — they're part of an industry. And my quotes above aren't about Stefani's opinions, they're taken from narratives about how (it is claimed that) she felt or thought or reacted. It's necessary to say who claims she felt that way, because nobody really knows how she felt. I'm not doing some subtle epistemological objection here; I actually find it unlikely that Stefani had those simultaneously over-simplified and over-dramatized feelings, that she experienced that emotional narrative. I suspect the published accounts you cite were written because they're the kind of drama fans like to read. But of course I can't know either, and I'm not asking you to remove it, I'm asking that the text takes a distance to it instead of presenting it as gospel. Even if it's cumbersome, an encyclopedic account needs to say, at a minimum, that "according to x, Stefani felt", or "In an interview in y, Stefani is quoted as stating that she felt", or some such. I know those examples are ugly, sorry. I don't know how to fix it either. But if there isn't a better — more encyclopedic — way to address the topic, the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
- Stylistically, it's pretty jarring. Semicolons are wonderful things, but recall that Kurt Vonnegut said that they should be entirely banned. His point is that they introduce an air of erudition without any of the hard work and provide ugly rivets in sentences that should flow. This article is overridden with semicolon junctions and repetitions of initial adverbial phrases ("During recording" and "During recording" and "During recording"). Use semicolons as potent spices, where the two independent clauses are so nearly aligned in sense that there is no justification for a period and yet when they are not appositives and therefore in need of a colon. The usage issues of "she thought" and the like that Bishonen noted are generally gone. That said, the tone is still pretty wide-eyed and fawning. With greater sentence variation and syntactic easing, I could support. Geogre 17:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I really can't identify the POV in the article, so I'm convinced it's because I wrote most of the article and have worked with it too much. I've removed almost half of the uses of the semicolon, and the word "during" is now only used twice in the "Conception and writing" section (unlike the semicolon, the word "during" isn't evil in itself, so that should be fine). I've also posted a request for WP:LoCE to look the article over for POV/structure issues, and I've asked Extraordinary Machine if he'd be willing to look it over for POV. ShadowHalo 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
