User talk:Moisejp/Archive 14

FAC
Following your comments, A Crow Looked at Me has been nominated to FAC. Considering you've expressed interest I'm notifying you to see if you wish to add any comments or issue your verdict. Thanks, in advance.

R.E.M. "Murmur" chart position
A long time ago, at Talk:R.E.M./Archive 4, you questioned whether the #36 peak of R.E.M.'s Murmur album on the Billboard album chart was correct. I've just confirmed that it was; see the Aug. 13, 1983 issue of Billboard, page 55, where the album did indeed reach #36. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, ! Have a nice day. :-) Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Long Way to Go" (Gwen Stefani and André 3000 song)
Hello again. Apologies for this random message. I have collected sources for the above article in my sandbox. I chose this as a project as I find the song interesting and I'd like make up for my bad GAN review for it back in 2016. I am rather uncertain if the article would meet WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. A majority of the coverage is from album reviews, but there is coverage on its sample of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Before I put any major work in this, I wanted to make sure that it would meet the notability requirements. If possible, I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this? Thank you in advance, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . It's nice to hear from you. It looks like you have a medium-ish (read: "on the low side of medium") amount of references there. It's hard for me to discern the exact level of notability of the song without going through the majority of them. I can tell you what my approach would be for deciding whether or not to tackle the article. I think the way you decide on articles may be different from mine, so feel free to reject this suggestion, of course no worries at all if you do. Anyways, this is the approach I would take:


 * 1) Start with your gut feeling. Based on the amount of info you have in your sources, can you imagine it's within the realm of possibility that the end-product article could have enough detail and substance to satisfy readers that it's comprehensive, semi-meaty story. If based on your gut feeling the answer is no, then go with your gut feeling and drop it. If the answer is maybe, that's a good start, and go on to #2.
 * 2) Is the article a labour of love? You said it's "interesting". OK, "interesting" is a start, but consider the following before you decide. If it's a true labour of love, then take the plunge. Take the plunge and your passion for the topic will push you to find the magic in the story, and extract the little, special details from the limited sources that will impress the reader that this is a great, worthwhile topic for an article. If it's not a labour of love, well, my advice would be to go out and find the topic that is your labour of love (your favourite band? a movie you're ecstatic about? a book that blew you away?). In any case, let's move onto #3...
 * 3) So maybe the article is a labour of love, or maybe it's simply "interesting". Regardless of which it is, you've got possibly limited sources, and—even if I still think the more passionate you are about the topic, the more likely you'll be able to "find the magic in the story"—there still could be a little risk that at the end of the day, you won't have enough details to take it all the way to an FA level of meatiness. If it's a true labour of love, I'd say it's likely all the more worth the risk (even if it doesn't make it to FA, you'll still have fleshed out a story that's important to you). On the other hand, if it's simply "interesting" (which I'm in no way trying to knock—interesting is a good start, as I said above), you may choose to weigh the risk differently. Only you can decide for yourself how you wish to weigh these different factors.
 * I don't know if my advice is more ambiguous than you were hoping for, but that is honestly how I think I would approach the question myself if I were in your shoes. I hope this helps! Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. It is very helpful to think about these questions. I think my concern is not about passion. I love Gwen Stefani's music and Love. Angel. Music. Baby. and its completely ridiculous pop will always have a special place for me. My concern is more that my gut feeling thinks that this information may be better represented in the album article rather than a separate song article. I think what I will end up doing is contacting the primary contributor to the article, letting him know that I decided to not work on the article, and send him the citations if he wants to do work on it himself. I hope you are doing well, and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia comment on Dylan
Hi Moisejp, I hope you're well. Earlier last year there was a small flurry of comments from SG and a couple of other editors about BD article. Where are they? I'm trying to find these comments, as I work on pruning the article. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've been meaning to write to you, either on here or by email. I think 1970 is out. Have you had a good listen to it? How are the alternate versions of "Sarah Jane" and "Lily of the West". You're familiar with the Dylan version of each, right? As I mentioned, I really love them. I'd like to get 1970, but as I've said even if I tried to buy every box set he puts out, I'd have too little time these days to delve very deep into them. Maybe I'll get it at some point, but in the meantime do tell me how the versions of those two songs are. Possibly I can listen to snippets of them on some official online platform like Amazon or AllMusic. I still have to put the versions of SITLT in the WTRF article into a table. Possibly today if I have time, will see. Then we can add the new version.
 * The conversation with Sandy you were asking about can be found here []. She didn't get into too many details, and I believe she's intending to come back when she has time. Possibly you can ping her if her lack of comments are holding you back from getting far on trimming that you have time to do now. I gather she has been busy and has had some setbacks in real life. I can sympathize that tackling commenting on such a big article is not a small task. Moisejp (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Moisejp, Thanks for the SandyGeorgia ref. I've continued to prune BD today and added a comment on Talk page. The situation with 1970 is odd. It's been released in USA but will not be released in UK until end of March, so I'll let you know when I've heard it. Mick gold (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! :-) Moisejp (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - and all who helped, you kindly mentioned Nick-D and Ceoil - today for Watching the River Flow, "about a one-off 1971 single by Bob Dylan where he collaborated with musician Leon Russell and briefly experimented with a blues-rock sound"! - An album will come up again for FAC, Shoot for the Stars, user's first and just archived for lack of interest, - could you imagine a review? The please let the delegate know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A Crow Looked at Me – TFA
It is currently at TFA nominations – if you're interested. DMT biscuit (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album) FAC
Hey man, I saw your name at another FA candidate and wanted to ask if you would offer a review to my nomination here. You seem like a really solid reviewer. isento (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for thinking of me and for the compliment. Unfortunately, I don't see myself likely having time to do any reviews in the next little while. If it does happen I manage to fit in a review for anything in the next bit, it would likely be for a shorter article. Good luck with your FAC, and take care. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Question related to varieties of English
Hello again! Apologies for yet another random question. Last month, I had an interesting conversation on the "Bang" (Nicole Scherzinger song) talk page. I had opened the discussion because I was surprised that British English was used for an article about a song by an American singer. My understanding was to match the English variation with the subject's nationality. It was not something that I had based on a particular policy or even researched, but it was something that I had just assumed from my own experiences on Wikipedia. I had looked into the matter further, and I believe WP:ENGVAR only mentions matching the English variation with the subject if there are "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation".

I was curious on your thought on the matter as you are a more experienced editor than myself. For instance, do you think it would be acceptable to write an article about a British album or song in American English? In the past, I have thought about working on articles about British music, specifically Baby Woman and Victoria Beckham (album) spring to my mind, but as an American, I did not feel comfortable with it as I had assumed the information would have to be presented in British English. Regardless of whether or not I actually work on non-American topics, I still think it would be helpful if I have a better understanding on this as it was just an assumption that I never really question or gave much thought to until recently. Aoba47 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's nice to hear from you. Hmm, I haven't given this too much thought but my general assumption also has been that it's normal to write using the variety of English that the article's subject is associated with. In my case, I'm Canadian and my first GA was about a Canadian subject. I'm not going to check now, but I assume I wrote it in Canadian English. I think all my GAs and FAs after that were related to American musicians, and it was pretty easy for me to write them in American English. Someday I expect I'll develop an article about something British, or who knows, maybe Australian, but I'm not too worried about it. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it either. The most visible difference is going to be spelling. I would say, get a very rough understanding of the spelling differences, and then wing it. You could always ask someone, for example someone from WikiProject Australia or WikiProject England to look over what you've written—if nobody corrects the spelling first without you asking. You could get a general idea of spelling differences via Australian_English or American and British English spelling differences (the latter is long, but, again, just skim it and try to get a high-level idea of some of the trends). I'd definitely say don't hold back writing about something because it's British or Australian. With just a little research, and with help from the Wikipedia community, you can get it where it needs to be! Moisejp (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. It would be a great opportunity to work with other editors. And it is not as extreme as working in a completely different language so it is not on that level. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Laguna del Maule (volcano)
Hi, Moisejp. There is a discussion here, #Pronunciation, in which you might be interested. Cheers, Awien (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Genre question
Hello again. I have a quick question about the "Candy" (Foxy Brown song) article. An IP user has repeatedly added hip-hop and R&B to the infobox as genres. I can somewhat understand their edits as a Billboard critic does associate the song with both genres. With that being said, I have seen more critics associate this song with pop. How do you think I should handle this? Do you think I should keep only dance-pop in the infobox or also allow for hip-hop and R&B to be included? Apologies for randomly asking you this and thank you in advance for any insight. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Congratulations on Veronica Clare. And thanks for reaching out about your problem. Hmm, that's a tough question and I'm not an expert on this topic (I mean, the topic of what to do when someone persistently makes changes to an FA (or any article) where you don't agree that the changes represent reviewer consensus or reality). In this case, the editor doesn't have an account (is just an ip address) and there's no talk page to talk it out on. If it was a more serious change, I'm not sure what I would do, maybe I'd look into getting the article protected—I believe there's a process for that, though I've never done it. But in this case, where it's just the genre, and it seems from the Billboard review that at least one critic does consider it to be these other genres, maybe I would let it go if the editor persists in trying to change it too many more times. Maybe I'd try to change it a couple more times, or let others try to change it, but I would probably give up after not too long. It's not a perfect answer, but I think that's what I would do in this particular case. I hope that's helpful? Moisejp (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words and your response. I am incredibly proud of the Veronica Clare article and I had a lot of fun with the whole process. You are correct in that it is not a serious change, and that helps to me to get a better perspective on the situation. I have decided to try and meet the IP user halfway on this matter. There are two reviewers who associate this song with R&B so I have revised the article to reflect that, and I have used an edit summary to hopefully explain why hip-hop should not be added. Again, it is nothing too serious so I tried to reach the best solution for all parties involved. Your response was helpful because again, it allowed me to get some sense of perspective and to really just take a deep breath, step back from the situation, and try and find a compromise that would still accurately inform readers about the song. I hope you are doing well and staying safe out there. If there is anything I can do to help with you anything on here, always feel free to ask. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for your feedback
With Dylan-esque notions and a Pavement co-sign, kind of, I think you'd like the work of David Berman. And our article on him is pretty good - but it could be better. I've opened up a peer review, preceding FAC. I'd be happy for you to issue your opinion. There's a particular issue I have with the in-line citations, similar to one we found with A Crow Looked at Me; there's more blue than a Massachusetts polling station. I reckon a citation change is best - curious of your and other's opinion, if it's an opportune time. Thank's all the same. DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , I will get to this for sure, hopefully in not too many days in the future. I just have a couple of current FAC reviews I'm probably close to winding up on, and I selfishly really want to not lose too much momentum on addressing a couple of your more involved comments on my PR, so I'll be juggling that in too. David Berman is 104,000 bytes (I see this is the same as A Crow Looked at Me), so that will require some pacing but if you're not in a humongous hurry, I will definitely definitely get at least started on it soon. Looking forward to it! Moisejp (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, take your time. There's no rush. Given peer reviews, GOCE, possible overhaul(s) - and on account of having a life - FAC is probably on the onset of next year. These things are best done in eternity's sunrise. DMT Biscuit (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of I'm Goin' Down

 * Congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks so much, ! Also, thanks sincerely again for your suggestions and edits, which definitely improved the article. I'm sure promotion of your excellent article is also right around the corner. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation formatting question
Congratulations on your recent FA promotion. I have a quick formatting question. I am thinking about rewriting the "Laundromat" (song) article. It really depends on whether or not, I can get access to a source from a university. I found a different, useful source through EBSCO Industries. This is the article I'd be using.

Do you know how I would format this link in a citation? I know for instance, in ProQuest citations, I had to remove bits from the URL to prevent it from going into my account so I am guessing something similar would be done here. Apologies if this is very obvious. I have not used EBSCO Industries before so I do not know how to properly cite a reference accessed through their system. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day/night. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba47, thanks for the congratulations, and thanks again for your helpful suggestions for the article! Hmm, maybe are you asking, like for Rock Backpages, which I got permission to use through the Wikipedia Library, I have my own personalized link that I need to use to access articles, whereas other people (non-Wikipedia editors) with Rock Backpages subscriptions need to sign it through Rock Backpages themselves. This means I have to use the generic link, not my link, when I cite articles from that website. So maybe you're asking about a similar situation for EBSCO? (But I notice Newspapers.com and some other resources through Wikipedia Library don't have that issue.) I couldn't immediately access the link your provided myself, by the way. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to automatically have access for that via the Wikipedia Library and just need to sign it, or if I need to register separately. Anyways, that question aside, to answer what I think might be your question, if you're already signed in to EBSCO Industries and can only access via the personalized link, maybe go to the site from a different computer or your cell phone, that you're not signed in from, do a search of the article, you won't have access to it, but presumably you'll be able to use the link the comes up in the search. Does that possibly answer your question? Apologies if I've misunderstood your question. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I am just glad that I could help with your FAC. You have brought up some wonderful suggestions. My primary concern was that when I first used ProQuest, I just copied the URL that I received while logged in through the Wikipedia Library System and another editor very kindly corrected this (with an edit summary I believe that told me that they were removing the bits tied to my account). I was uncertain if there was something similar with EBSCO, but I will play around with it to see what works and does not work. To be honest, I did not word my question that great >< lol. Thank you again for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba47, did you end up figuring it out? Moisejp (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I have filled out the citation without the link. When I try to use the EBSCO link, it leads to a log-in page, which is less than ideal. I do not remember reviewing any GANs or FACs that used EBSCO citations so unfortunately, I do not have anything for comparison. I will still experiment with it. The citation at least has an ISSN number and other identifying features so readers can find it on their own. I am currently working on the article in my sandbox, and it will take some time so I have plenty of time to see if I can make it work out or not. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are interested, this is how I have formatted the citation (at least for now). Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Aoba, did you try doing a search of all articles mentioning EBSCO? Maybe you can find one with a properly formatted link? Moisejp (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I could not find anything particularly helpful, but I have only done a very superficial search. I will do a more thorough search in future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some further digging. I found that articles either leave the link out or somehow have a link, which leads to the log-in screen. The Noodles & Company article does this so when a reader clicks the link they are directed to a log-in screen, and the citation clearly marks it as something requires a subscription. Admittedly, this article passed as a GAN in 2013 so it is rather old. I have tried putting the link in my citation, but I get an error screen that prevents me from doing it (which says that it would be useless for those who do not have access to the system) so it may be best to just leave it without the link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba. OK. Or one other idea could be to ask Nikkimaria, who as you know is (or has been) the coordinator for Wikipedia Library stuff. Oh well, I guess whatever the outcome, I guess you can't say you haven't tried to resolve it! Moisejp (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea. I will reach out to Nikkimaria sometime tomorrow. I would imagine that she would have an answer. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Pali-Aike volcanic field
Greetings, I have nominated Featured article candidates/Pali-Aike volcanic field/archive1 for a featured article candidacy but so far it's languishing without much input. Do you have time to review the article? Thanks in advance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Holidays
Thank you so much, Ceoil. I also wish you all the best and a very happy new year!! Moisejp (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).