Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive1


 * 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) 2014-09-16.

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)

 * Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Through a period of four weeks I have worked on the article and expanded it from this to what it looks today. I found a decent amount of information which I placed within the article page. I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I hope the prose is good since I'm not a native English speaker. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

 * I think "arena rock" should also go in the genre field per the source; listening to it, simply "experimental rock" really doesn't do it justice. It's a rather mainstream song.
 * The term "arena rock" doesn't really indicate a music genre. It is rather an influence or tendency which is primarily related to touring, as the article arena rock states.


 * "It was engineered by Jamie Reed Schefman and mixed by Serban Ghenea. The song was engineered for mix by John Hanes at Mixstar Studios in Virginia Beach, Virginia." - Wait, what? Which is it?
 * That's what the liner notes say.


 * "the oldest song created by the band" - on LLFD or over their whole career? Jared Leto's a busy guy.
 * Clarified.


 * I'm kinda uneasy about the organization of info into Background and Composition; there's stuff about the song being an ode to LA in both sections. The first sentence in the second paragraph of Background is pushing it; the rest of that paragraph totally fits more with what's in Composition.
 * The info which I put into Background are related to the recording and the inspiration behind the song; I changed its title to Recording and inspiration.
 * I was still uneasy at first, but I think you've improved it sufficiently. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, within Composition the focus seems to carom back and forth between musical composition and themes. I'd organize it along those two tenets.
 * Fixed and reorganized. I also renamed it Composition and theme.


 * "general acclaim" - kind of an oxymoron. I'd prefer "a generally positive response", "critical acclaim", or something in between like "very positive reviews".
 * Fixed.


 * Another organizational gripe: It talks about the music video's themes in the second paragraphs of both Development and Release. Please reorganize this information somehow; as it stands it comes off as retreading old ground.
 * In second paragraph of Development there are info about people who worked on the short film and the role of Leto as director, there's nothing about the video's themes. In Release, that is the official statement by Leto at a press release for the short film.


 * "The short film begins with Kanye West associating objects and people with Los Angeles, including James Dean and Howard Hughes as well as architecture, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe." - What do you mean by "associating"? Is he describing their significance and relation to the city, or just gesturing to images/film clips? If the first, are there images and film clips or just Kanye? Or is he just being a gayfish?
 * He is relating them to the city. Fixed.


 * Not a requirement, but you might want to cite the video through a YouTube upload of it or something where the paragraphs end without citations, just so no one mistakenly pops in a "citation needed" tag later.
 * Where? In synopsis?
 * Yeah. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ""City of Angels" was included in the Carnivores Tour, co-headlining with Linkin Park, usually appearing approximately halfway through the set." - Did the song include Linkin Park as a guest or something, did other parts of the 30 Seconds concerts include them, or was Linkin Park just another artist on the same tour? Ambiguous syntax.
 * Linkin Park was another artist on the tour. Fixed.

Tezero (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Tezero. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. It's not often that an article passes FAC without a prior GAN, but I believe this is one of those that deservedly could. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

 * Lead
 * The second sentence could be split. The two clauses discuss unrelated topics–production and lyrics.
 * Is it really necessary? It would be: " Written by lead vocalist Jared Leto, the lyrics of "City of Angels" were inspired by his experience of living in Los Angeles with his family and were influenced by the city's culture. Leto also produced with Steve Lillywhite." It would not be so different and I'd actually prefer the current version.
 * Let it be then.


 * the third sentence is grammatically wrong. It should be either "as well as music from the 1980s" or "music from the 1980s as well", but not the way it is now.
 * Fixed.


 * a song can be broadcast on radio; "service" is not the correct verb
 * It is commonly used in music articles.


 * it received acclaim (only) from music critics; critical is redundant, thought I'd prefer "was acclaimed by music critics"
 * Fixed.


 * hailed→praised; "of the track" is extra;
 * Fixed.


 * you need to specify which were the nations, or if you don't want, write international charts.
 * Fixed.


 * "parent" is not needed
 * Removed.


 * a song can be performed on a tour, or included in the set (not in the band's tour).
 * It is commonly used in music articles.


 * Recording and inspiration
 * it is useful to note who Jared Leto is (the frontman I guess)
 * Clarified.


 * describing Steve Lillywhite as previous collaborator is vague. In this state, it's logical to question myself: 'They collaborated on what?' 'What is Lillywhite's proffesion?'
 * Clarified.


 * are you using "mix" as a verb or noun? it can be "for a mix" or "to mix", not for mix.
 * I'm using it as a noun. That's what the liner notes say.
 * Then add "a" in front of mix→the first option I offered above
 * I've changed it. Please check if it is ok.


 * shorten preview event to "preview" only
 * Fixed.


 * you can paraphrase "took a long, long time to make" to took a long time to make
 * Done.


 * Composition and theme
 * Do both references support the opening sentence, or is the sentence a combination of both? If the second, it consist synthesis of material.
 * The first reference supports the experimental rock genre, while the second one supports the arena rock influences.


 * does synthesizers need to be in quote marks? it indicates scare quotes in a certain way
 * Removed.


 * followed by the sound of drum beats–followed by drum beats would be fine
 * Fixed.


 * Loudwire should be italicized
 * Done.


 * generally, this section overlaps with the 'Critical reception'. If you are writing about the song structure/melody/composition, it should be stated as fact, not opinion.
 * The quotes featured in the section discuss the composition and theme of the song. Unfortunately, there's no sheet music published at Musicnotes.com and I couldn't examine its structure in depth.


 * Release
 * distributed would be a luckier solution for 'sent'
 * 'sent' is the term which is always used in these circumstances.


 * since iTunes and Amazon are established brands, I think "online digital media" can be easily dropped
 * It is useful to specify it.


 * what is iTunes Stone?
 * iTunes Store. Fixed.


 * you meant debuted/premiered instead of "impacted", right?
 * There's nothing wrong with that term, it is normally used in these circumstances.


 * Critical reception
 * the same note as the intro (was acclaimed)
 * Fixed.


 * every sentence here has, regardless the length, a quote. For the purpose of comprehensiveness, I suggest quoting only essential remarks, and paraphrasing what can be done to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM reading.
 * Done.


 * Live performances
 * became a signature part in what way? If you're indicating that it was frequently performed, then a "set-fixture" would be more adequate
 * Fixed.


 * Since Thirty Seconds to Mars is an American band, you need to use favorable instead of favourably.
 * Fixed.


 * is the date of the 1st iHeartRadio Music Awards really needed here?
 * Not really. Removed.


 * awards ceremony–omit awards since we already know that iHeartRadio are music awards
 * Removed.


 * who were stationed (or positioned), I assume. Same for a highlight
 * Fixed.


 * again, a song can be featured or performed on a tour, not included.
 * Again, a song can be included in a tour.
 * Thanks for your comments, I will address them in a week since I'm not at home - I'm editing from my mobile phone.--Earthh (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose on stability and comprehensiveness. I see there is ongoing discussion about the genre, and certain edit warring occurred after the article was submitted for FAC. There are a few prose aberrations which shouldn't be present in a featured article.--Retrohead (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Retrohead, while I'm still working to address your comments, I wonder which are these few prose aberrations that prevent the article to reach the FA status (there's nothing wrong with phrases like 'serviced to radio' or 'included in tours', look at some featured or good articles to have an idea (Ain't It Fun (Paramore song), for example). An user is doing disruptive editing (the one who opposed here below) removing sourced content and basing his edits on his point of view. If he continues, I'm forced to ask administrator attention and seek dispute resolution.--Earthh (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just finished addressing your comments, Retrohead. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues or if you have any other recommendations regarding the article. It also seems that the user has stopped doing edit warring.--Earthh (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Y2kcrazyjoker4
Oppose - I have to dispute the song being "critically acclaimed". The reception section seems to omit any negative reviews or criticisms the song received, of which there are several: I think some of the above needs to be incorporated into the article to reflect the fact that not every critic loved the song. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Drowned in Sound says: "Third song 'City Of Angels' is the nadir; a limp, soulless slab of soft-rock that even Gutterflower era Goo Goo Dolls would consider toothless."
 * AltSounds says: "Not to be different or anything, but 'City of Angels' is by far my least favorite song - it's just trying too hard to be stadium level epic and whilst it actually kind of achieves it, I again am reminded of U2, not the early days great band, the shitty stadium band that wrote the same song over and over."
 * musicOMH says: "City Of Angles is the sort of corny ballad that makes 30 Seconds To Mars such a love-them-or-hate-them band".
 * CraveOnline says: "'City Of Angels' is one of my favorites in this salad of pretentious delights. Thirty Seconds To Mars stretch their ballad muscles here, which really means there's very little music playing when Leto begins his narrative about the quite desperation of Los Angeles. Oh good, another song about the melancholy beneath the glitz and glamour of LA. It's been forty minutes since one of these songs came out, it's about time we were served another. Who better to slice up the bitterness of being young and beautiful in LA than Leto, who is both. Attempting 'atmosphere' with clunky piano, synths and random drum strikes, Leto opens his notebook and allows more winning words to escape. For example, 'Lost in the city of angels. Down in the comfort of strangers. I found myself in the land of a billion lights'. Wow, I understand Los Angeles on a much deeper level now."
 * Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I added some of these (AltSounds and musicOMH) and in the article there was already a mixed review. This, however, doesn't indicate that the song was not "critically acclaimed", considering all the positive responses. Please let me know if you have any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think further changes are needed to the section. The Stampede should be removed, as it is a school newspaper and not from an established music critic/publication - the link is also dead. Inveterate also borders on not fulfilling WP:RS (my general rule of thumb is if the source doesn't have a Wikipedia article, it's probably not notable enough to be a reliable source). I also feel like at least one more of the above reviews should be incorporated into the article in lieu of these sources. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed The Stampede (school newspaper) and also Inveterate, which does not seem to meet WP:RS. I've added Drowned in Sound and I would not consider CraveOnline since it is a male lifestyle website.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
 Leaning Oppose, partly because I think a copyedit pass is needed, and partly because I think there's too much detail in several sections. Some specific comments below.
 * "The song ... is styled in experimental rock": what does "styled in" mean?
 * Essentially, it means that it is an experimental rock song.


 * '"City of Angels" was acclaimed from music critics": should be "acclaimed by". This is both in the lead and the body.
 * Fixed.


 * "which features a number of personalities": "personalities" is an odd word to see here -- should this be "show business personalities"? Or perhaps "celebrities"?
 * Celebrities, street performers and homeless people appear in the video, so "show business personalities" would not be correct.


 * '"City of Angels" was written by lead vocalist Jared Leto, who also produced the song with Steve Lillywhite, having previously worked with Thirty Seconds to Mars on the production of the band's third studio This Is War (2009)': I think "having previously worked with" is supposed to refer to Lillywhite, but as it stands it refers to Leto.
 * Reworded. Please check if it is ok.
 * Sorry, no: now you say there are two producers, and refer to "the producer", so the reader can't tell who is referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is followed by drum beats, including taiko drums, then transitioning into a piano melody": several problems. "It" doesn't seem to refer to anything; if it refers to the synthesizers in the previous section, it should be "They", or more likely "These".  Then "transitioning" doesn't make sense; it's the song that transitions.  And the form of the verb is wrong too -- even if it refers to the song, not the synthesizers, it should be something like "then it transitions".
 * Reworded. Please check if it is ok.
 * Still not quite right. I'm afraid I'm going to stop reviewing your changes at this point and oppose -- see my comments at the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd make "online digital media iTunes Store" just "iTunes", or possibly "iTunes Store"; if it's linked, that's enough.
 * Done.


 * "impacted mainstream radio": what does "impacted" mean here?
 * It means "debuted". That phrase is commonly found in music articles, I'll reword it if it is wrong.


 * The paragraph giving peak chart positions in the "Release" section would be much better done as a table; it's hard to read.
 * There's already the table of chart positions. That paragraph describes the song's history on the record charts, that is commonly found in music articles.


 * Is it necessary to say "on the issue dated"? Can't we just quote the date?
 * It is necessary, considering that Billboard publishes charts for the week which follows the issue.


 * The "Critical reception" section needs to be compressed, I think. It's essentially a list of quotes.  There needs to be some organization: "Most reviews were positive; [give some example positive quotes, from the higher profile sources]; a couple were negative or mixed; [examples].  Just listing 13 (if I counted correctly) quotes is overkill and doesn't give the reader the summary view they should get from an encyclopedia article.
 * This is commonly done in music articles, it is an essential section for GA and FA. I think the section follows your example.


 * It took me a while to understand what you meant by "short film"; it seems it's not a standard music video because there's some additional material on either side of the song. This needs to be clearer early in this section.
 * They filmed a short film which served as the music video for the song. It's a routine for Thirty Seconds to Mars' music videos.


 * As with the review section, there's too much detail in the music video section. Why list the editors, if they're not notable in themselves and are never mentioned again?  Why list everyone who comments in the film, including people who are not linked and not mentioned again?
 * I think it was necessary mentioning it, at least.


 * "the second collaboration of Thirty Seconds to Mars with Kanye West, which first worked together" -- "which" can't refer to two things; this needs rephrasing.
 * Done. Please check if it is ok.


 * There's no ref for the hashtag trending on Twitter; and considering how many things trend on Twitter, is this really worth including?
 * I didn't find any reliable sources supporting this, so I removed it.


 * The synopsis is longer than I would have expected for a music video: I know the video is a reliable source for the details, but what makes these details worth recording in the article?
 * As explained, it is a short film, not a classic music video. It runs for eleven minutes and we don't have just the band playing the song, it's a little more complicated concept and that synopsis is not even so detailed. I think it is ok considering that we're talking about a FAC.


 * Same comments for the reception of the video as for the reception of the song: too many quotes in sequence, without any structure in their presentation.
 * Again, this is commonly done in music articles, it is essential for GA and FA.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also see (and comment at) this page, where I've raised a question about this article and my review above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Mike Christie. I should make a premise: I built this article following the model of GA or FA such as Marry the Night, Ain't It Fun (Paramore song), 4 Minutes (Madonna song). Since I'm not a native English speaker, I took many terms and expressions from these articles ("impacted mainstream radio" and co). I hoped that with this nomination I could fix possible prose aberrations with the help of other users. I don't think the article is excessively detailed, considering the FA criteria. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions.--Earthh (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to the difficulty of getting the prose to high quality when you're not a native speaker. I do think you need to partner with an editor with good prose skills in English; the article is remarkably good for a non-native speaker, but it isn't there yet.  I've switched to oppose above after checking two or three points and seeing that your fixes did not really address what I was commenting on.
 * I am also still concerned about excessive detail and the structure of the critical reception article, but that's moot at this point because I would oppose on prose grounds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- While the problems identified with the article may not be insurmountable, and Mike and others have offered good advice, I can't see consensus to promote occurring anytime soon and improvements will best be conducted outside the pressures of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.