Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faryl/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 promoted by GrahamColm 10:47, 3 March 2012.

Faryl

 * Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Sunday, I nominated Faryl Smith for featured status, and today, I bring you her debut album. An archetypal classical-crossover recording, it broke records for its high number of sales and was nominated for a top award, but had no great success outside of the UK. The classical community liked it, even though I'd imagine a lot of them didn't want to like it due to Smith's appearance on Britain's Got Talent. I feel that the article is well-written and referenced, and comprehensively covers all details of the album. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; made one fix. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Jim No serious problems, a few niggles  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Repetition of "features" in para 1, can this be tweaked
 * Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Smith meeting with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown &mdash;  reads as if this was was organised as part of the promotion, which seems unlikely, although it obviously helped. Needs rephrasing
 * Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and the album sold 29,200 copies in the first week &mdash; avoid repetition, perhaps and 29,200 copies in the first full week
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Though generally critical of move  &mdash; Is there a word missing?
 * Though generally critical of the move. Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * because obviously, it's a big deal for me &mdash; The punctuation is clearly wrong. This may be how the source put it, but although you can't change the words of an oral statement, it seems reasonable to correct erroneous punctuation by the reporter or subeditor.
 * Fair. Added a comma. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * out of a possible 5 stars &mdash; should be possible to avoid repeating this
 * Rephrased slightly- I think it reads better, but there is still some repetition. What do you think? J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with one more comment I'm happy with most of the changes, but I made this edit to remove the newly introduced repetition of "promotion", and to fix my pet hate of unlinked-hyphen-bluelink. What do you think?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection, thanks for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review The only image has an appropriate non-free use rationale  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your thoughts. I appreciate the time you've taken. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks and the disclaimer that I've still done no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some repeated wikilinks, the most egregious of which is The Blue Danube twice in as many sentences. Also, be consistent in whether it's The Blue Danube or "The Blue Danube" or The Blue Danube
 * Tweaked. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "60 piece orchestra" -> "60-piece orchestra"
 * Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Further, he was critical of some of the more predictable song choices; "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", for example" - can this be worded differently?
 * "Further, he was critical of the inclusion of "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", considering them to be overly predictable song choices." J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Davis also awarded the album 3 out of five" - either spell out both or keep both as numbers
 * Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's an early listening chart? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure, and I can't find any mention of it on Amazon. I could perhaps change it to the slightly less interesting fact about it being 295th on the bestsellers chart? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that GHits for that term are almost exclusively the article, this review and copies thereof, I wonder whether it might be "easy listening"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing- Amazon does list the album as "easy listening"... Would you object to me "correcting" it? Or would that venture into original research? J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might add an explanatory footnote if you're worried about OR, but I think it'd be fine to just correct it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a hidden comment. Thanks again for your thoughts, I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks : A thorough article which is very readable and clear. Seems comprehensive, but I'm afraid I know very little about the album or Miss Smith! Just a few picky points, and feel free to argue with any of them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The album's promotion included numerous television and radio appearances": Reads as if the album made appearances; maybe better to say "As part of the album's promotion, Smith made numerous television and radio appearances, and around this time met…"
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "and a total of 29,200 copies in the first week, which is higher than any other debut album of a classical singer" Redundancy?
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very minor, but promotion/promotional is used three times in the lead which jars very, very slightly.
 * "Despite the fact she was at one point the favourite to win…" A little cumbersome? Maybe "Although favourite to win, …" (I think the source justifies the slight change in emphasis)
 * "Although favourite to win" is a little strong, I feel. It's not quite like she was going into the final with everyone expecting her to win; more that, at one point, she was the one the bookies liked the best. If you think my wording doesn't accord with the source, I can add a couple more references. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think the source supports either wording and I'm happy for it to stay like this. My main objection was that the phrase was a little clunky, but not enough to be a big problem. One other possibility I could see would be to remove "Despite the fact" to make it flow marginally better, but happy to go with your judgement either way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "and after the show she rejected offers": Again a little clunky. What about "and later rejected"?
 * Rephrased slightly. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "during Smith's Christmas holiday": Presumably holiday from school rather than a "getaway"? Is this important enough to include?
 * It provides an idea of timescale, as well as the stress that it was not interfering with her school life. This is something that is often stressed with artists like this. I remember a while ago there was controversy about teen singers missing school, and so record companies now need to be much more careful. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "on the third of January" Why not "on 3 January"?
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "with performances at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and appearances at the debut of Oliver!.": Maybe specify "performances by Smith". Also the comment about "the debut of Oliver!" is a little strange as Oliver obviously did not come out in 2009!
 * Done, clarified the Olver! thing. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Contrary to what was said on the third series of Britain's Got Talent, Smith had no plans for a concert tour in 2009; she was quoted as saying that "I'm too young and don't think I would be able to do a tour on my own"": Not sure why we need to have a "contrary to" thing happening here as the reader probably will not realise what was said on the series. I would consider cutting the start of the sentence and beginning "Smith had no plans…"
 * That appearance on BGT was probably the biggest she had made at that stage beyond her original BGT appearances. I'll reword slightly, as you're right that the average reader will not know what was said, but I do think the mention needs to stay. Also an interesting aside about how little BGT apparently cared- in some ways, I'm amazed they took her when she didn't sign with Syco. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "On 23 May 2009, after the US release, Faryl peaked at 31 on Top Heatseekers Albums chart, and at six on the Classical Albums chart, remaining in the charts for one and 17 weeks respectively": The date confuses me slightly here. Was the album released on that date or did it peak on that date? If the latter, maybe lose the date entirely? Also, maybe make it clear here that this now refers to the US charts? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrased slightly. Thanks very much for your comments and time. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the prose yet; there are too many clunky constructions like "it was reported by The Sun that" (why not "The Sun reported that"?) and "Smith described the song by saying that". Ucucha (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both sentences have now been reworded. I hope dealing with Sasata's niggles has gone some way to deal with your concerns. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Prose niggles by Sasata (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I appreciate you taking the time. The MoS is labyrinthine... J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Faryl became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "entered the charts at number 6, rising to number 4" normally, these numbers would be spelled out per MoS, but perhaps there's an album article-specific rule that contravenes this?
 * Can't find it explicitly. I think it would be covered by WP:ORDINAL- "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 within three hours after the announcement." Both the policy on record charts and the MOS note numbers in the same way I have- see WP:CHARTTRAJ and MOS:HASH. As I say, I can't find it explicitly, but I think my way is accepted, and reflective of current practice. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * is there a link for "classical chart"?
 * Just redirects Billboard charts. I can throw the link in if you like? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "As one of the ten best selling classical albums" -> best-selling
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * link for "album of the year"?
 * There's no article on the actual award- I could redlink? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "During the show, she performed "Ave Maria" and a cover of Sarah McLachlan's "Angel",[2] as well as receiving singing lessons from Yvie Burnett." receiving -> received; the second half doesn't quite make sense to me--she had singing lessons during the show?
 * Adjusted. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * might want to use a few words to describe The Blue Danube
 * Reworked. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "On 23 February, it was reported by The Sun" -> "On 23 February, The Sun reported"
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The mix up received attention" I think, when used in this way, mix-up needs a hyphen (correct me if I'm wrong)
 * Either works, I think, your way is better. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "the cover photo was modified ... due to her "gappy teeth"" -> I think (again, not 100% positive) that this should be "owing to"
 * Interchangable it current English, it would seem- see this and this. Interesting issue. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "More promotional appearances in the weeks leading up to the release of Faryl included appearances" reword to avoid repetition of "appearances"
 * Changed. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "during her summer holidays in order to again promote" in order to -> to
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "before going back into the recording studio later in the year" going back into -> returning to
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * link easy listening chart
 * The article is on the Billboard chart, I'm talking about the Amazon chart. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "was the top selling opera album" top-selling
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * sometimes UK and US are spelled out in full; not sure if there's some consistent application that I'm missing
 * All abbreviated per MOS. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Faryl officially entered the charts at number six," which chart? UK Albums?
 * Yes, fixed. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * no problem, here's a few more: Sasata (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The album was recorded during December 2008 and January 2009 and features the track "River of Light", a song set to The Blue Danube, for which a promotional music video was recorded." needs tweaking; it currently reads as if a music video was made for the Blue Danube
 * Reworked slightly. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Smith subsequently embarked on a promotional tour of the US…" in the US, unless she was promoting the US of A
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to state explicitly somewhere how old she was when she recorded or released this album, or in the background section, how old she was in her first BGT competition
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * maybe link pressing and recording studio
 * Done the former, the latter seems a little common. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "you can practically hear Katherine Jenkins weep as Faryl flawlessly executes Amazing Grace" is this an inside joke? … who is Katherine Jenkins?
 * Katherine Jenkins is a Welsh singer to whom Smith can very easily be compared- she's probably the most popular mezzo-soprano working in the UK today. She's also something of a mentor to Smith, and signed on the same label. The reference would be clear to anyone reading the review, but I appreciate that the same doesn't hold with the article- do you think it needs clarifying? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As as outsider, I'm still left wondering if she would have been weeping because she thought the performance was immaculate and beautiful, or because she was in anguish that another younger singer performed the piece even better than she did? Maybe I'm jaded... Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I interpretted it as the latter. It's a real "watch out Jenkins, there's a new kid on the block" sort of line. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * imho, there's a couple too many usages of impress/impressive in the first paragraph of "Reception"
 * Scratched two. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note -- Ucacha and Sasata, do the recent changes/responses satisfy your prose concerns? I found a couple of inconsistencies in chart number formatting that I corrected. Re. spotchecks, I saw that Milburn's previous FAC had one and Sasata appears to have checked some sources here, so I have no quibbles on that front. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually performed a spot check, but since one was requested on FAC talk, I checked about a dozen citations, and found no problems with close-paraphrasing or otherwise. One statement fails verification (I suspect the citation got mixed up):
 * the external link in ref #27 (Pahphides 2009) redirects to the Times current front page
 * Added an archive url. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * fails verification: "…while Birchmeier was slightly more positive, awarding Faryl 3.5 out of 5."[5]
 * Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm otherwise happy with the prose and MoS compliance, and willing to support, 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4 (once the above gets fixed). Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, and thanks again for your careful review. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on accessibility: The image in the infobox lacks any alternate text (no alt text; no caption) and would therefore be invisible to anyone using a screen reader, other than a link to the image description page. WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility is the relevant guideline and WP:Alternative text for images gives good advice on implementation. The template tracklist unfortunately produces a table which lacks scope attributes and also does not identify row headers, which results in a limitation on the way many screen readers are able to navigate the table. If that template is to be used for articles that showcase Wikipedia's best work, then it really would benefit by being updated to take account of the guidelines at WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility. I understand that accessibility issues represent an additional "hurdle" that many editors may not yet be comfortable with, but we should be aiming towards raising the standards of our articles to be the best that they can be. The more editors who are aware of the difficulties that can be caused to disabled visitors, the better an experience we can offer to them. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added alt text to the image, but I am not comfortable making any changes to the tracklist template, as I am not overly familiar with the relevant syntax, and I am not comfortable using something different, as the tracklist template is standard and recommended. I gather that this is not part of the criteria, but I'm willing to do what I can. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I ask (politely!) if you really feel that you need to use the tracklist template at all? I'm sure that one simple answer to that is that "it's how these featured album articles are done" but I was wondering if there was a way we could please more of the people more of the time...?!  Hand-coding a table of this style and keeping it accessible is reasonably easy (I'd be more than happy to help with that, have a look at a really quick attempt here).  I certainly understand your reservations with regard to changing a template which is used elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I quite like the way it looks, but other than that, no. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, my sandbox has a very first stab at an accessible table. We can tweak fonts and colours and things for "visual appeal", but this table will be accessible to screen readers and presents those who don't use a screen reader with identical information.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it not possible to fix the track list template itself? Ucucha (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be the ideal solution of course. It's quite intricately coded and I am no expert.  Besides that, there's a general grumpy feeling towards changes purely made for accessibility which may have subtle changes for the majority of users (usually based on IDONTLIKEIT).  If we could find someone prepared to do that, it would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the alt text, JM. The table is probably less daunting than it looks. The templates Track listing and Track listing/Track are editprotected, so I've made copies in my userspace and edited them to show the changes that could be made. shows (1) changing the headline into a caption and (2) adding column scope to the existing column headers.  shows how to make the Title into a row header and give it row scope.  shows where to add the 'plainrowheaders' class to restore normal formatting to the title cells if required. Caution: I've not had time to test those changes, so they need to be trialled before anybody thinks about implementing them. To be honest, with only three columns, the row headers don't offer much improvement for the visually impaired, so although it's best practice and sets a good example, I wouldn't worry if the row headers were not implemented in this case. Also the caption is redundant when the table immediately follows a section heading (as it usually does), so that makes the caption implementation much less crucial. Long story short, the big, cheap gain is adding column scope to the existing column headers, and I really would recommend doing that a.s.a.p. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.