Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive2

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 01:11, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

previous FAC

I feel that this article has learnt a lot from the previous oppositions which were made when it was perviously nominated for FAC.This article has seen a massive expansion and a flood of sources.The grammar problems have also been dealt with and on top of that,it is a featured topic and 4 singles from the album are already FAC.So i feel that its the albums turn now.Please leave your comments.All are welcome. User:Luxurious.gaurav

• Weak oppose I don't think that all of the issues have been adequately addressed yet, and I can still see how the tone comes off as "wide-eyed and fawning", as Geogre put it at the last FAC. It has improved some, but I don't think it's FAC material yet. It also doesn't address the impact that the album had on popular music. ShadowHalo 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary that all albums should have an impact on popular music?And if it does not, then can't the album article be made featured?And as the reader reads through the article, he/she gets and idea that the album brought back 1980's style of music back in mainstream.So i don't think that this can be a major concern.User:Luxurious.gaurav

The reader gets the idea that this album is influenced by 1980s music. The article doesn't say anything about its role, if any, in the 1980s retro movement and the impact it made on popular music. Not all albums have an impact on popular music, but I know this album did, and the article should reflect that, just in the same way that I'm sure the Hilary Duff article would need to include how her career impacted teen pop to make FA. ShadowHalo 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that this album really had an impact on popular music, then that is your personal thinking.Impacts of albums should be so distinctive that it is worth mentioning.If you think that this album had an impact, then there will be many people who think it didn't.So it can be an objectionable thing to put up in the article.Impact of an album should be so strong, that other albums released after this album are influenced by that album.I don't think that the 1980's type of music was again used in albums released after Love.Angel.Music.Baby.User:Luxurious.gaurav

It's not just my opinion that it had an impact on popular music; that would be original research. There are sources out there saying that this album paved the way for Fergie's solo career and Nelly Furtado's comeback. Without including the impact that this album had on other music, I can't consider it comprehensive, and I can't support it for FA. ShadowHalo 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems i am getting your point.I am working on it now.Thank you so much for your guidance.User:Luxurious.gaurav

I have put up the impact section.Please have a look.User:Luxurious.gaurav

• Minor concern. From a cursory glance for aesthetics, I conclude that the article is not in bad shape. I think everything up to "Track listing" is wonderful (everything, being picture choice/placement, the use of the audio samples box, and definitely the amount of citations). "Track listing" and beyond, however, needs some major aesthetic work, because it just appears to be a pile of all the stuff that people couldn't put into the body. If I get around to looking at the content of the article, I will report back here, but just from a quick view, if you could fix this problem you might get some more support for the FAC. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All the things beyond Track Listings are things which are meant to be like that and has been that way always on wikipedia.It is this way how references are put.As far as Production part is concerned,it is bound to be a bit shabby because of the huge number of producers and collaborators on the album, of which we get a lot of idea while we read the article.User:Luxurious.gaurav

• Comment Do we really need the whole Production section? The only people worth keeping are the the producers, who are already mentioned in the lead. --Smokizzy (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Production section is common for any article about an album or song. See Enta Da Stage, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Kid A, Doolittle (album), or Adore (album) (all featured). This one's larger than most, likely because it was done as a collaboration with many artists. ShadowHalo 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of those FAs you've named I don't find particularly strong, they're way too listy and shouldn't have been passed. Furthermore, I do not think a production section is common for an article about an album or song - it's used, but it's rather redundant and unncessary. LuciferMorgan 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, most of our featured album articles (including both hip hop ones, where like pop, production plays a fundamental role) have the section. It's hard to argue that the section is simply something that the reviewers missed, and I've seen it requested in one FAC. ShadowHalo 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is wikipedia's job to give proper information to viewers.We can't omit names of producers.That can be very controvesial and not fair.User:Luxurious.gaurav

I disagree. The section makes the article listy, and pop articles have a bad habit of being overly listy. It's even worse in the hip hop ones. LuciferMorgan 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then can you mention some other alternative for it.If we experiment, then it might go against the trend and oppositions will flood in.User:Luxurious.gaurav

• Strong Support It's one of the best articles I've ever read. It's easy to understand (even for people who know almost nothing about Gwen Stefani like me), the pictures are good, it's well-written and well-organized, lots of references and neutral. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose is OK, but:
  • Fails the requirement for a professional standard of formatting in the poor use of links. Opening sentence: why are album and American (piped to US) linked. Such arcan terms, we really need to interrupt our reading experience to look them up. Why not pipe the link directly to "2004", thus avoiding the parentheses? Do we really need "shit" linked? It's pretty heavily imbued with valuable, so I'd sift through the whole article and remove the silly ones, like the names of common countries. It looks messy and is harder to read when it's so spattered with blue. And only one link, please; I notice "What you waiting for" twice in two successive sections (yet others are not linked on subsequent appearance).

We are fortunate enough that we know the meaning of albums and American. But it is wikipedia's way. This article follows the way Adore is written. User:Luxurious.gaurav

No. It's not Wikipedia's way to link words like American and France, unless there is actually a chance that the links will be of use in the context. This article needs to be brought into line with Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; and if Adore is full of of distracting low-value links, then it's not a model to follow, but needs to be overhauled as well. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

OK, Done that.User:Luxurious.gaurav

• • The density of reference numbers in places weakens the flow of the text and is quite unnecessary. Lyrical content, for example, has one at the end of every sentence, some of them consecutive repetitions. Hate it.

Your views are respected, but we can't ignore sourcing things. When we source things, then it a problem, and when we don't , then there is a problem. If the reference numbers look like that then i think wikipedia administrators and graphic designers should be requested. I am helpless. I can't chenge the way reference numbers look. User:Luxurious.gaurav

• • Ellipsis needs a single space either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

Done that.Have a look at it.User:Luxurious.gaurav

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.