Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Crow Looked at Me/archive1

Add links
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2021 [1].

A Crow Looked at Me[edit]

Nominator(s): DMT biscuit (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the death of Geneviève Castrée and her husband Phil Elverum's ensuing grief. It has proven to be one of the important albums of his career and one of the most critically acclaimed of the 2010s.DMT biscuit (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With help from BLZ, Ceoil and Moisejp the article has seen extensive tinkering and general work; three GOCE copy edits and two peer reviews are a further testament.DMT biscuit (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/A Crow Looked at Me/archive2, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Guerillero—pass[edit]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passes my source review. I really dislike the annons, but they are an allowable style choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.DMT biscuit (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged at the peer review.

  • I agree with Guerillero that "anons as authors is kinda kludgy". While I understand they may be "an allowable style choice", the way the short note SFNs are done actually creates a problem. Imagine the reader looking at this article in hard print (it happens). Without the "jump" provided by the SFN to the actual source, how do they determine which anon is the source ? It would be much preferable to spell out the article name in the SFN, in place of anon, since there are so many of those. I would prefer that these be fixed so that they work in hardprint versions and mirrors as well as on Wikipedia, where the jumps can be clicked on.
DMT hit on the "Pitchfork editors (December 22, 2017)" formula this morning, which I much prefer and recommend that they implement for all the anon sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ceoil mentioned I've converted the majority of Anon cites into [publication] editors/writers. The general consensus is that this is for the better. Do you agree?DMT biscuit (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its implicit. Do it. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I like this better --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my sourcing notes only; planning to review the rest.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass[edit]

  • Album cover would benefit from improved fair use rationale (hint: don't write "n.a." when you could be more specific)
  • File:Theodor Kittelsen, Soria Moria.jpg Needs PD-US tag (probably PD-1996)
    Both Updated. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other free-use media appears to be OK for licensing
  • Audio clip licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 06:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe[edit]

  • The combination of relatively short paragraphs and long sections in "Background and composition" and to a lesser extent "Music and lyrics" overview make it more difficult to scan. It is best for the reader to break up content into chunks about 3-4 paragraphs long with subheadings, especially on mobile devices where, for instance, your background and composition section is going to take up several screens of space. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to rectify this issue; feel free to flag up any issues you find with it.DMT biscuit (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the quoteboxes in the Reception section don't seem to be doing enough to justify their existence; I would recommend putting the quotes into the text and/or paraphrasing. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote by Elverum was removed as the text already expressed its sentiment. The second one was integrated into the text.DMT biscuit (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images in "Impact" section: According to WP:NPOV, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement..." What makes these two reactions more important than the others, justifying the greater prominence? What about their appearance adds encyclopedic value to the article? (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: They're prominent artists in genres other than Elverum's, thus demonstrating how the album impacted not only fans and music critics but disparate artists. The image and their respective captions summarization the adjacent text. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Do you think this to be a sufficient rationale. I'm willing to remove the images if you're unsatisfied with my justification. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not too bothered by those images because they are not adding POV; they are presenting a view that is pretty common in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, any response to these responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing on this basis. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moisejp[edit]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I made many comments on the article's talk page (Talk:A_Crow_Looked_at_Me#Comments_from_Moisejp), and these have all been addressed. Moisejp (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.DMT biscuit (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil[edit]

Support as with Moisejp, also made many comments on talk, a few edits, and participated in the last PR. I'm [now, having become a bit obsessed with the album since discovering it via the PR] familiar with most of the sources, and confident that this is one of our better FAC standard album articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.DMT biscuit (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the comment re familar with most of the sources can be taken as confirmation that there is no evidence of close paraphrasing etc, and essentially a sign off on a source review. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BLZ[edit]

Initial comments:

  • "His working title for the album was Death is Real." – Though it's not directly addressed in the source, it's worth addressing here that this did become the title of the intro track.
    The opening track is entitled "Real Death". It does however feature the phrase "Death is Real"; the soundclip of includes the caption: "The first track...introduces the theme that "Death is Real", which Elverum once said could be the name of the album.[50]"DMT biscuit (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to represent the 'uncomfortable feeling of applying significance to insignificant things'. Two sources are cited but presumably the quote only comes from the latter.
    Fixed.DMT biscuit (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources without a date should have | (i.e. "no date"). It also goes in the shortcite in place of the year, e.g. "Smith n.d."; if necessary they can be distinguished by "n.d.a", "n.d.b" and so on.
    Included. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Citations" I would recommend sorting "Anon." sources by date, earliest to latest; it's not immediately clear to me how they're sorted at the moment.
    Fixed. I reworked the abundance of anons; adding either blanket titles, such as "ABC Writer" "Pitchfork Writers"... or in the case of Year end lists crediting the writer who wrote the segment cited--including that segment in the title as well. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Writer" is a very good solution, but dont like the False title capitalisation. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.DMT biscuit (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes for Metacritic and Acclaimed Music—"Its appearance on the list made it the highest rated folk album of the decade." and "In total, the tenth-highest ranking for an indie folk album"—strike me as somewhat arbitrary. It's comparatively high on Acclaimed Music's "indie folk" list, yes, but the site also attaches the album to the genre "singer-songwriter", and the article could also include the album's rankings by year or by decade (both comparatively high). In any case the Acclaimed Music "indie folk" reference link is dead, though if you're set on keeping it this URL works.
    Removed. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Accolades" table could be expanded. Many major music/news publications are missing (Exlaim! ["folk and country" genre list, but a #2 placement], Fact, The Guardian, Magnet, NPR Music, PopMatters, Tiny Mix Tapes [#1!!], Uncut). Other times only a publication's decade-end list is included, but not its year-end (Noisey, Spin); OTOH I would include AllMusic's decade-end list but not its year-end, since both are unranked anyway, though adding at least one of them means there would be some function for the "unranked/asterisk" note below the table.
    I've implemented TMT. I'm hesitant to add the others. I feel the accolades section should be brief and highlight the most relevant examples (those placed within in the top ten or nearabouts); the inclusion of rankings such as the Guardian's 47 may run the risk of betraying summary style and evoking wikipuffery. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DMT on this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be at least a brief paragraph summarizing the "Accolades" section in prose. A good model here is Yeezus § Accolades, although of course it doesn't need to be nearly as long what's there. I would recommend mentioning at least Metacritic and Pazz & Jop in prose, plus maybe meta-commentary on its acclaim like e.g. Seattle Metropolitan noting it as the most-mentioned album by an artist from Washington state on "best of the 2010s" lists. Come to think of it, a paragraph in this section would also be a much better home for the footnotes I took issue with a few bullet points above. Pazz & Jop in prose would be a good opportunity to also note that Robert Christgau's P&J top ten ballot listed the album third, and he pumped the album in his accompanying P&J essay It's a bit surprising too that Xgau's Vice review is cited in-table for its score but not quoted from elsewhere; he had unusually much to say about the album, and it's rare that the Dean is reduced to a sentiment like "Like nothing I've ever heard."
    Implemented. Feel free to hash out any problems or additions you see fit.DMT biscuit (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Personnel" section: "Credits adapted from the album's liner notes and Cult MTL." It's not clear why the liner notes alone don't suffice, and besides the cites are to Cult MTL and Consequence of Sound. —BLZ · talk 09:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.DMT biscuit (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was recorded onto a laptop computer, making A Crow Looked at Me his first album to be produced entirely in this way" – Not entirely clear what this means. Digital vs. analog? Had he recorded on a computer before, but not a laptop? Possibly better phrased as something like "A Crow Looked at Me was his first album recorded onto a laptop computer, having previously recorded with [x, y, z conditions]."
    As a Phil Elverum nerd, I can say that yes he had previously recorded on a computer--specifically a MacBook. So the comment is specifically regarding the use of a laptop. I try to better word that section.DMT biscuit (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Bandcamp Daily: It looks like Bandcamp's Best of 2017 list was called into question, but not Martin 2017 directly. I don't see any issue whatsoever with Martin 2017 as a reliable source. Bandcamp Daily is overseen by a permanent professional editorial staff (see this post), including former contributors to music publications like Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, etc., and the former editor of the 33⅓ series. In any case, there's no doubt that they conducted an interview with Elverum and that it was not fabricated.
    Yeah this is a totally valid reason. I'll see that Martin 2017 and the relevant info is reinstated.DMT biscuit (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the info I added to the "cover artwork" section: The reference to Tintin in Tibet was previously deemed trivial in the second peer review because it was embedded in the prose in a trivial way. The connection to the song on Now Only was not made clear. The major issue raised at peer review was that the way it was written made the subject of the next sentence confusing/ambiguous. The connection to Now Only can be established by this Stereogum interview: "STEREOGUM: There are clear connections between your last two albums, whether it's the fact that the main subject matter is Geneviève, or smaller stuff like the Tintin In Tibet comic being in one album’s artwork and inspiring a song title on the other..." Other facts added to the cover artwork section were not merely restating the information provided by the album cover image in the infobox—it's hardly obvious what room that is in the photo, just that it is "a room", but the fact that it's Castrée's former studio carries enormous significance. —BLZ · talk 01:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Like above I'll restate the info from Martin 2017 and add the stereogum cite. Nice find. Update: I added the info from Lyons 2018 in the form of a note as I feel inclusion in the prose would be jarring. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google Books URL attached to Franklin 2020 seems to be dead, it doesn't link to an actual page because there's no preview for the linked edition. Not that it really matters, so long as you're sure that the ISBN/edition and cited page number are correct. There's another edition on Google Books with a preview, but it's an ebook edition without numbered pagination.
    The ISBN and page cited is correct. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed the archive URL for Sankowski 2017 was blank, and indeed was blank on every date the page had been "archived" on Archive.org (whether or not the UTM "?disableRedirects=true" was attached to the end of the URL or not). This sometimes happens on certain websites that want to try to prevent archiving (or to prevent some other behavior that happens to also prevent archiving as a side effect). If this happens, it's worth checking Archive.is as an alternative; I find that it's almost always (but not quite always) able to save pages that are unsaveable on Archive.org. One tip: if you use Archive.is, you have to "share" and copy the "long link" (which uses "archive.today/" and includes the full URL of the archived link, just like Archive.org links) to be able to save it on Wikipedia.
    Thanks for the tip and thanks for fixing the archive-url. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The |language= parameter is used inconsistently for English-language sources. It's variously included as en-us, en-br, en, or most often not at all. Doesn't ultimately matter too much—afaik it's really only strictly necessary for non-English sources, but if you're going to use it I'd be as consistent and thorough as possible.
    Fixed. This is the result of autocite's somewhat inconsistent nature and my negligence. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel (perhaps self consciously) as though my review comments so far have been too harshly critical, maybe because I didn't open my review with my usual preamble about how I deem the project at hand to be clearly worthy of serious consideration and how I caution that my method of directly editing the article is not intended to assert any "my way or the highway" attitude (I swear I'm not trying to be a dick). Rest assured you have done a tremendous job writing this article, and I have enjoyed almost every step of the way. This is how the article looked way back before you ever edited it, way back in 2019, and I've been checking in on it over that time feeling nothing but amazement, shock and appreciation that someone was developing it so well. You've killed it. Your overall sensitivity and attunement to the themes and spirit of the album are extraordinary and I can't wait for this to be featured because you've really earned it. —BLZ · talk 08:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. I don't think you've been a "dick" or overly critical, considering this is FAC. I've actually been quite surprised by how nice everyone has been here. You're edits have also been very helpful--especially regarding the more technical stuff, which I think you'll know from my work on this and the Great American Novel isn't my strong suit. I was very happy to have you on board as Ok Computer, alongside Loveless and recently 1989, was an article i frequently referred to for inspiration. While we're doing compliments, congratulations on being, perhaps the first person to have a Chief Keef lyric as an edit summary. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Brandt Luke Zorn: just curious if you have any further comments or a verdict. No rush.DMT biscuit (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BLZ, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • Hi Sandy, does this count as a pass for a first-time nominator's source spot check as well? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild:, I have now revisited and refreshed my memory of what review I did, and no, it does not count as first-time spot check (I was not aware this was a first-timer). I will dig in to do that, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was involved in writing this article as far as the GA review, and DMT Biscuit has excelled in getting it to the current status since then. As I see it, this article meets the FA criteria through quality of prose, breadth of coverage, sourcing and subject matter. Great work. — sparklism hey! 15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to co-ords @FAC coordinators: - this seems help up/stalled; what is outstanding so can address....no pressure & tks...Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If its expectation of further from BLZ, he seems to be pre-occupied IRL atm and not editing much; but all his points have been met and I take tacit support from "I can't wait for this to be featured because you've really earned it". Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan[edit]

Initial comments:

  • Anytime his prior albums are mentioned, shouldn't their chronological appearance in his discography be mentioned too? i.e. "his second album Lost Wisdom (2008)"
  • @MaranoFan:Lost Wisdom isn't his second album overall, but, just the second studio album under the Mount Eerie name—he previously recorded under The Microphones. As a result, it would likely become convoluted to mention their place in Elverum's discography. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After its release and widespread acclaim, he undertook well-received tours of North America and Europe" -- I would omit the part about widespread acclaim here and move it to the last paragraph of the lead, since the tours' good reception doesn't have any direct correlation with the album itself.
  • Include the month of Castrée's diagnosis too, if possible.
  • I don't see the month. It seems to be given as May 2015 in Seattle Weekly.--NØ 10:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the room Castrée had died"
  • Shouldn't it be "began" instead of "begun" in the Composition section's second paragraph's first line?
  • "Kyger died two days before the album's release" -- This seems trivial and I'm not sure how it influenced this album if it was so close to its release.
  • "He had originally planned a small-scale release on his website, but as the album took shape, wanted to reach a wider audience" -- A better way to frame this would be "He had originally planned a small-scale release on his website but wanted to reach a wider audience as the album took shape".
  • "Both singles were listed by Stereogum as the best song of the week" -- Mention which week, i.e. "as the best song of their respective release weeks"
  • Did the supporting tours have names?
  • The first sentence of the Impact section's third paragraph should be split into two sentences.

--NØ 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Final comments:[reply]

  • I did a brief c/e. Hope that is okay
  • The release years for other works mentioned should be included in brackets. e.g. Hospice (2009), Blackstar (2016), etc.
  • "The album's music is reminiscent of his 2008 albums" -- I think this would still make sense if you just said "The album is reminiscent of his 2008 works" or "Its music is reminiscent of his 2008 albums"
  • It doesn't appear to be.--NØ 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Now article is cited after the sentence about The Daily Beast's year-end list.
  • This is Now, not The Daily Beast. This hasn't been fixed yet.--NØ 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a secondary source report Zauner's comments? If Tidal (a streaming service) is the only source covering this, its inclusion might be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
  • That works.--NØ 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release dates should be included in the "release history" table.

--NØ 10:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I will assume good faith that you will address the two remaining minor concerns and am now ready to support this for promotion. This article convinced me to listen to the album, so job accomplished! :) In case you have some time, please do consider reviewing my current FAC which is also music-related. Best wishes, NØ 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The two qualms have been resolved. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, everything looks great now. I will reaffirm my support.--NØ 18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and first-time nom spot check[edit]

On talk, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/A Crow Looked at Me/archive1#First-time nom spot check. There are still a few niggles to wrap up, but between the sources I reviewed on this spot check and those I also reviewed at peer review and at my FAC review, I am confident DMT biscuit has accurately represented the body of the literature and has no issues with too-close paraphrasing or copyvio. There were minor instances of use of less-than-best sources, but most of the sources for this topic are all saying similar things, so sources are easily swapped. On sourcing, I believe the article meets 1b, 1c, 1f, and 2c. It might not hurt, should they be interested, for @Nikkimaria: or @Ealdgyth: to look over my work, as I don’t typically do source reviews. Signing off as I am going to be traveling over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 March 2021 (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/A_Crow_Looked_at_Me/archive1&oldid=1012727148"