Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eternal Blue (album)/archive1

Eternal Blue (album)

 * Nominator(s):  mftp dan  oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Greetings FAC,

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken. I tried to take this to peer review just over a month ago, but I got no feedback and grew impatient. I am confident enough in my work that I can meet the demand of a featured article on the fly with this one. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it.  mftp dan  oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue.jpg needs a specific source


 * File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue_Alt.jpg: FUR needs expansion


 * Have you considered including a sample? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey Nikki, I hear you. Thank you for your comments!
 * I normally add alt text but this one seems tough. I'll let you know when I think of something to put there.
 * I can't seem to find any reliable sources which even talk about the cover art, and I can't identify it either. This one's got me stumped.  mftp dan  oops 15:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By "specific source", do you mean the actual URL instead of just genius.com, or something else?
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Rationales are not my strength but I will reach out and see if someone else can advise me on that. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard, I just don't know what to model after.
 * I have edited both the rationales, I think the second one might be good? The slipcase cover I looked to another metal FA.  mftp dan  oops 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am working on a sample to add in during the course of the FAC.
 *  mftp dan  oops 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser
Looking good, I have only one substantial concern. The process leading up to the record is extensively and appropriately described, but I would like a bit more commentary on the result. Themes are comprehensively analyzed, but there is room for more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics, with respect to the individual songs.


 * Lead: Prefer: "Music critics reviewed the album positively, who generally praised its production, songwriting, and musicianship."
 * Critical reception: for creative works receiving overwhelmingly positive critique I've always found it elegant to include a dissenting opinion to round off the section. This is of course provided that such a dissent has been published and can be considered due, I'm not asking you to invent a dissenting voice (that would likely be a breach of YESPOV)

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Three things:
 * Resolved the prose comment. You are correct, that text was redundant.
 * I found it considerably difficult to find anyone (either professional or amateur) who viewed this album as anything less than good when writing this. The closest I could get were a few who recognized it had some shortcomings, but even those critics lauded EB. My GA reviewer suggested I reorganize the reception to some sort of theme to fit guidelines, and I tried to separate these viewpoints into another paragraph from those who took it as gold.
 * Ok, sounds good. /DB
 * I am not certain what you mean by "more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics", can you be more specific? Are there questions it leaves you asking, maybe?
 *  mftp dan  oops 17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. By composition/music I mean (including but not limited to): key, chord progressions, time signature(s), melodies/licks/riffs, instrumentation, solos, drop-d-tuning, production/mixing/post-production. The "composition"-section only comments on the album as a whole. There is some commentary on a few of these aspects with respect to the individual songs, but I think we need more. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable request. Let me try looking through the sources I have in the article already tomorrow night (Mondays are busy). If I don't find anything, I'll give a look elsewhere, but I feel like I would have included that kind of stuff if I'd seen it (though perhaps in fact I didn't).  mftp dan  oops 20:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made a concerted effort to address this comment. I don't know if I'm all the way where you want yet, but am I on the right track? How much are you looking for? (Solos aren't really a hallmark of Spiritbox's music.)  mftp dan  oops 00:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's more like it. With something this djent-y I'm hoping for some info on time signatures and/or drum patterns, but I'm also open to the possibility that these music journalists skipped that part of their homework. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Mike might have said something about Zev's playing in one of the refs I added or expanded with, let me see what I can do. If not, I'll try pursuing something from Zev's words directly.  mftp dan  oops 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Man, the press really gave Zev the shaft here... Mike talks about his contribution to the album a little bit in the ref to the Michigan Daily, but there's really not anything all that special that he says about it that I think translates well to a Wikipedia article. Pretty much everything is taken from Courtney or Michael, it seems. If there's anything a reviewer observes that's particularly a standout comment, I can try for that, but it's not my first choice.

(Original research here, not for article inclusion, but relevant discussion point: it's annoying too, because you can hear where there's something irregular in this album rhythmically a few times - "Sun Killer" and "We Live in a Strange World" stick out to me, but there's nothing I can personally say about that because my word means jack on Wikipedia. Conversely, if you listen close enough... you can also hear that most of this album is composed in a conventional 4 time. Even through the chaos of "Silk in the Strings", I could make out the intended time because of the drums.)  mftp dan  oops 00:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (Jumping in): per WP:PRIMARY, a work of art, music, literature etc. can be used as a source, uncited, for its own contents, as long as those are readily apparent to an audience -- so, for example, we can summarise the plot of a novel without a secondary citation, with the novel itself as the implied source. How far that goes for music is trickier, and other reviewers may disagree, but personally I'd have no problem with talking about a piece's time signature, key, tempo, instrumentation etc. on the same terms. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the thought, at least as far as my Wiki travels have taken me, that doesn't appear to me to apply in music. Keys and time can change often and sometimes it's more difficult to hear, especially in music that's purportedly progressive metal. Are you familiar with Dream Theater? "The Dance of Eternity", though an extreme example, is one which would testify to man's typical fallibility on this issue. It treads too close to OR for my comfort, if I was reviewing a nomination personally.  mftp dan  oops 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Google AI seems to think "Constance" swaps between a 4/4 and a 7/4, which is definitely plausible, though unclear to me. It would be really interesting to note were there an actually reliable 3PS on the subject. I searched for information on this but this FAC is Google's third result. Not a good sign.  mftp dan  oops 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there some convention around only writing about the singles? I'm asking because if we include content on other songs we could use this. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that's specifically written out, no. It's usually common to write about the singles because they're a key part of promoting the album. I don't think that you absolutely must include something on every song on the album, but it only helps for more. I certainly am all for adding this. ADDENDUM: Would you like me to integrate the singles' analysis into composition so we could have one cohesive section on the songs, and then I create a section for this album's promotion where the singles currently stand? This way, I could more sensibly add this analysis on the title track. The only downside to this is it might read rather close to critical reception, whereas the chronological way it reads now loans is a little leeway because all the singles were released preceding the album.  mftp dan  oops 22:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 01:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we start including info on songs that weren't released as singles I think it makes a lot of sense to separate the sections, but my preference for that could also be colored by svwiki-convention, which generally separates "music and lyrics" from "marketing and release", and we gotta do what's right by enwp-standards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I have a visitor from another wiki! I did not see that you were Swedish. This is an interesting opportunity to get feedback from. I think among the other wikis they have a pretty good grasp on badged content by comparison to others excluding English, and I don't know if there's one single correct way to organize albums in enwiki. I could try it your way and see how it turns out; if it doesn't work out I can restore it to the way I previously had it. After all, this is the first album I've built literally from the ground (redirect) up, and I just thought of the singles as something important to highlight.  mftp dan  oops 14:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, Courtney LaPlante actually did a track-by-track analysis of the album with Apple Music. However, it isn't easily accessible anymore. For whatever reason, the album ID on Apple Music for EB was changed at some point and didn't keep the interview. I found a cached version of the old ID interview on Google, but clicking the link gives me a 404. I took said link to Wayback Machine, but the place I should find it is under a dropdown menu where the collapse button doesn't function. If I hit F12 to examine the page elements, however...it's there. I know this is a really far reach asking if this is admissible at FAC, but I think it would be invaluable coverage if it were permitted with the caveat that I include instructions on how to verify the information. If not, I can look for more ways to cover the information from critical reception, but much of it might be to similar or repeated. I would at least have "Silk in the Strings", the title track, and the singles.  mftp dan  oops 23:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Draken Bowser, any more to come on this review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. I'm waiting for more content on the individual songs and the inclusion of the new Loudwire source. Once that's done I'll wrap up. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the Apple Music interview with LaPlante admissible or not?  mftp dan  oops 12:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good question, I hesitate to answer due to my inexperience with the finer details of enwp-sourcing policy interpretation. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll proceed with reorganizing the music without it when I get home from work, since both you and Skyshifter seem to want that, and then expand using the AM ref if and when I get a verdict. It would make things a lot easier, but I understand the accessibility on it is unconventional.  mftp dan  oops 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could ask at WT:FAC whether the community thinks a source like that belongs in an FA or not, like "conceptually". Draken Bowser (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Skyshifter
Infobox and lead
 * The article says that "Eternal Blue was recorded over a period of three weeks in February, and the process was finished by the beginning of March"; shouldn't the infobox say "Recorded: February–March 2021"? Same applies to the lead, which says "The recording was finished by Braunstein in February 2021" instead of March.
 * The lead lacks much information from the "Background" section, such as how Spiritbox was formed; feel like this is pretty important especially considering this is a debut album.
 * "Spiritbox relocated to Joshua Tree, California, and completed the songwriting process for the album, which former Volumes guitarist Dan Braunstein and the band's guitarist Mike Stringer produced." — could be reworded for clarity; for example, "the band" could still refer to Volumes. I'd recommend the following: "Spiritbox relocated to Joshua Tree, California, where they completed the songwriting process for the album. It was produced by former Volumes guitarist Dan Braunstein and Spiritbox's guitarist, Mike Stringer."
 * "five songs became singles" → "five songs were released as singles" is more appropriate
 * I saw above that "Music critics reviewed the album positively" was removed. I believe a general summary of the album's critical reception is acceptable in the lead; the main problem here is that the article's "Critical response to Eternal Blue was very positive" is not sourced and could be considered subjective/OR. This should be exchanged by Metacritic's assessment of "universal acclaim" (which is currently not mentioned anywhere) and, after that, readded to the lead.
 * Actually, I believe the issue I had above was that the way I originally wrote it was clunky and I corrected it so it read better. I am in bed now but I will make these fixes after work tomorrow.  mftp dan  oops 03:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Eternal Blue proved an immediate chart success for the band" is not mentioned explicitly in "Commercial performance"; also, what would be considered an "immediate success"? Would remove as it seems a bit subjective.
 * Good catch. It was easy for me to get swept up in a seemingly unprecedentedly good debut metalcore album. Removed "immediate", hope that addresses it.

More comments to follow soon, but first, I'll listen to the album. Skyshifter  talk  01:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you in advance for the feedback!  mftp dan  oops 03:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, in order to satisfy the second bullet point, I made a substantial structure change to the lead. As a result, not all of the changes I made are to exact specifications, but I believe that I have addressed everything listed here so far in a way you would find satisfactory.  mftp dan  oops 00:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Haven't listened to the album yet, but I gave "Circle With Me" a listen (because its their most streamed song on Spotify) and really enjoyed it! Definitely going to check more of their songs later. Anyway, I've re-read the lead and read the article up to "Composition". Here's what I found.

Lead
 * Some sentences throughout the article should be fixed according to WP:FALSETITLE. The very first sentence is an example: "Eternal Blue is the debut studio album by the Canadian heavy metal band Spiritbox." In Background, another example: "members of the American metalcore band".
 * There is a repetition of "After" ("After leaving [...] After revealing") and "The band" ("The band recorded [...] The band's first). "In advance of the record's release" can be changed to "In advance of Eternal Blue release" to avoid repetition of "the record".
 * It still says that "The recording was finished by Braunstein in February 2021". Also, the "March 1" date isn't specifically stated in "Recording and release".
 * What I meant with the "universal acclaim" thing was actually a change in "Critical reception". "Critical response to Eternal Blue was very positive" should be changed to something like: "According to review aggregator Metacritic, Eternal Blue received "universal acclaim" based on a weighted average score of 84 out of 100 from 4 critics scores". In the lead, you can add quotation marks at "universal acclaim" and mention "according to Metacritic", or change it to a more usual wording like "received critical acclaim".
 * While the wording was changed, "chart success" is still subjective — what is considered a chart success? Unless sources specifically mentioning this can be found, you should cut this part, going straight into the "entries in eight countries" sentence.

Background
 * "The singles were all recorded themselves" reads as if the singles recorded themselves, or something. A wording like "The singles were recorded in a do it yourself manner]] would be clearer.
 * "The band members met Rose only two days (...)" is a very long sentence; I recommend spliting it or at least adding commas.
 * "Following the album's release, Crook left Spiritbox (...)" This isn't Background; moving it to "Recording and release" would be more appropriate.

Composition
 * "disregarded genre" → "disregarded genres"
 * "on what it enjoyed" → "on what they enjoyed"
 * LaPlante makes use of both screaming and singing throughout the record" → "LaPlante [both] screams and sings throughout the record"
 * "The bulk of the album's lyrics, which were written by LaPlante, were written about her feelings of frustration and sadness" repetition of "were written"; here's an alternative wording: "LaPlante, who wrote most of the album's lyrics, delved into themes of frustration and sadness."
 * "changed tunings" → "changed them", avoiding repetition

More comments soon. Skyshifter  talk  00:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I may need you to look at composition again later in order to satisfy Draken's concern, but I have addressed all other feedback given me. Appreciate it!  mftp dan  oops 13:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

A few more comments:


 * I did a very minor copy-edit

Recording and release
 * "The songwriting for Spiritbox's debut album" — why not "The songwriting for Eternal Blue"? Even if they didn't have the title yet (or something similar), their debut album is Eternal Blue, and this change would make that clearer.
 * properly released a single for 'Holy Roller → "released 'Holy Roller' as a single"
 * "so it could be released by the end of 2021" → "so it could be released by the end of the year", as 2021 was just mentioned
 * "the record's recording" — replace "the record" with a synonym or the album's name to avoid repetition
 * "within 24 hours of announcing the album's release date" — what was the announcement's date?
 * "was finally released" — "finally" could be removed
 * "Following the album's release" could be removed

Skyshifter  talk  00:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Done all but one. As for the first point, I've grown used to people telling me the contrary, but I have no problem with this personally. For the fifth point, Pollstar doesn't give a date for when the album was announced for release.  mftp dan  oops 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You could use another source for the announcement date, like this one, or even a primary one. Skyshifter   talk  17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done that.  mftp dan  oops 16:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Singles
 * I don't think the usage of "No." in this section is appropriate. You could replace them with "number" without any issues.
 * "first found critical and commercial success" — I couldn't find this on ref. 35.
 * "Hailed as their heaviest song" — I don't see the justification in the source for using the non-neutral "hailed"; could just use "Described"


 * For the second point here, is The song's original version spent seven weeks as number one on Sirius XM Liquid Metal's Devil's Dozen,[3] and was deemed the best song of 2020 by the station's listeners. not a fair enough way to draw the conclusion that it was successful if I remove "critical and commercial"? I addressed the other two.  mftp dan  oops 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not enough. In fact, the article should explain what "Sirius XM Liquid Metal's Devil's Dozen" is, because it is not clear what it is. Anyway, it being popular and well-liked in a single radio station is not enough for describing it as a "success" — and even if it was more than that, "success" would be WP:OR unless stated by sources. Skyshifter   talk  17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As someone who listens to the Devil's Dozen sometimes, it's like Sirius XM Liquid Metal's own little chart countdown of new metal music. It is almost/sort of like a metal version of Total Request Live, where they count down new popular metal releases among the channel's listeners who help vote for the chart placements. I know their active rock channel Octane does something similar, as do many other stations away from rock and metal. Should I describe it as a chart show? Do I need an external source for that?  mftp dan  oops 16:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe you can add that without needing additional sources, as it's a simple description. Skyshifter   talk  16:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done that.  mftp dan  oops 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's continue.
 * "The band released a remix of "Holy Roller" in October, which featured" → "which features"
 * "The "Holy Roller" remix version" → can be simplified to just "The remix" as the song has just been mentioned
 * "which earned the band further critical acclaim from critics and the metal community, showcasing the versatility and variety of styles within the band's music." I don't see this highly subjective information in any of the provided sources, and even if the information was there, I'd recommend attributing it.
 * "That same month, a Kerrang! reader's poll voted Spiritbox as 'Best New Band This is not related to the single, and I'm unsure if this is relevant to be cited.
 * "The song displays 'breathy vocals'..." I'd recommend attributing these kinds of subjective sentences, especially when paired with quotation marks. (This may apply to previous sections such as "Composition" as well).
 * Before I proceed to the fifth point, I have a question. To address point #3, I bundled the two refs I had at the end into one tag and added quote parameters, with an overview in the bundle explaining what each do. Is this an acceptable solution to demonstrate the conclusion drawn, or is this wading too far into WP:SYNTH territory?  mftp dan  oops 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "critical acclaim from critics and the metal community" is still not supported at all. One source says that "metalheads cried", another one says the song is versatile. This feels like WP:OR. Skyshifter   talk  17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception
 * This section is heavy on quotes, I'd recommend paraphrasing some.
 * If possible, I'd try to connect some reviews whenever they share a theme (see here for an example; you can also do different things if two reviewers say a similar thing, i.e. "Both X and Y said this about the lyrics" etc).
 * I subscribe to Draken Bowser's idea of creating a dedicated "Songs" section to discuss each specific song.

Commercial performance
 * The same suggestion I gave above about "No." applies here.

Accolades
 * I'd recommend adding text to this section; see here or here for examples.
 * The "Circle With Me" accolade could be removed.

I've finished my (mostly) prose-wise review. Skyshifter  talk  20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll be addressing these concerns tonight after work. Been a tiring last few days, but I think I'm ready to finish it.  mftp dan  oops 12:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, have you finished addressing 's concerns? If so, could you let them know. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not, but as I detailed down below I have been ill recently and have not been editing Wikipedia very much in general. That changes this week; I was hoping to get started yesterday but became to busy with the holiday. I am feeling much better now and would be able to properly focus my energy on the task at hand.  mftp dan  oops 12:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC
Hello! I was the GAN reviewer, nice to see this at FAC. I don't expect to have a great deal of comments since other reviews have been fairly thorough, but I'll give it a readover within the week. Ping me if I don't get back to this by then. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's been a couple weeks so I thought I'd reach out. As for me and the other comments, I have been sick this week and have not had proper energy to sit down and address this, but I still have every intention of completing them as soon as I am healthy. Hoping for sometime this American memorial day weekend.  mftp dan  oops 13:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry! I let this one get away from me. I'll get rolling right now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Noticing some instances of redundant/unnecessary words again, similar to what I pointed out at the GAN
 * I might swap "after revealing" to "after they revealed" (and change "release" to "released"), so the subject of the sentence is more grammatically clear
 * "earliest development on what would become Eternal Blue" you could trim to "development on Eternal Blue" and keep the same meaning; there isn't going to be any earlier development before development began, right?
 * " initially slated" and "initially halted" in the same sentence - you could remove both without any change in meaning
 * "which guitarist" I might move the verb here to give us "produced by guitarist", which is a more natural order
 * "as part of Spiritbox's dynamic" "dynamic" seems to be operating as a synonym for "style" here and I'm not really sure it works
 * "screamed and clean vocals" link Screaming (music)


 * Background
 * "the two decided to" - you could trim the "decided to" for the same meaning
 * "the two" in two back-to-back sentences (the second one is duplicative with "the duo" as well)
 * "and Shreddy Krueger drummer Ryan Loerke became the band's first permanent drummer.[13]" it isn't clear when this happened, and since it directly follows someone else playing drums on the EP, it's a bit confusing.
 * You have a photo of a Joshua tree later in the article but one not of LaPlante? She's got two free ones on her page.


 * Composition
 * "The band's use of the digital synthesizer was a prominent aspect of Eternal Blue" redundant and also you have "aspect" again later in the sentence. Suggest something like "Digital synthesizer was used prominently on Eternal Blue"...
 * The wording implies that the synth is what provides the "atmospheric to industrial" elements. However, the source uses that phrasing in reference to the whole album, not the synth. I think you'll have to reword.
 * I'm just about willing to let the unattributed quotes about the "post-metalcore" and "nu-metal djent etc" slide, but the quote about Stringer's "dissonant, spastic, crazy..." style absolutely needs attributed in-text
 * "to diversify into styles which yielded stronger full tracks rather than a small portion of a song," it's not clear how these this is connected to his wild playing style. Does that style only work for small portions of songs?


 * Recording
 * "The songwriting for Eternal Blue commenced early" I'm not sure this sentence really communicates much to the reader. "commenced early" - I assume this means early in their career, but I would think that's kind of expected, right? You don't form a band and sit around not writing music.
 * "initially scheduled" same thing here as with "initially" earlier, you can remove it without losing any meaning
 * "were released by the band" - passive voice. "the band released"
 * "promote the album..." "anticipation of the album" - you have "the album" twice. You could probably remove the last clause "and increased anticipation of the album" and have the same meaning - the point of a promo is to increase anticipation, so it's not surprising that if the fans liked the video, they anticipated the album
 * "He would be featured" - "He was". See WP:WOULDCHUCK for an explanation of why the "would be" future tense is rarely necessary
 * "Although Crook was an official member" Do we know why the bassist didn't record the bass parts? That's weird. Did he actually do anything on the album or did he just lounge around while everyone else worked?
 * Hmmm. I think you should reorder some of the content here. Para 3 contains the important details about the production, but is placed after what are arguably the less important details about featured guests and bass players. I would split para 2 at "end of the year", then combine it with what's right now para 3. Then move the stuff about featured guests etc to be para 3. (Does that make sense?)


 * Singles
 * "the song bears a theme revolving around religious faith." - "the song's theme is religious faith" or "the song revolves around religious faith", it doesn't need both
 * Lots of repetition of "The song", could you switch it up with the title here and there?
 * I made some bold changes to the paragraph about Constance. Feel free to revert or revise them, but I think it made the prose cleaner and more organized


 * Critical reception
 * I agree with Skyshifter that this section is a bit heavy on quotes; their suggestions cover what I would recommend so I won't repeat them. Generally speaking you want to save quotes for punchy, interesting bits that would be difficult to paraphrase without losing the meaning.
 * The best reception sections are split into smaller paragraphs focusing on one or another theme (where possible). For example, you might have one about the lyrical composition, one about the vocals, one about the drums, whatever. I would strongly recommend overhauling to do so here, if possible. Even if you don't have enough for paragraphs on individual concepts, maybe a clearer split between positive and negative appraisals?
 * "which encompassed all the dynamics displayed on the album" it's not super clear what this means
 * "and that the songwriting and musicianship" - "and said that"
 * "simply referred to" not sure the "simply" is adding anything here.
 * The quote following "musical journey" is redundant to the part calling it a musical journey; cut one or the other (honestly, my suggestion would be to cut the entire bit where Brown calls the album "incredible" and focus on the larger quote, as that's far more significant to the reader than "incredible")
 * " Simon Crampton summarized his review of the record" he didn't summarize his review, he summarized the record
 * "particularly noting that" - couple things. "particularly" isn't needed here at all. Also, I think you might want to sub "noting" for something like "arguing" or "suggesting", because "noting" makes it seem like an objective fact, but it's an opinion (I've had this suggestion made to me at my FACs). You've got two more "noted"s later; same suggestion applies

Okay, that's what I got! Take your time with replying lol since I took enough time getting back to you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for five weeks and, while it has attracted comments, hasn't seen support for promotion. It is liable to be archived in the new few days unless that changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose due to a lack of structure and overquotation in the critical reception section. Revising into thematic paragraphs is something that should be done off-FAC IMO. Heartfox (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , what do you think is enough for "overquotation"? I don't mean to be vain, but I thought I did a really good job at quote balance, and my GA reviewer did too (and they said they review it about the standard of an FAC).
 * Nevertheless, I agree the structural issues are hefty. You guys deserve honesty; while I definitely am capable of addressing these concerns inside the timeframe of the FAC, my being ill the other week successfully took all the energy I had to address these issues out of me and I'm just not feeling it anymore. I have an idea of what needs to be done, but it's just too much for me to address right now. If you look at my contributions lately, it'll be quite clear that I just don't have the energy for Wikipedia at the moment. I appreciate all the feedback, but I'm going to ask FAC to close this now so I can work on it another time when I'm actually feeling it instead of wasting more time. I'll be back.  mftp dan  oops 22:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently every sentence about a critic's point of view includes one quotation, sometimes two. One even has three quotes. While it is natural for their to be more quotes in reception sections, every sentence is overkill and in my opinion does not align with MOS:QUOTE or WP:FACR "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Reading a quote in every sentence gets unengaging. There should be more variety in the prose. I try to do no more than 2/3 of the sentences in a paragraph including a quotation, aiming for as little as possible. Heartfox (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The GA reviewer mentioned above is me. I did say at the time I felt the balance was good, and I think it was sufficient to pass GA. But on re-reading the article and seeing the comments from others in this FAC, I do think the quotes could be reduced. Dan, I'm sorry if that feels unfair; for what it's worth I do think you might have understood my comment at the GA. I review GAs in the style of FAC reviews, going top to bottom and leaving comments along the way, just as I've done here. I didn't mean to imply that I was reviewing precisely to an FAC standard. (And even if I was, the benefit of FAC is the voice of many editors chiming in and creating a consensus about what's best for the article). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything wrong, I just undershot what I thought I had. I clearly thought this would be simpler, but I was wrong. I know how to fix it, but I just don't feel like I can muster that in a timely manner, and it's not fair to make you guys wait. To tell the truth, I feel a little burnt out of Wikipedia at the moment. I need a break from regular contribution. It might just be the two weeks between FACs, who knows?  mftp dan  oops 00:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Will take that as a withdrawal request and action accordingly -- tks everyone for their input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)